adduced summary judgment evidence to create a question of fact regarding whether thedefendant properly implemented the harassment policy. Finally, the defendant assertedthat it could not have acted with malice or reckless indifference when no owner ormember of upper management had knowledge of the alleged discriminatory conduct.The Magistrate Judge rejected this argument. It held that a reasonable jury could inferthat the defendant acted in the face of a perceived risk and violation of each claimants’rights under Title VII. Id. at *37. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ruled that becausethere existed genuine issues of fact, the defendant was not entitled to summaryjudgment on the issue of punitive damages. For these reasons, the Magistrate Judgerecommended denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.J.Litigation Over EEOC Consent DecreesSettlement of EEOC lawsuits is effectuated through consent decrees. As a matter ofpolicy, the Commission will not resolve a lawsuit on a confidential basis. Any resolutionmust be approved by a court by way of a public record consent decree.Courts typically retain jurisdiction over consent decrees, and the EEOC polices anemployer’s compliance with obligations contained within the consent decrees. TheCommission is very aggressive in monitoring consent decree obligations, as shown byits prosecution of a contempt motion in 2022 in EEOC v. Sherwood Food Distributors,Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32921 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2022), where the court held anemployer in contempt for failing to pay its payroll tax liabilities, as required by an EEOCconsent decree that resolved a systemic discrimination lawsuit. In addition to paying theoutstanding payroll tax, the court ordered the employer to pay an additional $46,858.55resulting from the 3.8% tax rate increase during the time of the contempt dispute, aswell as potential settlement administrator fees. On September 27, 2016, the EEOC fileda lawsuit against Sherwood, alleging that it engaged in discriminatory hiring practicesthat adversely impacted female applicants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Actof 1964. The parties subsequently settled the litigation and entered into a consentdecree, whereby Sherwood agreed to place $3.6 million into a Qualified SettlementFund (QSF) account administered by a third-party administrator within 30 days of entryof the consent decree. Id. at *2. These funds were to provide monetary relief toindividuals that the EEOC determined were subjected to the alleged discrimination. Id.The monetary relief constituted both back pay and other monetary damages availableunder Title VII. Id. The EEOC was given the authority to determine what type ofmonetary relief would be paid to the eligible claimants. The EEOC asserted thatSherwood subsequently violated the consent decree by refusing to pay its payroll taxliability and therefore preventing the distribution of the $3.6 million to the claimants byDecember 14, 2021. In relevant part, the consent decree stated that Sherwood wasresponsible for paying its share of all applicable pay roll taxes and that the administratorwould inform Sherwood, “of the amounts of back pay distributed to each person fromthe QSF and all other information necessary for [Sherwood] to satisfy its payroll taxliabilities.” Id. The administrator notified Sherwood’s counsel on December 1, 2021, ofthe amount that it owed in payroll taxes and provided notice that payment of the payrolltaxes must be received on December 10, 2021, for the award checks to be timelydistributed. The EEOC’s counsel communicated with Sherwood’s counsel in an attempt163© Duane Morris LLP 2023Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
Table of contents
11
42
55
67
86
98
114
129
144
173
189
209
219
238
244
258
282
293
303
314
330
354
371
381
386
391
422
