Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 160
none of the persons were asserting that they were rejected for a second shift position.
In response to the defendant’s interrogatories, the EEOC identified Jackson as the sole
purported “class” member. The EEOC subsequently identified purported “class”
members when it served its supplemental initial disclosures. The court held that the
EEOC identified 14 claimants within two to three months before the discovery deadline,
seeking to add them as claimants to a lawsuit that previously involved only Miller and
Jackson. Id. at *6. The court concluded that the late request would not provide the
defendant a reasonable amount of time to complete its discovery and prepare its
defense. The court therefore granted the defendant’s motion to strike the EEOC’s
untimely identification of additional claimants.
G.
Rulings On Procedural Issues In EEOC Litigation
Government enforcement lawsuits often raise peculiar procedural issues. Decisions in
2022 were no exception
In EEOC v. American Flange & Greif, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94683 (N.D. Ill. May
26, 2022), the Commission filed an action on behalf of charging party Marquez Griffin,
alleging that the defendants failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation and
ultimately terminated his employment due to his disability in violation of the ADA. The
defendant Greif, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies, and the court denied the motion. Griffin called in sick on two occasions within
the first month of his employment, and provided a doctor’s note stating that his
absences stemmed from a seizure disorder and requesting that they be excused. The
defendant declined to excuse either absence. Griffin subsequently left work early for
reasons unrelated to his disability, and the defendants ultimately terminated Griffin for
the unexcused attendance issues. Griffin thereafter filed an EEOC charge against the
defendant American Flange, which did not name the defendant Greif, Inc. The EEOC’s
ensuing investigation revealed that: (i) “both Greif and American Flange employed the
employees at the American Flange facility,” and (ii) “all temporary employees would
be paid and controlled by Greif once they obtained permanent employment.” Id. at *4.
The EEOC alleged that Greif knew or should have known that Griffin's charge
concerned Greif's own conduct and employment practices, given Greif's control over
American Flange's operations. Id. Greif moved to dismiss, arguing that the
Commission’s claim against Greif should be dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Greif asserted that the EEOC “failed to provide Greif notice of
a charge against it, as opposed to a charge against its subsidiary American Flange.” Id.
at *9. The EEOC contended that its determination letter found reasonable cause to
believe both Greif and American Flange discriminated against Griffin. The court opined
that taking the EEOC’s allegations as true, the EEOC adequately alleged that Greif had
notice of the claims against it. Accordingly, the court ruled that the EEOC adequately
alleged facts to establish that Greif was properly before the Court as a defendant. The
court therefore denied Greif’s motion to dismiss.
In EEOC v. Citizens Bank, N.A., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125459 (D.R.I. July 15, 2022),
the Commission filed an action on behalf of charging party William Lescault, alleging
that the defendant subjected him to discrimination on the basis of his disability in
159
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
