charge or involved acts of misconduct within the 300-day time limit. The court also found that the complaint met the requirements for a hostile work environment claim, sufficiently stating the allegations of harassment and the nature of the misconduct. In yet another victory for the Commission demonstrating its discretion of how many defendants to sue in a single action, in EEOC v. Waste Industries U.S.A., LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94468 (N.D. Ga. May 28, 2024), the EEOC filed an action on behalf of charging party Christine Ladd, alleging that the defendants, a waste management company and related corporations, failed to hire female truck drivers on the basis of their gender in violation of Title VII. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied. The EEOC asserted that despite Ladd’s qualifications for a truck driver position, she was allegedly told by the operating manager that the position was intended for a man. Additionally, the EEOC alleged that other female applicants were subjected to discriminatory treatment during interviews, leading to statistically significant shortfalls in hiring females for driver positions. The defendants first argued that the action should be dismissed against Waste Industries U.S.A., LLC (WI USA), TransWaste Services, LLC, and GFL Environmental because the EEOC failed to demonstrate that all the defendants acted as a single entity. The court disagreed. It found that the allegations in the complaint established a high level of integration among the defendants, suggesting that they operated as a single entity in implementing the alleged discriminatory hiring practices. The defendants next contended that the EEOC failed to establish a pattern or practice of discrimination in hiring. The court determined that the EEOC had presented plausible grounds for relief, as the allegations, if true, suggested a deliberate and systematic practice of excluding women from truck driver positions based on their sex. The court explained that at the motion to dismiss stage, the EEOC was not required to establish a prima facie case but only needed to state enough facts to support plausible grounds for relief. The defendants also argued that certain claims were time- barred, asserting that the statute of limitations began to run from the date they received notice of the EEOC’s potential claims. The court ruled that the statute of limitations did apply but held that the continuing violation doctrine could potentially save claims outside the statutory period. However, further discovery was needed to determine the applicability of the continuing violation doctrine. Accordingly, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Commission’s complaints are often well-pled and difficult to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). In one recent case entitled EEOC v. Sis-Bro Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147051 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024), the court denied the defendant employer’s attempt to dismiss the EEOC’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In this case, the EEOC filed an action on behalf of the charging party, a former employee, alleging that the defendant discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment based on sex and transgender status. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and the court denied the motion. The EEOC asserted that Natasha, previously known as Rafael, began working with defendant in 2009. In 2018, during her gender transition, she faced harassment and discrimination from both a co-worker and Clare Schilling, the company’s president. Natasha alleged that Schilling refused to use her chosen name and made derogatory comments about her gender transition. Additionally, the EEOC asserted that a co-worker harassed Natasha with explicit comments and unwelcomed physical advances. Natasha eventually quit her job due to the hostile work environment and filed a charge with the EEOC. The court found that the EEOC’s complaint provided adequate detail to notify the defendant of the nature of the allegations and to allow for further investigation and defense. The court also held that the EEOC was not required to provide further specific details at the initial pleading stage of the litigation. The court noted that the decision of whether the alleged conduct was severe or pervasive enough to constitute an objectively hostile environment and whether it was because of the charging party’s sex or transgender status should be explored in discovery and decided on summary judgment or at trial, but not at the motion to dismiss stage. Id. at *10. The court also rejected the defendant’s claims that the EEOC failed to plead around its possible affirmative defenses, holding that the EEOC was not required to anticipate and counter those defenses in the complaint. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The EEOC was partly successful in dodging the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in EEOC v. Sun Chemical Corp ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201991 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 6, 2024). The EEOC filed an action alleged that the Bryan Banks, an African-American employee, was subjected to verbal harassment by a co-worker, Ricardo Nevarez, who used a racial slur during a confrontation in the employee locker room. Nevarez’s conduct, which involved profane language and physical intimidation, was witnessed by several co-workers who confirmed hearing Nevarez use the racial slur. On the morning of the incident, Banks had a brief exchange with his co-
19
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
EEOC Litigation Review - 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online