The EEOC revealed that it will not seek the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the Eighth Circuit’s decision, EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited Inc., in which the court disposed of most of the EEOC’s claims against the employer.
CRST is one of the nation’s largest trucking companies. The EEOC alleged that CRST was at fault for widespread sexual harassment in its training program and that some of its female drivers were victims of the sexual harassment. The allegations were based on one charging party’s contentions of sexual harassment. The EEOC broadened the scope of the charge to a nationwide, pattern or practice investigation, despite evidence that CRST had a robust anti-harassment policy and system in place.
The district court found that the EEOC failed to abide by its statutory mandate of conciliating in good faith because it failed to investigate the claims and instead used discovery as a “fishing expedition” to uncover more violations. The court did not agree with the EEOC’s allegations and granted the employer summary judgment as to most of the claims. The court also assessed $4.5 million in costs and attorney’s fees against the EEOC.
The Eighth Circuit upheld most of the district court’s findings with the exception of the costs and attorney’s fees. The Circuit reasoned that the employer did not prevail on all claims and thus it was not the “prevailing defendant” entitled to costs and expenses of litigation. The EEOC sought an en banc rehearing of the case, which the court denied.
In light of the EEOC’s position throughout the litigation, namely that CRST had a pattern or practice of company-wide discrimination against 67 women, its decision not to seek certiorari is startling. At the very least, it signals that the EEOC is willing to live with the Eighth Circuit’s unfavorable decision in order to prevent a Supreme Court decision that would apply nationwide.
This decision is among a series of district and appellate decisions, where courts have dismissed EEOC’s cases and assessed attorney’s fees because of the agency’s overreach in regulatory action.
This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.
