By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: In EEOC v. Schuster Co., No. 13-CV-4063, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79815 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 13, 2021), the EEOC alleged that Defendant’s use of a strength test had disparate impact on female job applicants for driving positions. After both parties moved for summary
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: In an ADA action alleging that a maker of train components discriminated against a group of applicants by regarding them as disabled, a federal district court in Illinois granted the EEOC’s partial motion for summary judgment, holding that the company’s decision to deny them
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: After an employer circulated a letter to 146 employees discussing an employee’s EEOC Charge that alleged discrimination on the basis of his disability in violation of the ADA, a federal district court in Connecticut denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment.
This ruling provides
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the EEOC, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court’s grant of an employer’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the harassing employee was not a supervisor under Title VII, and therefore the company was not
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christopher J. DeGroff, and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: A federal district court in Illinois recently granted the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment in EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 13-CV-4307 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2017), relative to two defenses advanced by an employer, including: (1)
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Michael L. DeMarino
Seyfarth Synopsis: The EEOC sued an employer for Equal Pay Act violations, claiming that Maryland Insurance Administration failed to pay three female fraud investigators the same wages as comparable male fraud investigators. On cross motions for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court for the District
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: In an EEOC religious discrimination case, a federal court found that “Onionhead” was a religion for purposes of Title VII. The court also found that the EEOC did not fail to meet its Title VII pre-suit duties when it added to its lawsuit seven
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: After the EEOC brought an action under the Americans With Disabilities Act against an employer who implemented a wellness program requiring employees to take a health assessment to participate, the Court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment and denied the EEOC’s motion for
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: In one of the first two ever transgender discrimination cases brought by the EEOC, a federal court in Michigan granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding the employer met its burden in demonstrating that it is exempt under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
By Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: Court granted EEOC’s partial motion for summary judgment on issue of pre-suit conciliation, finding that a declaration submitted by an EEOC official was sufficient evidence to show that the EEOC satisfied this obligation under Title VII.
In EEOC v. Dimensions Healthcare System,