defense was not applicable to claims of disparate treatment and, even if it were, the desire to avoid surcharges did not justify age-based compensation discrimination. The court thus determined that the school district ’ s enforcement of Article 21.12, which resulted in limiting salary increases for teachers over the age of 45, constituted age- based discrimination in violation of the ADEA. For these reasons, the court granted summary judgment to the EEOC and awarded damages. G. EEOC Cases Concerning Summary Judgement Rulings The Commission ’ s lawsuits resulted in various court rulings over the past year on motions for summary judgment. In EEOC v. UFP Ranson, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170629 (N.D. W.Va. Aug. 17, 2023), the EEOC filed an action alleging hostile work environment and unlawful discharge based on race and in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. The defendant moved for summary judgment and the court granted the motion. The defendant submitted an undisputed statement of material facts, and contended that when it interviewed the employees about the alleged discrimination, they reported that there were no incidents of racial discrimination and that the company was unaware of anyone using racially discriminatory language in the workplace. However, the EEOC indicated that its notes from the same interview revealed that employees alleged that they heard racial comments, jokes, or slurs nearly every day in the workplace. The EEOC ’ s notes also stated that the interviewees asserted that Black employees were subjected to harsher disciplinary procedures based on their race. The court found the defendant ’ s stated facts, as they related to several of the individuals being represented by the EEOC, were mischaracterized at best and inaccurate at worst. The court ruled that the defendant ’ s arguments were best saved for the trier of fact at closing argument. The court concluded that it was unpersuaded the EEOC failed to establish the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination. For these reasons, the court denied the defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment. Similarly, in EEOC v. Werner Enterprises, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96774 (D. Neb. June 3, 2023), the EEOC filed suit on behalf of a hearing-impaired truck driver applicant who submitted an application with Werner Enterprises, Inc. The claimant, along with other hearing-impaired applicants, allegedly were subject to a different workflow for applications. The EEOC claimed an internal training document provided by Werner instructed its recruiters to provide a different workflow for applications from hearing- impaired drivers – if the recruiter was “aware of an FMCSA waiver or a hearing issue, then the recruiter was directed ‘ do not pre-approve the application. ’ ” Id. at *3. Instead, the recruiter would send the hearing-impaired applicant ’ s completed application “to the manager basket,” and management would decide to move forward or not. Id. Therefore, the EEOC contended Werner ’ s pre-approval procedure adversely affected hearing- impaired applicants. After the claimant filed an administrative charge, and the EEOC ultimately filed a lawsuit on his behalf, Werner moved for summary judgment. It argued that its training document at issue “does not unlawfully classify applicants because of their disability.” Id. at *4. Instead, Werner maintained diverting applications from hearing-impaired applicants was to verify that an applicant had a valid exemption from
39
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online