Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 163
Sellers, a former employee, alleging that the defendant discriminated against him on the
basis of his race (African-American) in violation of Title VII. The defendant filed a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and the court granted the motion. The EEOC
contended that during a holiday party attended by Sellers, the defendant’s management
team gave him a trophy awarding him “Least likely to be seen in the dark.” Id. at *2. The
EEOC further asserted that after the holiday party, Sellers was harassed with questions
and comments about the trophy, including comments regarding his race and skin color.
Sellers ultimately left his employment with the defendant. The EEOC thereafter filed suit
alleging that the defendant created a hostile work environment and constructively
discharged Sellers. The defendant argued that the issuance of the trophy did not meet
the Fifth Circuit's standard for sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct to create a hostile
work environment, and that it was the only isolated incident attributed to the defendant
itself. The court determined that the EEOC failed to state a claim for hostile work
environment because the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive. The court noted
that the EEOC failed to allege that the defendant knew or should have known about the
subsequent alleged co-worker harassment, and even if it was, the complained-of
conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to give rise to a hostile work
environment claim. Id. at *9. As to the EEOC’s allegation that the harassment
experienced by Sellers culminated in his constructive discharge, the court ruled that
since the EEOC failed to state a claim for a hostile work environment, it also failed to
state a claim for constructive discharge. For these reasons, the court granted
Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In EEOC v. SDI Of Mineola, LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163289 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 17,
2022), the Commission filed an action on behalf of several female claimants alleging
that the defendant subjected them to harassment and discrimination on the basis of
their sex in violation of Title VII. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,
and the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court deny the motion. The EEOC
asserted that the defendant subjected female employees to sexual harassment, which
ultimately lead to several claimants’ constructive discharge. The EEOC contended that
Leston Juarez (LJ), the former co-manager of the defendant, sexually harassed the
claimants. As to the EEOC’s prima facie claim for hostile work environment, the
defendant argued that LJ’s behavior was not severe or pervasive and that the
complained of conduct was not based on sex. Id. at *3. The defendant further
contended that it maintained a written harassment policy that claimants failed to utilize,
and that it was unaware of any alleged harassment or discrimination. Finally, the
defendant argued that the two claimants who resigned from their employment could not
establish that they were constructively discharged. The EEOC stated that LJ’s
harassment was based on the claimants’ sex (female) because he primarily targeted
women, and that the conduct was frequent, severe, threatening, and altered the work
environment. Id. at *4-5. The Magistrate Judge noted that whether the claimants
reasonably felt compelled to quit was a fact question for the jury and thus the defendant
was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue. Further, the Magistrate Judge
recognized that the defendant had an anti-harassment policy in place, but determined
that there was still a genuine question of material fact as to whether the defendant
exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing
behavior. Id. at *22. The Magistrate Judge also found that the EEOC sufficiently
162
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
