Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 159
conditions that caused them to be screened out from the defendant’s warehouse worker
position. Id. at *25. The court thus found that the defendant failed to establish that the
screening process was due to any business necessity such that summary judgment was
warranted. On this basis, the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on the EEOC's ADA claim. In addition, the defendant did not deny that it
violated the GINA by asking job candidates whether their grandparents, parents, or
children had significant medical problems. Thus, the court granted the EEOC's motion
for partial summary judgment on its GINA claim as to liability.
In EEOC v. Green Jobworks, LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74723 (D. Md. Apr. 25, 2022),
the Commission filed an action on behalf of three charging parties alleging that the
defendant discriminated against them on the basis of sex in hiring and job assignments
in violation of Title VII. The EEOC asserted that the defendant hired and assigned
female workers into demolition and laborer positions at substantially lower rates than
male workers, while hiring and assigning female workers into cleaning positions at
substantially higher rates than male workers. The EEOC sought an injunction
preventing the defendant from engaging in sex discrimination, and sought back pay and
compensatory damages. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the court denied
the motion. Count I of the EEOC’s action claimed that the defendant engaged in a
pattern or practice of sex discrimination in hiring, job placements, and job assignments.
Count II alleged that the defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of sex
discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment. The defendant contended
that Count I should be dismissed because the EEOC failed to allege facts sufficient to
demonstrate more than a few isolated discriminatory acts, and that Count II should be
dismissed because the EEOC failed to state any facts demonstrating discrimination in
the defendant’s terms and conditions of employment. The court rejected the defendant’s
arguments. The court determined that the EEOC provided evidence that on four
different occasions, employees made comments to female job applicants indicating that
the defendant would not hire females and did not want female employees operating
equipment on job sites. Id. at *13-14. The court found that, taken as true, these
comments were sufficient to state a plausible claim of a pattern or practice of sex
discrimination. Id. at *14. The court further reasoned that at this stage of the litigation,
the EEOC was not required to plead the existence of an express policy to state a
plausible claim of a pattern or practice of sex discrimination in the defendant’s terms or
conditions of employment. Id. at *16. The court ruled that the Commission plausibly
alleged several comments to female applicants as direct evidence of discrimination,
suggesting “a directive to favor males and to discriminate against females.” Id. For
these reasons, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In EEOC v. Qualtool, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156361 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2022), the
Commission filed an action on behalf of charging parties Christina Miller and Pamela
Jackson alleging that the defendant systematically denied opportunities for females to
apply to second shift positions on the basis of their sex in violation of Title VII. The
defendant filed a motion to strike the EEOC’s untimely motion to bring claims brought
on behalf of all allegedly injured persons identified by the EEOC other than the charging
parties. Id. at *1. The court granted the motion. The defendant asserted that the EEOC’s
belated disclosures of additional claimants were untimely, prejudicial, and unrelated as
158
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
