The EEOC Litigation Review - 2023 - Report - Page 27
male and female faculty concluded that men generally out-earned women by tens of
thousands of dollars in the relevant time period. The court opined that the defendant’s
disagreements with Dr. George's calculations went to the weight and credibility of her
opinion, which may be tested through cross-examination at trial. Id. at *10. In addition,
the court found Dr. George's testimony would be the byproduct of a reliable
methodology and that such testimony would be helpful to a jury. Id. at *11. The court
thereby denied the defendant’s motion in limine.
F.
EEOC Systemic Lawsuits
Systemic litigation remains the Commission’s priority. In 2022, the EEOC received
mixed results in its systemic cases.
In EEOC v. Dolengen, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132466 (N.D. Ala. July 25, 2022), the
Commission filed an action on behalf of charging party Vincent Jackson, alleging that
the defendant violated the ADA and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
(“GINA”) by using a post-offer medical examination that screened out some applicants
based on actual or perceived disabilities during the hiring process. The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment on the employees’ GINA claim and the defendant
filed a motion for summary judgment on the ADA claims. The court granted the EEOC’s
motion on the GINA claim, and denied the defendant’s motions. The EEOC asserted
that the defendant required job applicants to undergo a post-offer medical examination
in which applicants were deemed not employable if their corrected vision did not
measure 20/50 or better in both eyes, blood pressure measured 160/100 or higher,
and/or whose blood sugar exceeded a certain threshold. Id. at *22. The EEOC
contended that binocular vision and blood pressure below 160/100 were not job-related
requirements for the general warehouse worker position and that the medical
qualification standards were not consistent with business necessity. Id. at *24. The
court held that viewed in the light most favorable to the EEOC, the summary judgment
evidence established a prima facie screen out claim because either the applicants with
these issues were disabled or the defendant regarded those applicants as disabled, and
therefore the screening standards had an adverse impact on those job applicants. Id. at
*24-25. The court reasoned that a juror reasonably could infer that the group of
allegedly injured applicants could safely perform the essential functions of the job but
failed to obtain employment due to the defendant’s screening process. The court
further noted that many applicants held similar jobs at other companies despite the
medical 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
27
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2023
