The EEOC issued a subpoena requesting information about job applicants at the defendant ’ s locations. The defendant refused to comply, citing an incorrect recipient name, lack of relevance, and undue burden. The court granted the Commission ’ s motion to enforce the administrative subpoena. It found that the incorrect recipient name did not void the defendant ’ s obligation to respond. The court further ruled that the requested information was relevant to the discrimination charge and that the defendant failed to show an undue burden on its operations. Therefore, the court ordered the defendant to comply with the EEOC ’ s subpoena. F. EEOC Cases Under The ADEA The EEOC brought several age discrimination lawsuits over the past year. Summary judgement motions were decided in two of those cases. In EEOC v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94363 (D.N.J. May 31, 2023), the EEOC filed an action on behalf of charging party Deborah Hunter, an obesity care specialist, alleging that the defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In 2018, when Hunter was 62 years old, she sought a lateral transfer to an open position in Flagstaff, Arizona. Hunter ’ s manager denied the transfer, citing the need for someone “long term,” which Hunter interpreted as a reference to her age. Id. at *2. The defendant instead selected a 33-year-old male for the position. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Hunter ’ s denied lateral transfer did not constitute an adverse employment action under the ADEA. The EEOC contended that the denial of the lateral transfer should be considered an adverse employment action under the ADEA. The court ruled that the complaint lacked sufficient facts to plausibly allege that Hunter suffered an adverse employment action. The court found that the EEOC ’ s complaint failed to specify any harm resulting from the denial of the transfer and or any information to demonstrate that the denial substantially altered Hunter ’ s employment situation. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant ’ s motion to dismiss. In EEOC v. Urbana School District No. 116, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199744 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 7, 2023), the EEOC filed an enforcement action Urbana School District No. 116, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC asserted that the school district, from 2014 to 2020, implemented a policy that restricted annual earnings increases for teachers over the age of 45 to avoid additional pension contributions. The policy was embedded in the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between the school district and the Urbana Education Association. Specifically, Article 21.12 of the CBAs limited any increases in “creditable earnings” of teachers within 10 years of retirement eligibility to no more than 6% over their previous year ’ s earnings. Id. at *4. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the court granted the EEOC ’ s motion and denied the defendant ’ s motion. The court found that the district ’ s enforcement of Article 21.12 resulted in disparate treatment based on age in violation of the ADEA. The court determined that the teachers over the age of 45 were subject to salary caps, while those under 45 were not affected. The defendant argued that its actions were based on a reasonable factor other than age (RFOA), i.e., specifically the desire to avoid TRS surcharges. The court rejected this defense, stating that an RFOA
38
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online