By Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler
In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc. et. al., Case No. 1:13-CV-215 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 21, 2015), a jury found in favor of the EEOC in its claim brought under Title VII that the employer denied an employee a religious accommodation involving an exemption from using
By Christopher M. Cascino and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
In EEOC v. Northern Star Hospitality, Inc., No. 12-CV-214 (W.D. Wis.), a case we have blogged about previously here, Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin imposed contempt sanctions on an employer for failure to cooperate in
By Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler
As we have previously reported, the EEOC has decided to pursue protections for transgender workers under Title VII’s prohibition against “sex” discrimination and harassment as part of its strategic mission even though no federal statute, including Title VII, explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on gender
By Christopher M. Cascino and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
The EEOC recently announced reaching its largest settlement in the last 2 years in EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co. LLC, No. 15-CV-600 (D. Colo. Mar. 24, 2015). In this case, Patterson-UTI agreed to settle a race and national origin pattern or practice claim brought by
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Alexis P. Robertson
On November 6, 2014, in EEOC v. Honeywell International, Inc. Case No. 14-CV-4517, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157945, (D. Minn. Nov. 6, 2014), Judge Ann Montgomery of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) request for a
By Chris DeGroff and Brian Wong
In the world of EEOC systemic enforcement, court-imposed injunctive relief accompanies nearly every settlement of Title VII claims. The parties memorialize this relief in the form of a consent decree to be approved by the Court and entered as an enforceable order. Though the parties and the public tend
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley
This week, the EEOC responded to Mach Mining’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in EEOC v. Mach Mining, Case No. 13-1019 (U.S. May 29, 2014). Although the EEOC prevailed in the Seventh Circuit, it backed Mach Mining’s request for
By Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Howard M. Wexler, and Nadia Bandukda
In a case we previously blogged about (here and here), EEOC v. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, 13-CV-46 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2014), Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld held the EEOC liable for spoliation sanctions based on the “negligence, if
By Eric M. Lloyd and Laura J. Maechtlen
The EEOC has launched a “Hail Mary pass” just in time for the NFL’s conference championship weekend. On January 16, 2014, the Commission has asked the Eighth Circuit to reverse what is believed to be the largest fee sanction award against it in the EEOC’s history –
By Reema Kapur and Lily M. Strumwasser
Just nine days into the new year the EEOC settled its first systemic lawsuit ever filed alleging genetic discrimination under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). Over the past several years the EEOC has trumpeted its focus on high-impact and high-profile cases and the $370,000 settlement of EEOC