Significantly, in EEOC v. Golden Entertainment, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108703 (D. Md. June 22, 2023), the EEOC was unsuccessful in maintaining its allegations of retaliation and constructive discharge after the Court agreed in part with defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment. The EEOC filed an action alleging that the defendant, a restaurant and bar, discriminated and retaliated against a former employee, Lisa Payton, on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court granted in part and denied in part the motion. Payton alleged that she was subjected to sexual remarks and comments from a manager. Payton further stated that when she complained to management, which investigated the matter and found no evidence to corroborate Payton ’ s claims, the defendant altered her work schedule in retaliation for complaining of sexual harassment. The defendant argued that the alleged harassment was not severe and pervasive, and that the EEOC could not establish a retaliation claim based on a materially adverse employment action, because the defendant provided legitimate non- discriminatory reasons for its employment decisions. The EEOC argued that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the alleged sexual harassment was severe and pervasive. Specifically, the EEOC presented evidence that the alleged sexual harassment included the manager repeatedly rubbing his genitals against Payton ’ s buttocks, groping her buttocks, and making repeated comments about her buttocks. The EEOC further asserted that the manager would whisper in Payton ’ s ear about things that he would like to do to her buttocks, and that on at least one occasion, this conduct was witnessed by another co-worker. The court ruled that given this evidence, when the facts of this case were construed in the light most favorable to the EEOC, the defendant did not meet its burden to show that the manager ’ s alleged sexual harassment was not so severe or pervasive as to create a hostile work environment. The court thereby denied the motion for summary judgement on the EEOC ’ s hostile work environment claim. However, the court ruled that altering Payton ’ s work schedule was not a materially adverse employment action under Title VII and granted the motion as to the retaliation claim. The court determined that the EEOC could not establish a constructive discharge claim because while Payton may have not been satisfied with her new work schedule, failure to receive a desired work schedule was not a “worst case” harassment scenario sufficient to establish that working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have had no choice but to resign. Id. at *28-29. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment, allowing the EEOC ’ s sexual harassment claim to proceed but dismissing the retaliation and constructive discharge claims. Another EEOC Title VII case involving allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC v. Key Management Partners, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115866 (D. Md. July 5, 2023), involved an action on behalf of Jocelyn McKenzie alleging that the defendant subjected her to sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The defendant failed to respond to the complaint, and the EEOC filed a motion for default judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The defendant had a contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to process Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. McKenzie was hired by Key Management to work on the USDA FOIA team in September 2017. McKenzie alleged that the CEO of Key Management, Kehinde Pedro, made inappropriate advances towards her, which made her uncomfortable.
32
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online