Those of you who follow such things have no doubt enjoyed the recent federal court decisions taking the EEOC to task for its “sue first, ask questions later” approach to class action litigation. As one commentator has noted:
Perhaps the most notable of these recent cases is EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., in which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed a sexual harassment case filed by the EEOC on behalf of 67 women, and awarded CRST more than $4 million in attorneys’ fees. The district court, in finding the EEOC’s prosecution of the case to be frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation, sharply criticized the EEOC’s litigation strategy as one of “sue first, ask questions later.” Here, the district court found that the EEOC failed to investigate the specific allegations of the 67 class members until after the civil action was commenced. In fact, the EEOC had not interviewed any of the women who were supposedly sexually harassed and did not subpoena any documents to determine if the allegations were true. Before filing suit, the EEOC also did not identify any of the 67 female class members and did not attempt to conciliate the allegations of those women. In the end, the district court found that the EEOC had not complied with its own administrative requirements and dismissed the case due to the jurisdictional defects.
Other recent cases such as EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc., EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P. and EEOC v. Cintas Corp. point to rising judicial intolerance for the EEOC’s “shoot first” tactics.
This point was underscored recently in the August 4, 2011 order in the EEOC v. Cintas case, awarding the employer a total of $2.6 Million in fees and costs. In the interest of full disclosure my firm defended this case and I worked on it. As a result, I will not comment on it but the order speaks for itself.
The attached order is reproduced by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL with the permission of LexisNexis. Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No copyright is claimed as to any portion of the original work prepared by a government officer or employee as part of that person's official duties.
- Partner
Mark Chumley has experience representing clients in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has handled numerous cases before state and federal courts and state and federal civil rights agencies, including claims involving ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- NLRB
- Coronavirus
- Labor Law
- Employment Litigation
- National Labor Relations Board
- Workplace Violence
- Department of Labor
- Arbitration
- Discrimination
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Religion Discrimination
- IRS
- Disability Discrimination
- Litigation
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Social Media
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Retirement
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Accommodation
- National Labor Relations Act
- ERISA
- Employer Handbook
- Wage & Hour
- Reasonable Accommodation
- EEOC
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- ADAAA
- Title VII
- Unions
- NLRA
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Technology
- Privacy
- 401(k)
- Transgender Issues
- FMLA
- Workplace Accommodations
- Disability
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Benefits
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Overtime Pay
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Compensable Time
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- New NLRB General Counsel Guidance Threatens Ability to Enforce Non-Compete Agreements
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Exploding 5 Employment Law Myths
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Economics of Employment Law
- NLRB Issues Guidance on the Recent Mclauren Macomb Decision
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Thoughts On Workplace Violence
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Pay Transparency Laws and Remote Workers
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 3/6/23
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: E.W.A. - Straight Outta Payroll
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 1/23/23
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Obligatory New Year's Episode