By: Christopher J. DeGroff, Matthew J. Gagnon, and Kyla J. Miller
Seyfarth Synopsis: We are once again pleased to offer our readers an analysis of the five most intriguing developments in EEOC litigation in 2018, in addition to a pre-publication preview of our annual report on developments and trends in EEOC-initiated litigation. This
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christopher J. DeGroff and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: After the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2327 (U.S. 2017), that the scope of review for employers facing EEOC administrative subpoenas was the abuse-of-discretion standard, a relatively high bar of
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christopher J. DeGroff, and Matt Gagnon
Seyfarth Synopsis: Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision in McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2327 (U.S. 2017), a decision that clarifies the scope of review for employers facing EEOC administrative subpoenas. The Supreme Court
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Mark Casciari, and Christina M. Janice
Seyfarth Synopsis: For the first time since 1998, the EEOC has updated its enforcement guidance on retaliation claims brought under the various anti-discrimination laws the Commission is charged with enforcing. Observing that retaliation is now the single largest category of claims presented in
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 Christina M. Janice, and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a landmark case for EEOC litigation involving fee sanctions, while employer CRST successfully argued that a ruling “on-the-merits” is not necessary to be a prevailing party, the SCOTUS remanded the case back down to the Eighth Circuit to determine whether a preclusive
By Christina M. Janice, and Alex W. Karasik
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.
Involving the largest fee sanction award ever levied against the EEOC – nearly $4.7 million – EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. may be one of the most important
By Christopher DeGroff, Christina M. Janice, and Alex W. Karasik
As we recently blogged here, EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. is an important case on the Supreme Court’s docket that employers absolutely need to monitor. At issue is whether attorneys’ fees are appropriate in instances where the EEOC failed to satisfy
B
y Christina M. Janice, and Alex W. Karasik
EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. is a key case for all employers.
We have been tracking the developments (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) in this case since its inception. Now it
By Christina M. Janice, and Alex W. Karasik
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC, 135 S.Ct. 1645 (2015), which held that a judge may review whether the EEOC satisfied its statutory obligation to attempt conciliation before filing suit, and that the scope of that review is narrow,