EEOC Litigation Review – 2025

extend an alternative offer to Kelley to two days off in a row to give her time to take her medication. Kelley then submitted two-week request for time off work citing her GAD as a basis for her request. Phoebe ultimately denied Kelley’s two-week request, explaining that the hospital could not cover her shifts. Kelley then refused to come into work. Accordingly, Phoebe terminated Kelley’s employment. Subsequently, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Phoebe alleging disability discrimination against Kelley. The EEOC asserted that Phoebe fired Kelley because of a perceived disability. Phoebe moved for summary judgment, which was denied, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury sided with Phoebe on the basis that “Kelley’s request for accommodation was not made in good faith,” among other findings. Id. at 1. The verdict prompted Phoebe to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, arguing that the EEOC’s entire lawsuit was frivolous. The court denied Phoebe’s motion, explaining that attorneys’ fees in ADA cases can be awarded only if the claim itself is frivolous. Specifically, the court considers three factors to make its determination, including “(1) whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case; (2) whether the defendant offered to settle; and (3) whether the trial court dismissed the case prior to trial or held a full-blown trial on the merits” along with other considerations identified by Eleventh Circuit in Sullivan , et al. v. School Board Of Pinellas County , 773 F. 2d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 1985). Additionally, the court held that even if a plaintiff’s evidence is “weak,” they may be able to defeat such a motion if there is “any evidence to support [her] claims.” Id. Based on these principles, the court held that the EEOC’s case, even if weak or unpersuasive, or any evidence at all, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the EEOC’s claim of an ADA violation, and thus, was not frivolous. That testimony, along with the pertinent medical records, supported the Commission’s non-frivolous claim. 2. EEOC Cases Under Title VII The EEOC continued its efforts in bringing lawsuits for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 2024 and advanced various actions prohibiting related discriminatory practices. The EEOC also demonstrated an interest in holding multiple defendants jointly liable for violations of these statutes, irrespective of defendants’ corporate organization or form. In EEOC v. 1901 South Lamar, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1297 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2024), the EEOC filed an action on behalf of charging party Kellie Connolly against 1901 South Lamar, LLC d/b/a Corner Bar, Revelry Kitchen & Bar, LLC, and Revelry on the Boulevard, LLC alleging that they discriminated against her on the basis of her pregnancy in violation of Title VII when they reduced her work hours and ultimately terminated her employment. The defendants filed three individual motions to dismiss, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motions be denied. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations and denied all motions. The defendants hired Connolly in September 2020 to work at the Corner Bar in Austin, Texas. Id. at *1. Five months later, Connolly informed the defendants she was pregnant. Id. Two months after the pregnancy announcement and when Connolly became visibly pregnant, the defendants allegedly reduced her work hours. Id. On June 25, 2021, Connolly’s manager terminated her employment, stating that “she was becoming ‘too much of a liability’” and that they would part ways “until after the baby.” Id. The defendants argued: (i) Corner Bar was not an “employer” under Title VII because it employed fewer than 15 employees during the relevant time-period, and (ii) the defendants were not an integrated single employer enterprise under Title VII. Id. at *2. The Magistrate Judge was unpersuaded by the defendants’ arguments. As a preliminary matter, the Magistrate Judge held that Title VII’s numerosity requirement was not jurisdictional, and thus failed to support any argument related to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge then applied a four-factor test to determine whether these separate entities were a single, integrated enterprise under Title VII and concluded that the factors weighed in favor of the EEOC. In particular, the Magistrate Judge found the following facts supported the EEOC’s “integrated business enterprise” allegations: (i) the defendants all shared bartending staff and inventory, (ii) utilized a single Director of Operations to handle all human-resources related services, (iii) jointly marketed their businesses, and (iv) utilized a disciplinary form that bore the logo of each of the defendants. Id. at *3. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge found that these facts could support a finding of centralized control of labor relations and recommended the court deny the motions. Id. at *4. The defendants challenged the order by filing Rule 72 objections that requested the court to reconsider the Magistrate’s recommendation. The court agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In yet another example of the EEOC successfully articulating a theory of joint-employer liability theory against

EEOC Litigation Review - 2025

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online