rate from 2.7% in 2021 to 6.5% in 2022. At the hearing, the parties were ordered tosubmit proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law, which were subsequentlysubmitted on February 10, 2022. Id. at 2-3.The court held Sherwood in civil contempt for violating the consent decree.First, the court explained that in order to establish a finding of civil contempt, the EEOCmust show that the other party violated a definite and specific order of the court, through“clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at *4. The court noted that the consent decreeexplicitly stated numerous times that Sherwood was responsible for payroll tax liability,and that distribution of the settlement funds must be completed by December 14, 2021.Further, the EEOC produced email communications that Sherwood was informed of itspayroll tax duties by the administrator in accordance with the consent decree.Accordingly, the court held there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Sherwoodviolated the consent decree. Id.Second, the court held that Sherwood did not meet its burden to demonstrate that ittook all reasonable steps to comply. Sherwood claimed that it attempted to negotiatean extension of the deadline, but the court rejected this approach, noting that itsextension request ten days before the deadline was untimely. Id. The court thus heldthat “upon [the EEOC’s] unwillingness to negotiate, [Sherwood] should have compliedwith the Decree and the Administrator’s request for payment.” Id.Third, the court held that Sherwood failed to satisfy its burden of giving a detailedexplanation as to why it could not presently comply with the consent decree and pay the$408,749.23 in payroll taxes. Id. at *5. The court reasoned that Sherwood made noclaim that it did not have the funds, nor did it offer any evidence of its financial situation.In lieu of offering such evidence, Sherwood proposed paying in installments. The courtrejected this proposal as untimely. It opined that Sherwood should have made theproposal during settlement negotiations.In addition, the court dismissed Sherwood’s argument that the EEOC conducted itsinvestigation too slowly. Sherwood argued it should only be responsible for paying theinitial $361,890.68 and should not be required to pay the additional $46,858.55 resultingfrom the 3.8% tax increase. The court rejected this argument on the grounds that thecrease in taxes owed was a result of Sherwood’s delay.As such, the court ordered Sherwood to pay the full amount of $408,749.23 within 30days of its order, and to pay any additional costs incurred by the administrator’sfulfillment of his duties that exceed the $35,000 amount set forth in the consent decree.34© Duane Morris LLP 2023The EEOC Litigation 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.