Tag Archives: EEOC

Immediate Vault Immediate Access

Court Dismisses EEOC Lawsuit for Lack of Jurisdiction

Posted on by

On Sept. 22, 2014, in EEOC v. Vicksburg Healthcare LLC, et al., Judge Keith Starrett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted defendant’s motion to dismiss an EEOC lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. The EEOC had filed a disability discrimination claim on behalf of a nurse who worked at a hospital owned by a subsidiary of the defendant. The court held that the EEOC, which sued a subsidiary hospital in Mississippi and its Tennessee-based parent corporation, did not put forth prima facie evidence of the necessary factors to satisfy personal jurisdiction requirements for the parent corporation in Mississippi.

While this ruling is favorable for non-Mississippi parent corporations operating subsidiaries in Mississippi, it has larger significance for employers. It shows that nationwide jurisdiction is not a given when the EEOC sues. Additionally, the ruling provides the framework for how to prevent liability by avoiding personal jurisdiction.

Case Background

The EEOC filed an action on behalf of Beatrice Chambers alleging disability discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The complaint named Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHSI) and Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC (VHL) as Defendants, alleging that both CHSI and VHL have been continuously doing business as River Region Medical Center (River Region) in Vicksburg, Mississippi.

The EEOC alleged that the defendants terminated Chambers–who had worked as a nurse at River Region for about 36 years–because of her unspecified disability, and additionally failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations in violation of the ADA. VHL was a subsidiary of CHSI, which was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Tennessee. While VHL admitted doing business as River Region and admitted employing Chambers, CHSI denied doing business as River Region and denied employing Chambers. Further, in its motion to dismiss, CHSI asserted the affirmative defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process, and insufficient service of process.            

The Court’s Decision

In granting CHSI’s motion to dismiss, the court held that the issue of personal jurisdiction was controlling. The EEOC has the burden of establishing a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction. The court noted that a non-resident defendant is amenable to being sued in Mississippi if: (1) Mississippi’s long-arm statute confers jurisdiction over the defendant; and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with the requirements of federal due process. The Mississippi long arm statute consists of three prongs, including: the contract prong; the tort prong; and the doing-business prong. It was undisputed that the “doing-business” prong was case dispositive.

CHSI submitted an affidavit from its Senior Vice President and Chief Litigation Counsel to the effect that it did not conduct business in Mississippi and that it lacked sufficient minimum contacts to be hauled into court in Mississippi.

The affidavit confirmed that CHSI is a holding company with no employees; CHSI indirectly owned subsidiaries including VHL; CHSI neither operated nor controlled the day-to-day operations of River Region; CHSI and River Region maintained separate banking records and did not co-mingle funds; CHSI did not employ nor have control over any River Region staff; CHSI never made any employment decisions regarding Chambers; CHSI and River Region observed corporate formalities (including no overlap between the Board of Trustees of River Region and the board of directors of CHSI; the respective boards of River Region and CHSI each convened separate meetings, (the boards maintained separate minutes and records); and CHSI is not qualified to do business in Mississippi–owns no property there, has no offices there, does not market there, and does not pay taxes there.

Following well-established precedent, the court found this aggregation of factors to be dispositive. It held that the EEOC lacked personal jurisdiction to sue CHSI in Mississippi.

The court rejected the EEOC’s three arguments in opposition of dismissal. First, the EEOC argued that the 10-K form submitted by CHSI to the SEC demonstrated CHSI’s intent to do business in Mississippi as it often used language such as “we” when referring to the hospital.  The court rejected this argument, noting that the 10-K form also contained a provision saying the hospitals are expressly owned and operated by the subsidiaries. Next, the EEOC mistakenly speculated that the River Region employee handbook contained references to CHSI. The court cited an affidavit from CHSI’s litigation counsel clarifying that the entity referred to in the handbook was a different indirect subsidiary, and not the parent corporation. Finally, the EEOC erroneously relied on another case involving CHSI – Bass v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:00cv193 (N.D. Miss.). The court noted that no facts from that case illustrated that CHSI should be amenable to personal jurisdiction.

Implications for Employers

 When out-of-state parent corporations conduct business in Mississippi through subsidiaries, it is imperative that they observe corporate formalities to clearly maintain the parent-subsidiary relationship. Further, in documents such as 10-K forms and employee handbooks, employers must explicitly indicate that subsidiaries, and not the parent, own and operate local entities. If parent corporations follow the teachings of EEOC v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC, et al., they can avoid unwittingly submitting to personal jurisdiction in Mississippi courts while their subsidiaries do business there.

This blog was previously posted on the Seyfarth Shaw website.

Employers Anxiously Await Supreme Court’s Mach Mining Decision

Posted on by

As we previously blogged, most recently here, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC could be a game changer in EEOC-related litigation. In Mach Mining, the Seventh Circuit ruled that an alleged failure to conciliate is not an affirmative defense to the merits of an employment discrimination suit and that it will not scrutinize the EEOC’s pre-suit obligations, so long as the EEOC’s complaint pleads it has complied with all procedures required under Title VII, and the relevant documents are facially sufficient. By granting certiorari, the Supreme Court is set to weigh in during its next term relative to conflicting rulings amongst the circuit courts about judicial authority and standards for reviewing the EEOC’s pre-suit conduct.

In the meantime, however, the show must go on! To that end, a recent decision out of the U.

online pharmacy doxycycline with best prices today in the USA

S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri highlights why the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in Mach Mining is important. In EEOC v. New Prime, Inc., Judge Douglas Harpool granted, in part, the EEOC’s motion for summary judgment, finding that it satisfied its pre-suit investigation and conciliation obligation despite noting that the court was “underwhelmed by the EEOC’s attempt at conciliation.”

Background

In EEOC v. New Prime, a trucking company maintained a company-wide “same-sex training policy” which required all applicants who did not meet Prime’s experience requirements to receive over-the-road training by an instructor and/or trainer who is the same gender as the applicant unless there is some pre-existing relationship between the female applicant and male instructor/trainer. The effect of this policy was that when a female applicant was ready to be assigned to a trainer or instructor in order to receive the necessary “over the road” training, a female driver had to be available.

online pharmacy chloroquine with best prices today in the USA

However, based on the number of female drivers available to train, Prime would place female applicants on a “female waiting list” when drivers were not available.

Prime implemented this policy after it was involved in a sexual harassment case brought by three female truck driver trainees.

A female job applicant brought a charge with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) and alleged that Prime told her that her application had been accepted, but she could not be hired because she was female and that no female trainers were available then or in the near future.

After the MCHR issued a Probable Cause finding, it transferred the case to the EEOC for further investigation. On April 1, 2010, the EEOC sent Prime a letter stating “the EEOC’s investigation of this charge is nation-wide in scope.” One year later the EEOC issued its Letter of Determination, which stated “[b]ased on the foregoing, there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent has subjected Charging Party and a class of female trainees to unlawful discrimination by adopting a policy that denies female trainees training and employment opportunities that are not denied to similarly-situated male trainees.” On this same date, the EEOC sent its letter regarding conciliation that focused on relief not only for the party who brought the charge, but also “all identified and still-to-be identified victims.”

On June 7, 2011, Prime submitted its response to the conciliation proposal, which indicated that it was “not interested” in engaging in class-wide conciliation and would only negotiate concerning the individual who filed the EEOC charge. One week later the EEOC informed Prime that conciliation failed and subsequently brought suit in federal court.

The Decision

Both the EEOC and Prime argued that they were entitled to summary judgment on the merits as well as on several evidentiary (e.g. spoliation) and damage (punitive damages) issues. However, especially relevant with Mach Mining on the horizon is the fact that the EEOC decided to move for summary judgment on whether all conditions precedent to the filing of the lawsuit were met. Prime filed its own motion on this point, arguing that the EEOC failed to adequately investigate and conciliation the matter before filing suit.

online pharmacy phenergan with best prices today in the USA

The court acknowledged that the EEOC is obligated to conciliate in good faith, and that in order to satisfy the statutory requirement of good faith conciliation, the EEOC must “(1) outline to the employer the reasonable cause for its belief that the law has been violated; (2) offer an opportunity for voluntary compliance; and (3) respond in a reasonable and flexible manner to the reasonable attitudes of the employer.” Furthermore, the court held that whether the EEOC adequately fulfilled its obligation to conciliate is dependent upon the “reasonableness and responsiveness of the [EEOC’s] conduct under all the circumstances.”

With respect to its investigatory function, the court held that the EEOC’s initial letters put Prime on notice that it was investigating on behalf of “similarly situated individuals with regard to the same-sex training policy.” Furthermore, Prime was put on notice through the initial charge and the subsequent investigation that any females who were subject to the policy, or more specifically put on the waiting list, were part of the EEOC’s investigation. Since it held that “the EEOC’s scope of the investigation in this matter was clear – it pertained to the same-sex training policy implemented by Prime, including the female waiting list for potential applicants, trainees and potential employees,” the court held that the EEOC adequately investigated the matter with respect to its class-wide claims prior to filing suit.

With respect to conciliation, the court found that the EEOC met the “low hurdle of attempting a reasonable and responsive conciliation process” despite shutting down conciliation one week after Prime submitted its initial response to the EEOC. The court was “not persuaded that this is enough to prevent the case from meeting the requirements for the filing of the instant lawsuit” given that Prime expressed no interest in considering compensation for any women affected by the policy – which is something the EEOC informed Prime it sought as a result of the company-wide alleged discriminatory policy. Accordingly, the court granted the EEOC’s motion for summary judgment, finding that it satisfied all conditions precedent to filing this lawsuit.

Implication for Employers

As this case demonstrates, the eventual ruling by the Supreme Court in Mach Mining has the potential to be a game changer for any employer dealing with the EEOC. If federal courts cannot review its pre-lawsuit conciliation efforts, the EEOC, in effect, will have free reign to pay mere lip service to its conciliation obligations and approach any negotiations in a “take-it-or-leave-it” manner. We will continue to follow developments as the parties and amicus groups file their briefs, and keep our readers informed.

This blog previously appeared on the Seyfarth Shaw website on the EEOC Countdown blog here.

EEOC Oversight: Congress Considers Accountability Proposal

Posted on by

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has encountered a series of set-backs over the last several years in terms of big losses and fee sanction awards. Our past blog posts have reported on these court rulings and defeats (here, here, here, and here.) As a result, criticism has mounted, stakeholders have complained, and now some members of Congress want to do something about it.

Most recently, on June 10, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing titled “The Regulatory and Enforcement Priorities of the EEOC: Examining the Concerns of Stakeholders.” Representatives of various stake-holders testified, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Referencing complaints raised at EEOC meetings in 2012 and 2013, the Chamber pointed to a rare consensus between plaintiff and defense bars—that EEOC investigations “[are] too long, inconsistent and of questionable quality.” The Chamber noted that the EEOC has so far failed to address those complaints by providing investigators with timeliness standards or a definition of a “quality, limited investigation.” In addition, the Chamber highlighted the agency’s propensity for litigation at the expense of sound investigation and good-faith conciliation. As a key example, the Chamber cited the EEOC’s “stonewalling” in EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., where EEOC’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to properly investigate before resorting to litigation led to $4.7 million in sanctions. The Chamber’s testimony can be downloaded here. Concurrent with the hearing, the Chamber released a white paper titled “Review of Enforcement and Litigation Strategy during the Obama Administration—A Misuse of Authority.”

Against this backdrop, on June 25, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) a member of the House Committee on Education & the Workforce, introduced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Transparency and Accountability Act (H.R. 4959). A Fact Sheet on the proposed bill is here.

Summary of H.R. 4959

The proposed legislation would require the EEOC to post on its website and in its annual report an array of information to promote transparency.

In a press release announcing the bill, Congressman Hudson said: “The EEOC is tasked with a noble mission to protect American workers and job-seekers from discrimination in the workplace and hiring practices. Recently, however, the EEOC overstepped its bounds by litigating numerous cases found to be frivolous, groundless, and baseless, that have caused undue burdens on numerous businesses and industries. It is critical that Congress provides meaningful oversight to certify that the EEOC stays focused on carrying out its core mission. This legislation will increase transparency and accountability at the EEOC to help ensure that the agency fulfills its duty and adequately balances the interests of both employers and workers.”

Among other things, the proposed legislation would require the EEOC to post on its website and in its annual report an array of information to promote transparency, including any case in which EEOC was required to pay fees or costs, or where a sanction was imposed against it by a court; the total number of charges filed by an EEOC member or as a result of a directed investigation; and each systemic discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC.

It also would require the EEOC to conduct conciliation endeavors in good faith and such endeavors would be subject to judicial review.

Further, the bill would require the EEOC’s Inspector General (IG) to notify Congress within 14 days when a court has ordered sanctions against EEOC. The IG must also conduct a thorough investigation of why the agency brought the case, and submit a report to Congress within 90 days of the court’s decision explaining why sanctions were imposed. In addition, the bill would require the EEOC to submit a report to Congress within 60 days of the court’s decision detailing steps EEOC is taking to reduce instances in which it is subject to court-ordered sanctions; further, the EEOC would have to post this report to its website within 30 days of submitting to Congress.

Implications for Employers

The proposed bill is one measure of the degree of frustration that stakeholders have with the job the EEOC is doing. While no one questions the importance of the Commission’s mission to root out and eradicate employment discrimination, many question the manner in which the EEOC has wielded its power. Employers should stay tuned, as future chapters in this debate are sure to be written in the coming months.

This blog previously appeared on the Seyfarth Shaw website.

Texas Fires Back at EEOC Motion

Posted on by

We normally pass, on blogging about briefs filed by a party before a court ruling, but Texas’ litigation against the EEOC and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is not shaping up to be just an everyday lawsuit.

This is a must read for employers. It goes to the heart of what the EEOC is doing these days, and how it is carrying out its duties.

Case Background

In April 2012, the EEOC issued guidance urging businesses to avoid a blanket rule against hiring individuals with criminal convictions, reasoning that such rules could violate Title VII if they create a disparate impact on particular races or national origins. Like various other states, Texas has enacted statutes prohibiting the hiring of felons in certain job categories. In November 2013, Texas sued the EEOC, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of this guidance, which Texas has nicknamed the “Felon Hiring Rule.” In March of this year, Texas amended its complaint to include more specific allegations of injury. For example, Texas alleged that the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter to an applicant who had been rejected by the Texas Department of Public Safety after disclosing on his application that he had been convicted of a felony (unauthorized use of a motor vehicle). Texas claimed that the job involved “access to sensitive personal information for all 26 million Texans.”

Against this backdrop is a growing firestorm of litigation initiated by the EEOC over hiring checks based on criminal backgrounds. We have blogged about those cases and rulings previously (here, here, here, here, and here).

Earlier this month, the EEOC filed a motion to dismiss Texas’ lawsuit. In its motion, the EEOC offered three primary arguments. First, the EEOC contends that the U.S. District Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case because the EEOC’s guidance is not legally binding and does not constitute a final agency action. Second, and in part because the EEOC claims its guidance has no binding authority, the EEOC argues that Texas lacks standing to pursue its claims. As the EEOC stated, “[t]he state may disagree with the EEOC’s interpretation of the law, but that does not imbue the interpretation with any legal consequences.” Third, the EEOC said the state’s claims should be dismissed because they are not ripe.

The State Of Texas Replies

In its brief, Texas started by pointing out other cases in which the EEOC pursued administrative investigations and lawsuits against employers and invoked its 2012 guidance. Making the point that the EEOC was attempting to have its cake and eat it too, the state characterized the EEOC as arguing that the guidance is “not worth the paper it’s printed on—even though it urges other courts to defer to it.”

Having set the theme, Texas turned to its legal arguments. The state argued that whether or not the 2012 guidance was a “final agency action” was not a jurisdictional issue, as the EEOC contended it was. Nevertheless, the state explained why the 2012 guidance in fact constituted a “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act. Texas argued that the EEOC’s argument, that only those rules and regulations that were entitled to Chevron deference were reviewable, improperly narrowed the term “action” in a way that “no case from any court in the history of the Nation” had adopted. Texas also pointed out that the EEOC could not prevent review under the APA simply by re-characterizing its process in order to avoid judicial scrutiny under the Act.

Turning to the standing  issue, Texas identified three types of injury it has suffered, each of which independently established Article III standing, including (i) as an employer, the State of Texas is subject to the EEOC’s “Felon Hiring Rule,” and the EEOC issuance of a right-to-sue letter to an applicant denied a job after a criminal background check demonstrates that the state has been subjected to enforcement of the rule; (ii) Texas is seeking to enforce its right to participate in the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA, and the EEOC’s failure to comply with the APA had denied Texas its right to do that; and (iii) Texas has been injured by the EEOC’s purported preemption of the State’s laws. As evidence of this final injury, Texas pointed to the EEOC’s own website, which states that the Felon Hiring Rule “says that state and local laws or regulations are preempted by Title VII” if they cause a disparate impact.

On the ripeness question, Texas argued that, despite the EEOC’s attempts to recast its 2012 guidance as not requiring “individualized assessments” of all job applications, the case remained ripe for adjudication because it presents the “purely legal question” of whether “the State of Texas can continue to follow its facially neutral blanket no-felons policies …or whether the state must abandon those facially neutral policies.”

Implications for Employers

In defending against Texas’ case, the EEOC may have compromised future efforts to enforce its “guidance” against employers in Texas and other jurisdictions. To the extent the EEOC attempts to rely upon its 2012 statements as the basis for prosecuting disparate impact cases focused on criminal background check practices, particularly in cases where the EEOC alleges that an employer willfully violated Title VII, employers need only turn to the EEOC’s representations to the U.S. District Court for fodder in their own defense. Stay tuned for the upcoming ruling in this case.

This column previously appeared on the Seyfarth Shaw blog site.