I want to digress from the Title VII statute of limitations for a post and address today's Seventh Circuit decision in EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. The situation is somewhat unusual but worth mentioning shortly because it touches on a practice many employers don't necessarily understand.
Watkins had a problem no employer deserves to have - workplace violence of the worst kind. In a one shooting spree, two employees were killed, others injured, according to one industry magazine. In response, Watkins decided, the Seventh Circuit said, it would no longer hire anyone who had been convicted of a violent crime. Given the circumstances, one can hardly blame them even if legally it might arguably have been an over-reaction. (I will stress arguably here and leave it at that as that issue isn't germane to this post.)
The policy apparently led Watkins to refuse a job to a man named Jackson who filed an EEOC charge. Jackson and Watkins later settled, the decision doesn't spell out the terms other than the settlement required Jackson to withdraw his charge. He tried to do so but the EEOC refused. It wanted, apparently, to investigate whether Watkins policy caused a disparate impact on minorities. When Watkins refused to respond to an EEOC subpoena, the EEOC asked a district court to enforce the subpoena. After several years, the district court dismissed the subpoena, saying the EEOC lacked jurisdiction due to the settlement.
Watkins made an attractive target to the EEOC. Before FedEx purchased its assets in 2006, it employed over 10,000 in 42 states and 139 locations.
What the Seventh Circuit held, however, was that while the existence of a valid charge is a prerequisite to the EEOC's exercise of jurisdiction, the fact that the employer and applicant settled does not convert a valid charge into an invalid charge: "We know from Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 128 S. Ct. 1147 (2008), that a document may be a 'charge' even if it lacks an appropriate caption and charging language. A piece of paper that alleges discrimination and asks the agency to take remedial action suffices."
So, settling a case pending before the EEOC won't necessarily resolve the litigation. Federal agencies such as the EEOC and the Department of Labor have the right in some instances to exercise independent jurisdiction particularly where the agency perceives an important policy or practice is at stake. If you want to end the litigation, always get the EEOC's buy in before paying out any money.
Also, the EEOC has the right to issue a subpoena to obtain information even where, such as here, the employer may have a perfectly good and defensible reason for adopting a particular practice. (Employers can object that the subpoena is unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate.) Watkins' former owners (who funded this litigation) stood on their principles. That is understandable given these circumstances but their "mistake," if it can be called that, was in completely refusing to cooperate with the EEOC in the first instance.
Watkins had a problem no employer deserves to have - workplace violence of the worst kind. In a one shooting spree, two employees were killed, others injured, according to one industry magazine. In response, Watkins decided, the Seventh Circuit said, it would no longer hire anyone who had been convicted of a violent crime. Given the circumstances, one can hardly blame them even if legally it might arguably have been an over-reaction. (I will stress arguably here and leave it at that as that issue isn't germane to this post.)
The policy apparently led Watkins to refuse a job to a man named Jackson who filed an EEOC charge. Jackson and Watkins later settled, the decision doesn't spell out the terms other than the settlement required Jackson to withdraw his charge. He tried to do so but the EEOC refused. It wanted, apparently, to investigate whether Watkins policy caused a disparate impact on minorities. When Watkins refused to respond to an EEOC subpoena, the EEOC asked a district court to enforce the subpoena. After several years, the district court dismissed the subpoena, saying the EEOC lacked jurisdiction due to the settlement.
Watkins made an attractive target to the EEOC. Before FedEx purchased its assets in 2006, it employed over 10,000 in 42 states and 139 locations.
What the Seventh Circuit held, however, was that while the existence of a valid charge is a prerequisite to the EEOC's exercise of jurisdiction, the fact that the employer and applicant settled does not convert a valid charge into an invalid charge: "We know from Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 128 S. Ct. 1147 (2008), that a document may be a 'charge' even if it lacks an appropriate caption and charging language. A piece of paper that alleges discrimination and asks the agency to take remedial action suffices."
So, settling a case pending before the EEOC won't necessarily resolve the litigation. Federal agencies such as the EEOC and the Department of Labor have the right in some instances to exercise independent jurisdiction particularly where the agency perceives an important policy or practice is at stake. If you want to end the litigation, always get the EEOC's buy in before paying out any money.
Also, the EEOC has the right to issue a subpoena to obtain information even where, such as here, the employer may have a perfectly good and defensible reason for adopting a particular practice. (Employers can object that the subpoena is unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate.) Watkins' former owners (who funded this litigation) stood on their principles. That is understandable given these circumstances but their "mistake," if it can be called that, was in completely refusing to cooperate with the EEOC in the first instance.
No comments:
Post a Comment