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...more
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...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Court denied employer’s motion for summary judgment in EEOC race and/or national origin discrimination case involving the termination of non-English speaking employees.
In EEOC v. Wisconsin Plastics,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Court ordered enforcement of the EEOC’s subpoena and authorized the Commission to conduct an on-site investigation without the employer’s consent.
The EEOC has conducted on-site inspections of...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: This Fourth Circuit ruling opens the door for the EEOC to investigate employers as a result of EEOC charges brought by unauthorized employees, even though an illegal alien worker may not be able to seek...more
In what has become an oft-used recipe in the EEOC cookbook of Title VII retaliation litigation, the government has once again utilized the strategy of taking an employer’s deposition and thereafter moving for summary...more
4/26/2016
/ Adverse Employment Action ,
But For Causation ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Defamation ,
Depositions ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
National Origin Discrimination ,
Popular ,
Protected Activity ,
Race Discrimination ,
Retaliation ,
Title VII ,
Young Lawyers
Anti-discrimination laws command that “thou shall not retaliate…” The recent ruling in EEOC v. Day & Zimmerman NPS, Inc., Case No. 15-CV-01416 (D. Conn Apr. 12, 2016), is a case study in how employers can be taken to task for...more
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....more
In high-stakes litigation brought by the EEOC against trucking company CRST Van Expedited, Inc., (“CRST”), CRST recently submitted its final reply brief before the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument in the case later this...more
In a pair of EEOC religious discrimination cases brought in Nebraska and Colorado against meat packing company JBS USA, LLC (which we have blogged about here, here, here, here, here, and here), the lawsuits alleged that JBS...more
In an important EEOC case involving the intersection of company dress code policies and the rights of employees seeking religious accommodations, following a grant of both parties’ summary judgment motions in part, which we...more
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...more
In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-215 (N. D. W.Va. Feb. 9, 2015), the EEOC brought a religious discrimination suit on behalf of an employee against his coal mining employer defendants, parent company Consol...more
As we blogged earlier this week, the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13 has sent shockwaves throughout the halls of power in Washington, D.C. The balance within the U.S. Supreme Court between...more
EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. is a key case for all employers.
We have been tracking the developments in this case since its inception. Now it has reached the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether attorneys’...more
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...more