The lawsuit’s reinstatement follows the April Supreme Court decision regarding Mach Mining v. EEOC, in which the Court ruled that judges could only review the details of the EEOC’s claims “on a limited basis.” The 2nd Circuit elaborated on April’s ruling, with Judge John Walker writing in the panel’s opinion that “Under Title VII, courts may review whether the EEOC conducted an investigation, but not the sufficiency of an investigation.” Judge Walker also explained the court’s rationale for such limitations, writing “Extensive judicial review of this sort would expend scarce resources and would delay and divert EEOC enforcement actions from … eliminating discrimination in the workplace.”
A lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2008 is getting a second chance in court thanks to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York. The case involves a gender-bias complaint filed by several employees of the world’s largest jewelry retailer, Akron, Ohio-based Sterling Jewelers. Sterling operates many stores owned by its parent company, Signet Jewelers Ltd, which include the prominent retailers Jared and Kay Jewelers. The EEOC claims that Sterling systematically promoted men ahead of women, even in cases where the women were far more qualified. The lawsuit also accuses Sterling of paying men more than women for the same work. U.S. District Judge Richard Arcara of the Western District of New York had granted Sterling summary judgment in 2014, ruling that the EEOC failed to conduct a widespread investigation into Sterling’s hiring practices, and instead believed that its research findings, based on only a small sample, was insufficient to proceed.
In total, the EEOC investigated 19 complaints of discrimination in nine states between 2005 and 2007. Sterling had argued that none of the EEOC’s findings and depositions indicated the necessity for a nationwide investigation, and moved for summary judgment on the basis that the EEOC failed to meet its pre-trial obligations upon concluding the discovery phase. U.S. magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy reviewed the motion last year, concurring that there was “no evidence that [the EEOC] investigated a nationwide class,” and recommending that Judge Arcara grant Sterling summary judgment. The EEOC appealed that ruling, arguing that the McCarthy went beyond evaluating the existence of the investigation, and instead improperly analyzed the investigation’s sufficiency. The 2nd Circuit found the EEOC fulfilled the threshold for its pre-suit obligations, writing that, “an affidavit from the EEOC, stating that it performed its investigative obligations and outlining the steps taken to investigate the charges, will usually suffice.”
The lawsuit’s reinstatement follows the April Supreme Court decision regarding Mach Mining v. EEOC, in which the Court ruled that judges could only review the details of the EEOC’s claims “on a limited basis.” The 2nd Circuit elaborated on April’s ruling, with Judge John Walker writing in the panel’s opinion that “Under Title VII, courts may review whether the EEOC conducted an investigation, but not the sufficiency of an investigation.” Judge Walker also explained the court’s rationale for such limitations, writing “Extensive judicial review of this sort would expend scarce resources and would delay and divert EEOC enforcement actions from … eliminating discrimination in the workplace.” The 2nd Circuit vacated the 2014 lower-court ruling and remanded the lawsuit for additional proceedings.
EEOC attorney Jennifer Goldstein responded to the ruling saying in an email, “The court of appeals recognized that Title VII gives the EEOC ‘expansive discretion’ in investigating claims of discrimination. Such discretion is critical for EEOC as it makes decisions about how to expend scarce resources.” Among several amicus briefs from trade groups supporting Sterling, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote that the EEOC “has unfortunately become an agency that sues first and asks questions later.” Sterling spokesman David Bouffard also continued to deny the allegations in an emailed statement, writing “It is important to note that this ruling does not address the merits of the case and we will continue to vigorously defend the company against these unjustified legal claims, which misrepresent our deep commitment to, and history of, equal opportunity.”
Sources:
National Law Journal – Amanda Bronstad
National Law Review – Mark W. Batten and Jessica N. Childress
Reuters – Daniel Wiessner
Join the conversation!