EEOC Litigation Review – 2025

court that the company did not meet its burden in demonstrating that compliance with the subpoena presented an undue hardship. 4. EEOC Cases Under The ADEA The EEOC brought several age discrimination lawsuits over the past year pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC’s efforts in enforcing age discrimination lawsuits remains stalwart and two notable cases demonstrate the Commissions’ efforts in advocating for individuals that alleged age discrimination. First, in EEOC v. Tennessee Healthcare Management, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85928 (M.D. Tenn. May 13, 2024), the EEOC filed an action on behalf of charging party Dong Xu asserting claims for employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and ADEA, against his former employers Tennessee Healthcare Management, Inc. (THM) and HCA Healthcare, Inc. Specifically, the EEOC asserted that the defendants, HCA and THM, denied Dr. Xu a promotion to Division Director of Research because of his race, national origin, and age, and retaliated against him for complaining about discriminatory mistreatment. Id. at *2. HCA moved to dismiss on the grounds that HCA and THM were not a “single employer,” but rather separate employers of the charging party. The court denied HCA’s motion. The EEOC asserted that the defendants jointly engaged in the alleged unlawful employment practices and failed to promote the charging party due to his age, race, and national origin and then retaliated against him by terminating his employment for engaging in activity protected. Id. at *5. HCA asserted that the allegations that it and THM acted as joint employers were “vague and conclusory” and “confusing,” as well as “insufficient as a matter of law to assert plausible claims of liability against HCA.” Id. The court rejected this position. It found that the EEOC plausibly alleged facts supporting its “single employer” or “integrated enterprise” theory. Id. at *7. The court determined that although the allegations were relatively barebones, if true, they would serve to establish that the companies had interrelated operations, common management, and centralized control of personnel. Id. The court further concluded that the allegations concerning defendant THM were virtually identical to those concerning HCA, and no party contested THM’s status as the plaintiff’s employer. For these reasons, the court denied HCA’s motion to dismiss. Second, in EEOC v. DolGenCorp, LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18569 (E.D. Okla. Feb. 2, 2024), the EEOC asserted that Dollar General subjected three former District Managers to discrimination on the basis of their age in violation of the ADEA. The EEOC claimed that Dollar General’s Regional Director, Nic DeAngelis, created a hostile work environment through comments and actions perceived as discriminatory toward employees over 50 years old. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted in-part and denied in-part both motions. Charging party Sims argued that he was constructively discharged due to intolerable working conditions created by DeAngelis. Sims cited instances of derogatory comments from DeAngelis, threats of termination, and a hostile work environment that led him to feel he had no choice but to resign. Dollar General countered the EEOC’s assertions stating Sims was given the option to remain employed, and that Dollar General terminated DeAngelis. The court found that, under an objective standard, the EEOC did not demonstrate that Sims’ working conditions were so intolerable that resignation was the only option and granted Dollar General’s motion for summary judgment on the EEOC’s claim. Charging parties Phillips and Lorenzo claimed their terminations also violated the ADEA, that they were over 40 years old, performed satisfactorily, were terminated, and believed their positions were filled by younger individuals. The court noted that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the reasons behind their terminations, and therefore denied Dollar General’s motion for summary judgment on Phillips’ and Lorenzo’s claims. Finally, Phillips and Lorenzo alleged that Dollar General subjected them to retaliation for reporting age discrimination. Despite Dollar General’s contrary argument that the terminations were coincidental and unrelated to their complaints, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence suggesting that the respective terminations could be viewed as retaliatory and denied the motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claims. The EEOC also sought partial summary judgment against four affirmative defenses presented by the defendant. The EEOC argued that the defenses related to failure to mitigate damages, administrative exhaustion, and the nature of conciliation efforts were without merit. The court noted that Dollar General failed to sufficiently demonstrate the existence of suitable positions specifically available to Lorenzo and Phillips, and thus the EEOC was entitled to summary judgment on this defense. The EEOC also asserted that it had satisfied all necessary conditions before filing suit, particularly concerning conciliation efforts. Dollar General contended the EEOC had not adequately investigated claims related to Lorenzo and Phillips. However, the court ruled that the EEOC had fulfilled its statutory

EEOC Litigation Review - 2025

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