EEOC Litigation Review – 2025

location. Id. at 12. Similarly, Moraski’s instruction on labeling boxes did not create “a reasonable inference that any hostility Turner encountered was connected to his race.” Id. at 13. The court opined that “Moraski’s conduct was undoubtedly offensive and inappropriate, and he was ultimately terminated by Lakeside based on complaints of similar behavior … but with no racially derogatory component.” Id. Given the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that Moraski’s conduct was not severe or pervasive such that a jury could reasonably conclude that Lakeside’s work environment was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.” Id. Therefore, the court granted Lakeside’s summary judgment motion as to the EEOC’s hostile work environment claim. The court also agreed with Lakeside’s legitimate business reason for terminating Turner based on “poor attendance, an inability to take direction, and an inability to get along with others.” Id. In so holding, the court determined Lakeside took a holistic approach in reviewing Turner’s performance and took Turner’s attendance into consideration despite no one recommended to human resources that Turner be terminated based on his attendance. Id. at 15. Accordingly, the court granted Lakeside’s motion for summary judgment on the EEOC’s wrongful termination and retaliations claim and held that Lakeside had an “independently sufficient reason to terminate Turner’s assignment” through Turner’s “violations of the attendance policy on three days.” Id. at 17-18. Many employers choose to settle with the Commission in lieu of litigation. In the event a settlement is reached, and the court must grant the parties’ proposed consent decree, which typically place various obligations on the employer. In a recent example, in EEOC v. Pero Family Farms Food Co., LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172108 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 24, 2024), the EEOC filed an action alleging that a female employee was subjected to harassment due to her sex in violation of Title VII, and that the defendant failed to stop the harassment. The EEOC alleged that the employee was subjected to threatening and sexually explicit remarks from a forklift operator with whom she previously had a romantic relationship, and that despite complaining about the issues to her supervisor, the harassment persisted. The parties ultimately settled the matter, and the court granted approval of the parties’ consent decree. The defendant agreed to pay the employee $40,000, provide one-hour training sessions to all employees at its Benton Harbor, Michigan, facility on preventing discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, and update its employee handbook to reflect revised policies regarding harassment and retaliation. The defendant also agreed to incorporate procedures for employees to anonymously report any harassment or retaliation they experienced. The defendant agreed that all new policies would be distributed to employees within 100 days of the agreement’s implementation, with similar distribution to other company facilities within six months. Additionally, under the terms of the settlement, the defendant agreed to provide the EEOC with annual reports for a three-year period detailing the number of harassment or retaliation complaints received from employees, along with explanations of any corrective actions taken. One of the oldest cases still on-going in American jurisprudence is EEOC v. International Association Of Bridge And Ornamental Ironworkers Local 580, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202057 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2024). It illustrates the importance of complying with recordkeeping requirements and other court-mandated activities in consent decrees, as well as the potential consequences for failure to do so. In 1971, the United States sued Local 580 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Ironworkers (Local 580), alleging that an apprenticeship program that it ran, titled the Joint Apprentice-Journeymen Educational Fund of Ironworkers Local 580 (AJEF), and Allied Building Metal Industries (Allied), an association of metalworking companies that employ Local 580 members in New York City, discriminated against applicants on the basis of their race in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Id. at *1. In 1974, the EEOC was substituted for the United States as plaintiff. Id. at *2. As a result of the litigation, the EEOC negotiated a consent decree with the defendants in 1978 to resolve the Commission’s claims, and the consent decree was thereafter approved by the court. Id. Ten years later, Local 580 and AJEF were found in contempt of the consent decree, and remedial orders were subsequently entered to enforce compliance, requiring appointment of a special master, new rules related to job referrals, the development of a new “information tracking system” and certain other recordkeeping requirements. Id. at *3. In 1991, the court entered another remedial order to ameliorate the racial disparity in working hours, further revise Local 580’s job referral system, and require its contractors to make at least 65% of their hires through the new system. Id. Two decades later, in 2011, the court issued its most recent contempt order against the union for failure to adhere to the court-mandated system. Id. In a joint motion filed by the parties in June 2023 (shortly after the court rejected the parties’ initial joint motion filing for failure to provide adequate information), the defendants and the EEOC requested approval of a proposed consent decree that would wind down the court’s supervision of the parties’ obligations, and thereafter terminate judicial oversight of defendants, after a three-year period. Id. at *6. The court denied the parties’ motion. The court began its

EEOC Litigation Review - 2025

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