dependent on the disputed facts about the reasonableness of such accommodations. The seventh affirmative defense asserted that Hautala would have posed a direct threat to the health and safety of others and himself in the Telecare workplace. Again, the court found that this defense was linked to the disputed facts concerning Hautala ’ s ability to perform essential job functions safely. The EEOC also sought summary judgment on Telecare ’ s first affirmative defense, asserting that Hautala failed to mitigate his back pay damages. The court determined that there were disputed issues about whether substantially equivalent employment was available to Hautala and whether he exercised reasonable diligence. Accordingly, the court denied the motions for summary judgment. In an Eleventh Circuit appeal in EEOC v. Eberspaecher North America Inc., 67 F.4th 1124 (11th Cir. 2023), the EEOC ’ s requests for information on the defendants’ facilities was scrutinized for irrelevance. The EEOC brought a charge of discrimination alleging that the defendant discriminated against an employee on the basis of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act when it terminated his employment after taking a leave of absence. The EEOC issued requests for information for each employee terminated for attendance related infractions at the defendant ’ s seven domestic facilities. The defendant objected to the scope of the requests, and the EEOC filed an administrative subpoena enforcement action. The district court ordered the defendant to provide information related to the facility at which the employee worked, but denied enforcement of the subpoena for information from other facilities on the grounds that nationwide information was not relevant to the charge. The EEOC appealed, arguing that the district court erred in limiting the charge to Northport and that nationwide data was still relevant to its investigation. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court ’ s ruling. The Eleventh Circuit found that the that the EEOC charged only ENA ’ s Northport facility, which provided notice to the defendant that the EEOC was investigating potentially unlawful employment practices only at that specific facility, and thus that the nationwide data sought by the EEOC would be irrelevant to that charge. Id. at 1126. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court ’ s order enforcing only part of the EEOC ’ s subpoena. B. EEOC Cases Under Title VII The EEOC continued its efforts in bringing lawsuits for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 2023 and advanced various actions prohibiting related discriminatory practices. As a litigant in federal court, discovery rules apply to the EEOC like any other party. Nonetheless, the Commission often takes hard positions on discovery issues, especially in its systemic cases. For example, in EEOC v. National Raisin Company and Real Time Staffing Services, Case No. 21-CV-1424 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023), the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying in part and granting in part the EEOC ’ s motion for a protective order regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice issued on the EEOC by one of the defendants. The court denied the EEOC ’ s motion for a protective order as to 14 of the 19 topics, and granted it as to only 5 topics. The court first addressed the EEOC ’ s de facto blanket claim of privilege based on its production of its investigative
29
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online