The EEOC Litigation Review - 2023 - Report - Page 28
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. In Count I, the EEOC claimed that the defendant engaged in a pattern or
practice of sex discrimination in hiring, job placements, and job assignments. In Count
II, it 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 because 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.
28
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2023
