EEOC Litigation Review – 2025

allege a protected activity, the complaint also failed to draw a casual connected between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. For that reason, the court granted Il Fornaio’s motion to dismiss the EEOC’s retaliation claim with leave to amend to cure the deficiencies. Finally, the court held that the EEOC’s constructive discharge was adequately plead as to the charging party. Specifically, the court noted that the EEOC alleged that the charging party resigned due to being subjected to sexual harassment, which was sufficient to put Il Fornaio on notice of the claim. However, as with the other claims, the court agreed with Il Fornaio that the allegations as to the aggrieved employees failed the Rule 8 standard. Based on that reasoning, the court dismissed the constructive discharge claim as to the allegations regarding the aggrieved employees with leave to amend. The Commission is also often successful at surviving summary judgment, and either proceeding to trial or settling with the defendant employer after dispositive motions are ruled on by a court. In one recent example of the EEOC surviving a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, in EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21225 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2024), the EEOC filed an action on behalf of charging party Sarah Budd alleging hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Budd, a female employee, alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace, and made complaints to her supervisors; however, the treatment did not stop. Budd eventually took medical leave due to the hostile work environment and later resigned from her position. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence to support the EEOC’s claims. The court largely denied the motion. The court first addressed the hostile work environment claim. The defendant asserted that it lacked knowledge of the harassment and took prompt action upon learning about it. The court stated that the EEOC presented evidence suggesting that the defendant had actual knowledge of the harassment based on complaints made by Budd to her supervisor, as well as through formal written complaints and subsequent communications. The EEOC argued that the defendant failed to take prompt and effective action, did not thoroughly investigate the complaints, and delayed implementing corrective measures. The court found that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendant’s response was inadequate and denied summary judgment of the hostile work environment claim. As to the retaliation claim, the EEOC asserted that Budd suffered adverse employment actions in the form of being placed on paid administrative leave and ultimately being constructively discharged. Regarding paid administrative leave, the court determined that, under certain circumstances, such leave can constitute an adverse employment action if it creates uncertainty and distress for the employee. In this case, the court ruled that there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to consider the administrative leave an adverse action, particularly due to its indefinite duration and the emotional impact on the employee. Regarding the EEOC’s claim of constructive discharge, the court determined that based on the evidence presented, a reasonable employee in Budd’s position would not have felt compelled to resign, and therefore it dismissed the constructive discharge claim. In a rare loss for the Commission, in EEOC v. Lakeside Plastics, Inc. , Case No. 22-CV-1149 (E.D. Wis. June 3, 2024), the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The EEOC filed suit on behalf of Brian Turner, an African-American worker, for violations under Title VII against Lakeside. Id. at 1. The EEOC alleged Turner was discriminated against when he was subject to a hostile work environment and Lakeside terminated Turner based upon his race, or alternatively that Turner’s employment termination was in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Id. Turner was employed by temporary staffing firm QPS Employment Group and began his employee assignment at Lakeside on June 6, 2010, as a Production Technician. Id. at 3. On three separate occasions, Turner alleged he experienced verbal harassment from another production technician, Curt Moraski. The court granted Lakeside’s motion for summary judgment finding Lakeside did not subject Turner to a hostile work environment, did not terminate Turner because of his race, and did not retaliate against Turner for his complaints of harassment. The EEOC asserted Lakeside discriminated against Turner by subjecting him to a hostile work environment based on his race. Id. at 10. The EEOC argued that Moraski’s exchanges with Turner, at both on-site and off-site locations, created a hostile work environment. Id. Central to the EEOC’s assertions was that “harassment involving the N-Word is sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment.” Id. at 12. The court reasoned that “a single, isolated event can be found to create a hostile work environment,” but the EEOC must present evidence “which a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive.” Id. In this instance, the court disagreed that the EEOC showed Moraski’s alleged use of racial slurs was sufficiently severe or pervasive. Id. The court determined Moraski “did not direct” racial slurs at Turner during the conversation at Lakeside and the racial slurs directed at Turner, which occurred off-site, were reported to Turner’s lead, who immediately took preventative measures by assigning Turner to a new work

EEOC Litigation Review - 2025

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