Seyfarth Synopsis: Vote today for Seyfarth’s Workplace Class Action blog for the ABA Journal Blawg 100 Award.

Voting is open for the American Bar Association’s annual 100 Best Legal Blogs competition, and we hope you will cast your vote today to help Seyfarth’s Workplace Class Action blog get on the ABA’s list for 2017.

As many of you may know, the Workplace Class Action blog was selected as one 2016’s ABA Journal Best 100 Legal Blogs!  The ABA Journal said the following: “This Seyfarth Shaw blog is worth reading for any employer-side labor law attorneys or in-house counsel. In addition to giving readers summaries of the outcomes of various lawsuits, the blog publishes Seyfarth’s Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, which compiles vital information for corporate counsel about what companies can and should be doing to stay ahead of lawsuits.”

We were also honored this year again with a review of our Annual Workplace Class Action Report by Employment Practices Liability Consultant Magazine (“EPLiC”) – the review is here.

EPLiC said: “The Report is a definitive ‘must-have’ for legal research and in-depth analysis of employment-related class action litigation.  Anyone who practices in this area, whether as an attorney, a business executive, a risk manager, an underwriter, a consultant, or a broker cannot afford to be without it. Importantly, the Report is the only publication of its kind in the United States. It is the sole compendium that analyzes workplace class actions from ‘A to Z.’”

Please help us gain some extra recognition by nominating us for the ABA’s annual 100 best legal blogs competition today! We want to keep the streak going for 2017!

Nominations are open now untill July 30, 2017.

Click the link here and provide a short explanation of why you like this blog.

Hurry over to the site and nominate!  Thank you for your consideration and support!

supreme-court-546279_960_720By: Michael L. DeMarino and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  In Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, et al., No. 16-466 (U.S. June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the narrow circumstances under which specific jurisdiction will lie when it rejected the California Supreme Court’s “sliding scale” approach to evaluating specific jurisdiction. The decision is decidedly employer-friendly. As a new weapon against forum shopping, this case is a must read for any employer facing class action litigation in a jurisdiction where the company is not incorporated or does not have its principal place of business.

***

Case Background

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, et al., No. 16-466 (U.S. June 19, 2017), 86 California residents and 592 non-residents from 33 other states sued Bristol-Myers in California  state court, asserting California state law claims for product liability, negligent representation, and misleading advertising. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs specifically alleged that the company’s drug, Plavix, damaged their health.  Id. In contrast to the California residents, the non-resident plaintiffs did not allege that they obtained Plavix in California, nor did they claim that they were injured by Plavix or treated for their injuries in California. Id.

After Bristol-Myers challenged personal jurisdiction with respect to the non-residents’ claims in the trial Court and the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court held that specific jurisdiction existed. Id.

Although the California Supreme Court determined that general jurisdiction was lacking, it nonetheless found that specific jurisdiction existed under its “sliding scale” approach. Under this approach, the more wide-ranging the defendants’ forum contacts, the greater the connection between the forum contacts and the claim. Id. at 3. Because of Bristol-Myers’ extensive contacts with California, the California Supreme Court required less direct connection between the company’s forum activities and the non-residents’ claims than otherwise might be required. Id. Particularly important to the California Supreme Court’s determination that specific jurisdiction existed was that the claims of the California residents and the claims of the non-residents were similar. Id.

The Company thereafter successfully secured review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Decision

In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the California Supreme Court failed to identify an adequate link between the State of California and the 592 non-resident plaintiffs to support specific jurisdiction.  After explaining that specific jurisdiction requires an “affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy” the Supreme Court noted that the “sliding scale” approach relaxes this requirement and “resembles a loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction.”  Id. at 7.

The Supreme Court further explained that “[t]he mere fact that other plaintiffs were prescribed, obtained, and ingested Plavix in California — and allegedly sustained the same injuries as did the non-residents — does not allow the State to assert specific jurisdiction over the non-residents’ claims.” Id. at 8. Importantly, the Supreme Court emphasized “[w]hat is needed —  and what is missing here — is a connection between the forum and the specific claims [i.e., the non-residents’ claims] at issue.” Id.

Implication For Employers

Although the Supreme Court’s decision does little to alter the requirements of specific jurisdiction, it is nonetheless important in its practical effect of impeding forum shopping in the class action context. Plaintiffs, for instance, will have a much more difficult time suing in a jurisdiction where the company is not “at home” for general jurisdiction purposes and where the company’s conduct in the forum state is not sufficiently connected to the claims of nonresident plaintiffs.

This decision is particularly important to employers with a national presence or satellite offices. The lesson here is employers should not take personal jurisdiction for granted, particularly when defending claims brought by residents and nonresidents of a forum state where there is no general jurisdiction.

finger-150x112By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a U.S. District Court’s denial of three post-verdict motions brought by an employer in an EEOC religious discrimination case alleging a failure to accommodate an employee’s Anti-Christ fears. The case is an interesting read for any employer involved in religious discrimination issues.

***

Most religious accommodation lawsuits brought by the EEOC against employers concern mainstream religions. But when the EEOC successfully sues an employer for failing to accommodate an employee’s Anti-Christ fears, employers need to pay attention, especially when that cases involves a jury verdict awarding over $586,000 in total damages (as we blogged about here).

In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., No. 16-1230, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10385 (4th Cir. June 12, 2017), the EEOC alleged that the defendants (“Consol”) refused to provide an employee with a religious accommodation by subjecting him to a biometric hand scanner for purposes of clocking in and out of work.  The employee believed the hand scanner was used to identify and collect personal information that would be used by the Christian Anti-Christ, as described in the New Testament Book of Revelation, to identify followers with the “mark of the beast.”  Following a jury verdict in favor of the EEOC, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied Consol’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), motion for a new trial under Rule 59, and motion to amend the Court’s findings and conclusions under Rule 59.  Following the employer’s appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

With the Fourth Circuit affirming the District Court’s ruling after an eyebrow-raising EEOC jury trial victory, it behooves the interests of employers to consider any and all religious accommodation requests.

Case Background

In the summer of 2012, Consol implemented a biometric hand-scanner system at the mine where the employee worked, in order to better monitor attendance and work hours. Id. at *4.  The scanner system required each employee checking in or out of a shift to scan his or her right hand; the shape of the right hand was then linked to the worker’s unique personnel number.  While Consol implemented the scanner to produce more efficient and accurate time reporting, the employee alleged it presented a threat to his core religious commitments.

As the employee consistently and unsuccessfully sought an accommodation that would preclude him from having to clock in with the scanner, Consol meanwhile allowed employees with injured hands to scan in using a different keypad system.  Id. at *7.  Eventually, the employee decided to retire in lieu of using the hand-scanner, and later found a lower paying job.  The EEOC thereafter brought an enforcement action against Consol on behalf of the employee, alleging a failure to accommodate religious beliefs and constructive discharge.  Id. at *9.  After the case ultimately proceeded to trial, the jury found Consol liable for failing to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs.  The jury awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages and $436,860.74 in front and back pay and lost benefits.  Id. at *10-11.  Consol then filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), a motion for a new trial under Rule 59, and a motion to amend the Court’s findings and conclusions under Rule 59.  The District Court denied all three post-verdict motions, and Consol appealed.  Id. at *11.

The Fourth Circuit’s Decision

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Consol’s three post-verdict motions.  First, Consol challenged the denial of its renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the District Court erred in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict against it.  Consol argued that it did not fail to reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs because there was in fact no conflict between his beliefs and its requirement that he use the hand scanner system.  The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument, noting that in both the employee’s request for an accommodation and his trial testimony, the employee carefully and clearly laid out his religious objection to use of the scanner system.  Id. at *13.

Next, regarding the District Court’s denial of its motion for a new trial under Rule 59, Consol raised a handful of objections that primarily related to the District Court’s exclusion of evidence and various issues related to jury instructions.  Id. at *20.  The Fourth Circuit noted that it would “ respect the [D]istrict [C]ourt’s decision absent an abuse of discretion, and will disturb that judgment only in the most exceptional circumstances.”  Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  Further, it opined that, “[w]hen, as here, a new trial is sought based on purported evidentiary errors by the district court, a verdict may be set aside only if an error is so grievous as to have rendered the entire trial unfair.”  Id.  Applying this standard, the Fourth Circuit found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion.  Regarding the jury instructions, the Fourth Circuit held that the District Court properly found that Consol failed to show any prejudice arising from any of the instructions at issue.  Id. at *26.

Finally, both parties cross-appealed the District Court’s rulings on lost wages and punitive damages.  The Fourth Circuit rejected Consol’s argument that the employee failed to adequately mitigate his damages by accepting a lower paying job, noting that whether a worker acted reasonably in accepting particular employment is preeminently a question of fact, and that it would not second-guess the District Court.  The Fourth Circuit also rejected the EEOC’s cross-appeal regarding punitive damages, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the EEOC’s evidence fell short of allowing for a determination that Consol’s Title VII violation was the result of the kind of “reckless indifference” necessary to support an award of punitive damages.  Id. at *34.  Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Consol’s three post-verdict motions.

Implications For Employer

While it makes sense from a practical standpoint for employers to foster a work environment that is respectful of its employees’ religious beliefs, this ruling demonstrates that employers should also be tolerant of their employees’ religious accommodation requests for legal and financial reasons.  And although many employers will likely never encounter an employee requesting a religious accommodation to cope with his or her fear of the Anti-Christ, they nonetheless must seriously entertain any and all religious accommodation requests.  Equipped with an Appellate Court affirmation of its jury trial verdict, the EEOC may very well likely “smell blood” in the sea of religious discrimination charges in its backlog.  As such, the best practice for employers is to take a respectful and thoughtful approach to religious accommodation requests to avoid potential EEOC litigation and sometimes unforgiving juries.

Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog here.

 

magnifier-1714172__340By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a U.S. District Court’s decision granting the EEOC’s application to enforce a subpoena in a disability discrimination investigation, finding that company-wide information regarding the employer’s use and disclosure of medical information was relevant to the investigation of a single employee’s charge of discrimination. The ruling underscores the challenges faced by employers in objecting to EEOC subpoenas.

***

As we discussed in recent blog posts (here, here, and here), the EEOC has been aggressive in issuing expansive subpoenas that seek company-wide information from employers, as opposed to limiting the subpoena to seek information about an individual charging party.  In the latest round of EEOC versus employer subpoena litigation, in EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 16-2132, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10280 (6th Cir. June 9, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granting the EEOC’s application to enforce a subpoena that sought company-wide information, even though investigation concerned a single employee’s charge of discrimination.

This ruling provides yet another example of courts setting the bar low when considering what is “relevant” for purposes of the scope of an EEOC subpoena.  As such, employers can and should expect the EEOC to continue to be aggressive in firing off far-reaching subpoenas as it investigates high-stakes systemic discrimination claims.

Case Background

A UPS operations manager filed an EEOC charge claiming that UPS discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”).  Id. at *1-2.  In particular, he claimed that UPS published confidential medical information about him and other employees on its intranet page.  Id. at *2.  The EEOC began an investigation into the employee’s claims, which resulted in the Commission issuing a subpoena that requested information about how UPS stored and disclosed employee medical information.  UPS opposed the subpoena, claiming that the requested information was irrelevant to his charge.  The EEOC thereafter filed an application to enforce the subpoena.  The District Court granted the EEOC’s application, and UPS appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

The Sixth Circuit’s Decision

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of the EEOC’s application to enforce the subpoena.  First, the Sixth Circuit explained that a subpoena enforcement proceeding is a summary process designed to expeditiously decide whether a subpoena should be enforced, and that the purpose is not to decide the merits of the underlying claim.  Id. at *4 (citation omitted).  Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in McLane v. EEOC, 137 S. Ct. 1159, 1170 (2017), which we blogged about previously here, the Sixth Circuit further instructed that it would review the District Court’s decision to enforce the subpoena under an abuse of discretion standard.  Id.

After noting that in the Title VII context the Sixth Circuit has held that the EEOC is entitled to evidence that focuses on the existence of patterns of racial discrimination in job classifications or hiring situations other than those that the EEOC’s charge specifically targeted, the Sixth Circuit opined that it saw “no reason to hold differently with respect to discrimination on the basis of disability.”  Id. at *5 (citations omitted).  Further, “so long as a charge alleges unlawful use of medical examinations and inquiries, evidence of patterns of such unlawful use is relevant to the charge under investigation.”  Id.  UPS argued that the EEOC was only entitled to information regarding similarly-situated employees.  The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument, noting that there was no such restriction under the ADA.   Id.

UPS further argued that the EEOC’s requested information was overbroad because the databases referenced in the EEOC’s subpoena contained information about employees from other regions in the United States and Canada, including one database where the Charging Party’s information never appeared.  The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument, noting that the breach of confidentiality that the employee described in his amended charge was not limited to himself since he alleged that “all other employees subject to Health and Safety incident action/reports have had their confidentiality breached in the same manner as me.”  Id. at *6.  The Sixth Circuit further determined that the EEOC was entitled to search for evidence that showed a pattern of discrimination other than the specific instance of discrimination described in the charge.  Id.

Turning to UPS’s argument that the amended charge was not valid because it “appears to have been amended for an illegitimate purpose — to obtain documents that the subpoena otherwise could not reach,” the Sixth Circuit held that UPS forfeited this argument since it did not raise it before the District Court.  Id.  Further, the Sixth Circuit rejected UPS’s argument that the EEOC’s subpoena was overbroad because it provided no temporal scope, noting that regardless of when UPS developed the criteria for posting content on its intranet site, this piece of evidence may provide insight into how UPS categorizes information as confidential.  Id. at *7.  Finally, the Sixth Circuit dismissed UPS’s argument that producing the requested information would be unduly burdensome, noting that UPS did not identify how producing the requested evidence would be difficult, especially considering that both parties acknowledged it could be produced electronically.  Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering UPS to comply with the subpoena, and it affirmed the District Court’s decision.  Id. at *7-8.

Implications For Employers

Armed with yet another decision holding that an expansive EEOC subpoena was relevant to an investigation, the further emboldened EEOC likely will continue to seek far-reaching, company-wide information in its investigations, including those that stem from a single employee’s charge of discrimination.  Despite this recent trend of unfavorable rulings, employers should not let their guard down when confronted with broad EEOC subpoenas.  Rather, employers must carefully scrutinize each EEOC subpoena and aggressively attack its relevance when appropriate.

Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog here.

 

armor-158430__340By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth Synopsis:  In a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the EEOC, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court’s grant of an employer’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the harassing employee was not a supervisor under Title VII, and therefore the company was not vicariously liable for his actions. It is a decidedly pro-employer ruling.

***

In EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 16-6387 (6th Cir. June 9, 2017), the EEOC alleged that AutoZone was liable under Title VII for a store manager’s alleged sexual harassment of three female employees.  After the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the EEOC appealed.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that because the store manager did not take any tangible employment action against his co-workers and had no authority to do so, he was not a supervisor under Title VII, and thus AutoZone was not vicariously liable for the conduct alleged.  The Sixth Circuit further held that even if the store manager was found to be a supervisor under Title VII, AutoZone established an affirmative defense to liability.

For employers facing EEOC lawsuits alleging that they are vicariously liable for sexual harassment claims brought against employees with managerial job titles, yet who have limited authority to take tangible employment actions, this ruling can be used as a blueprint to attack such claims in motions for summary judgment.

Case Background

In May 2012, AutoZone transferred a store manager to its Cordova, Tennessee location.  Id. at 2.  The store manager could hire new hourly employees and write up employees at the store for misbehaving, but could not fire, demote, promote, or transfer employees.  Authority over firing, promoting, and transferring rested with the district manager for the store.

After an employee claimed that the store manager made lewd comments to her, AutoZone internally investigated the allegations.  As part of AutoZone’s internal investigation, two other female employees who worked at the Cordova location confirmed that the store manager made lewd sexual comments.  Despite his denial of the allegations, AutoZone ultimately transferred and terminated the store manager.  Thereafter, the EEOC brought a lawsuit alleging that AutoZone subjected the three female employees to sexual harassment.  Following discovery, AutoZone moved for summary judgment.  The District Court granted AutoZone’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the store manager was not a supervisor under Title VII and therefore AutoZone was not vicariously liable for his actions.  The EEOC appealed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Sixth Circuit.

The Sixth Circuit’s Decision

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of AutoZone’s motion for summary judgment.  First, the Sixth Circuit instructed that under Title VII, if the harassing employee is the victim’s co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions, or in other words, if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment yet failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.  Id. at 4 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  However, if the harasser is the victim’s supervisor, a non-negligent employer may become vicariously liable if the agency relationship aids the victim’s supervisor in his harassment.  Id.  The Sixth Circuit further explained that an employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.  Id.

Applied here, the Sixth Circuit found that AutoZone did not empower the store manager to take any tangible employment action against his victims since he could not fire, demote, promote, or transfer any employees.  Id. at 5.  Further, the Sixth Circuit held that the store manager’s ability to direct the victims’ work at the store and his title as store manager did not make him the victims’ supervisor for purposes of Title VII.  The Sixth Circuit also noted that while the store manager could initiate the disciplinary process and recommend demotion or promotion, his recommendations were not binding, and his ability to influence the district manager did not suffice to turn him into his victims’ supervisor.  Id. at 5-7.  Finally, the Sixth Circuit held that the store manager’s ability to hire other hourly employees was irrelevant since he did not hire the employees he harassed.  Id. at 7.

After finding that the store manager was not a supervisor for purposes of Title VII, the Sixth Circuit further held that even if he was found to be a supervisor, AutoZone established an affirmative defense to liability.  The defense has two elements: (1) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior; and (2) that the harassed employees unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.  Id.  The Sixth Circuit held that AutoZone met the first element by utilizing an appropriate anti-harassment policy to prevent harassment, and by transferring and later terminating the store manager promptly after it investigated the allegations.  Regarding the second element, the Sixth Circuit held that AutoZone satisfied this prong since the victims failed to report the store manager’s behavior for several months.  The Sixth Circuit thus held that AutoZone established an affirmative defense to liability.  Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of AutoZone’s motion for summary judgment.  Id. at 10.

Implications For Employers

Employers often utilize employees that may be “managers” in title, yet do not have the authority to take tangible employment actions.  When those employers are sued by the EEOC for the conduct of managers with limited authority, this ruling can be used to argue that such employees are not “supervisors” under Title VII, and therefore the employer is not vicariously liable for their actions.  Nonetheless, given the EEOC’s aggressiveness in attempting to use the theory of vicarious liability to hold “deep-pockets” large-scale employers liable for the conduct of employees, employers would be prudent to invest in harassment-prevention training to minimize the likelihood of such behavior occurring.  But in the event that such incidents of harassment arise and lead to EEOC lawsuits, employers can use this decision to tailor their arguments to focus on the authority of the harasser, as opposed to his or her job title.

Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog here.

supreme-court-546279_960_720By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Michael L. DeMarino, and John S. Marrese

Seyfarth Synopsis:  In Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, No. 15-457 (U.S. June 12, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a procedural issue that is of importance in any class action in terms of when and in what circumstances a plaintiff may appeal orders that terminate their rights in a case. In that respect, the decision is required reading for any employer involved in class action litigation.

***

In Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, No. 15-457, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), the Supreme Court was confronted with the question of whether courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs  have voluntary dismissed their claims with prejudice.

Litigants have an immediate right to appellate review only of “final decisions of the district courts,” as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The denial of class certification is not a final order and, therefore, not necessarily entitled to such immediate review.  Nonetheless, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) provides litigants the opportunity to appeal an adverse class certification decision, which the appellate court has unfettered discretion to review or not.

If the appellate court decides not to exercise discretion over such an appeal, plaintiffs still have options to ultimately obtain appellate review, including petitioning the district court to certify the interlocutory order for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  § 1292 or pursuing the litigation to a final judgment at which point the class certification denial becomes final and appealable.  However, as the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker makes clear, what plaintiffs may not do is circumvent that process by dismissing a case with prejudice after the denial of class certification in order to manufacture the appellate court’s jurisdiction over such an appeal. According to the Supreme Court, such a tactic impermissibly stretches Section 1291, circumvents the rules governing interlocutory appeals, including 23(f), and leads to protracted and piecemeal litigation.

Case Background

Plaintiffs, purchasers of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 console, filed a class action alleging design defect of the console.  (Slip Op. 8.)  The district court struck Plaintiffs’ class allegations based on the denial of class certification in a previously-filed case of the same nature, finding that comity mandated its decision.  (Id. at 8-9.)

Plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for appellate review of the interlocutory order under Rule 23(f), but the Ninth Circuit declined to exercise jurisdiction.  Id. at 9.  Rather than pursue their individual claims further, Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice and represented to the district court that they would appeal the order striking their class allegations thereafter. (Id. at 10.)  Microsoft stipulated to the voluntary dismissal with prejudice, but argued that Plaintiff would have no right to appeal.  The district court granted the stipulated motion to dismiss.  Id.

As promised, Plaintiffs only appealed the district court’s decision to strike their class allegations.  Id.  The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under the 28 U.S.C. § 1291, rejecting Microsoft’s argument that Plaintiffs had impermissibly circumvented Rule 23(f).  Id.  Then the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations. Id. at 11.  The Ninth Circuit expressed no opinion as to the merits of class certification, but merely found that comity did not require denial on the pleadings; such a decision would more properly be made on Plaintiffs’ eventual motion for class certification.  Id.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address a Circuit split over the question: “Do federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction under [28 U.S.C.] § 1291 and Article III of the Constitution to review an order denying class certification (or . . . an order striking class allegations) after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice?”  Id.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, sitting with eight justices, unanimously found that the Ninth Circuit had improperly exercised discretion over Plaintiffs’ appeal.

Justice Ginsburg, authoring the opinion of the Court in which Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined, ruled that Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal with prejudice did not transform the district court’s denial of class certification into a final order.  Such a tactic, the Supreme Court concluded, impermissibly attempts to subvert the final judgment rule in § 1291 as well as the process Congress implemented for refining that rule and providing for appeals of interlocutory orders.  Id. at 12.

The Supreme Court explained that Plaintiffs’ tactic encouraged “protracted litigation and piecemeal appeals” as well as indiscriminate review of interlocutory orders.  Id.  Indeed, as the Supreme Court pointed out, under Plaintiffs’ theory, “the decision whether an immediate appeal will lie resides exclusively with the plaintiff” because plaintiff “need only dismiss her claims with prejudice whereupon she may appeal the district court’s order denying class certification.” Id. at 12-13. Thus, if Plaintiffs here had subsequently been denied class certification on remand from the Ninth Circuit, they could have again voluntarily dismissed and forced an appeal of that decision, thereby circumventing the purpose of Rule 23(f) and, in conjunction, the rulemaking process Congress bestowed upon the Supreme Court.  Id. at 13-16.

Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito issued a concurring opinion, concurring only in the judgment.  Justice Thomas agreed that Plaintiffs could not appeal under the circumstances of this case, but under a different rationale.  Specifically, Justice Thomas concluded that Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal with prejudice had indeed resulted in a final appealable order.  However, such dismissal destroyed any live case or controversy.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs had no standing under Article III of the Constitution to bring the appeal.

Implication for Employers

A decision on class certification is often the most significant event in the life of class litigation.  As such, plaintiffs who are denied certification craft inventive strategies to circumvent rules limiting their appellate rights.  With the Baker decision, one such strategy is no longer available to plaintiffs.  Employers should pay careful attention to alternative tactics similarly contravening the purpose and structure of the federal statutes and rules governing appellate review.

law and money 2Seyfarth Synopsis: American and international courts have been debating the tentative legality of disclosing third-party litigation funding. In this vlog video, Seyfarth Shaw Associate Alex Karasik sits down with class action litigator Jerry Maatman to discuss what third-party litigation is, what it means for businesses, and the tactics that businesses can use to get in front of this phenomenon.

Background

A recent trend has emerged in the class action landscape whereby a third-party funder pays the owner of a civil claim an up-front monetary payment in return for the claim owner’s promise to convey a portion of the potential recovery. Class action plaintiffs’ attorneys and third-party funders are incentivized under this approach through tax advantages, whereby the attorneys can defer tax liability on the monetary advancement until the claim pays off while the funders can deduct their expenses and pay tax on any profit at the lower capital-gains rate. Predictably, many of the third-party funders enter into such agreements with plaintiffs’ attorneys confidentially for varying business or personal reasons.

In a novel decision that will profoundly impact the practice of third-party funding of class actions, Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted defendant’s (“Chevron”) motion to compel plaintiff to reveal the identity of who was funding its proposed class action regarding a gas explosion off the coast of Nigeria in Gbarabe v. Chevron Corp., No. 14-CV-173 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016). This ruling provides businesses facing class actions, including employers facing workplace class actions, a blueprint as to how to compel plaintiffs to identify stakeholders in class action lawsuits against their companies.

Implications For Employers

A business confronted with class action litigation absolutely would want to know if someone other than the plaintiffs themselves have a financial interest in a “bet-the-company” case. The ruling in Gbarabe arms employers with a potential strategy to unmask third-party funders that may have an interest in seeing their financial demise as a class action defendant. Given that this ruling stemmed from internationally-based class action litigation involving solo practitioners, businesses should be cautioned that courts may not always find litigation funding agreements to be relevant in determining the adequacy of plaintiffs’ counsel. Nonetheless, the arguments presented by Chevron are instructive in showing class action defendants how they can attempt to figure out who is bankrolling litigation battles against them. Finally, this ruling should serve as a cautionary tale to those third-party funders who desire anonymity, and ideally result in a chilling effect of this practice that amounts to tax-incentivized gambling on class action litigation. Workplace class actions can expect to see similar challenges to the adequacy of class counsel with motions to compel the production of litigation funding agreements in the very near future.

 

EEOCBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.Christopher J. DeGroff, and Matthew J. Gagnon

Seyfarth Synopsis: Reviewing the EEOC’s case filings during the first half of the Commission’s fiscal year may already reveal some surprising trends, most notably a sharp uptick in the total number of case filings – up 75% from the same point last year – and a corresponding increase in systemic cases.

March 31 was the mid-point of the EEOC’s fiscal year. Given the significant changes brought to the federal government by the Trump Administration, we sharpened our pencils and examined the EEOC’s case filings during the first half of FY 2017 and compared those filings to the first half of FY 2016 to see what changes, if any, the new administration has wrought.

As the chart below reveals, the number of filings is up significantly from the same point in time in FY 2016. From October 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017, there were 35 new cases filed. During the same time period in the prior year, there were only 20. That means that filings are up a whopping 75% for the first half of the year.

Total EEOC Case Filings - 2017 Midyear Review

In addition to a larger number of total filings, we have also seen a rise in systemic cases. These cases – defined as having a significant impact on the development of the law or promoting compliance across a large organization, community, or industry – have long been a strategic priority for the agency. As we blogged about here, Acting Chair of the EEOC, Victoria Lipnic, reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to systemic cases when she spoke to Seyfarth Shaw and our invited guests in February of this year. However, systemic cases have garnered negative attention from Republican members of Congress, so it was not clear whether the EEOC would shift direction under the new Republican leadership.

Although we cannot know for certain which cases the EEOC considers “systemic,” based on our review of EEOC press releases and the substance of the EEOC filings, we have identified a significant uptick in systemic case filings in the first half of FY 2017 compared to the same period in FY 2016. Last year there were only four filings during this time period, compared with nine this year. If this trend holds through to the end of the year, then this could turn out to be a banner year for systemic case filings.

Systemic EEOC Case Filings - 2017 Midyear Review

Finally, we analyzed the particular discrimination theories and statutes that the EEOC is pursuing. That analysis can be seen in the chart below. Not surprisingly, Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act cases lead the way, with 17 and 14 cases filed respectively. Year after year, those types of cases lead the pack. The number of ADEA cases is slightly higher than this time last year, but is still generally consistent with prior years and does not yet reflect a significant change in direction for the EEOC.

As Seyfarth’s Pay Equity Issues & Insights Blog noted here, Chairperson Lipnic has stated that she is very interested in pay equity issues. However, that level of interest is not yet translating into any increase in Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) cases on a year over year basis. The first half of FY 2017 saw only one EPA case filed, the same as during the same period last year.

EEOC Case Filings By Statute - 2017 Midyear Review

We will continue to monitor trends and developments in EEOC litigation throughout the year so that we can once again bring you our annual comprehensive end-of-year examination of trends affecting EEOC litigation (see here for last year’s version). As always, we look forward to bringing that analysis to you, our loyal readers!

100px-US-CourtOfAppeals-9thCircuit-Seal_svgBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christopher J. DeGroff and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth Synopsis: After the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2327 (U.S. 2017), that the scope of review for employers facing EEOC administrative subpoenas was the abuse-of-discretion standard, a relatively high bar of review, the Ninth Circuit applied that standard of review on remand and vacated the District Court’s original decision that denied the enforcement of an EEOC subpoena.

***

An often contentious issue in EEOC investigations involves the scope of administrative subpoenas, which can be burdensome for employers when the subpoenas seek a broad range of company-wide information.  When analyzing the standard of review for decisions relating to the enforcement of EEOC subpoenas, in McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2327 (U.S. Apr. 3, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that such decisions were examined under an abuse-of-discretion standard.  The abuse-of-discretion standard sets a relatively high bar for review, as we blogged about here.  Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s remand to the Ninth Circuit in McLane, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s denial of enforcement of the subpoena and sent the matter back to the District Court for further proceedings.  EEOC v. McLane Co., No. 13-15126, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9027 (9th Cir. May 24, 2017).

For employers, this is an important case to follow as it provides clarification as to the standard of review used when Appellate Courts address district court subpoena enforcement decisions.

Background

The EEOC issued an administrative subpoena as part of its investigation into a charge of discrimination filed by a former employee of a McLane subsidiary.  Id. at *3.  The employee alleged that McLane discriminated against her on the basis of sex when it fired her after she failed to pass a physical capability strength test.  Relevant here, the subpoena requested “pedigree information” (name, Social Security number, last known address, and telephone number) for employees or prospective employees who took the test.  Following the Court’s precedent at the time, the Ninth Circuit applied a de novo review to the District Court’s ruling that the pedigree information was not relevant to the EEOC’s investigation.  Id. at *3-4.  The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment after holding that a district court’s decision whether to enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed for abuse of discretion.  The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit so that the Ninth Circuit could re-evaluate the District Court’s ruling under the proper standard of review.

 The Ninth Circuit’s Decision On Remand

After reviewing the District Court’s decision under the abuse-of-discretion standard, the Ninth Circuit still held that the District Court abused its discretion by denying enforcement of the subpoena.  Id. at *4.  The District Court found that the pedigree information was not relevant “at this stage” of the EEOC’s investigation because the evidence McLane had already produced would “enable the [EEOC] to determine whether the [strength test] systematically discriminates on the basis of gender.”  Id.  The Ninth Circuit rejected this approach, noting that the District Court’s ruling was based on the wrong standard for relevance.  The Ninth Circuit stated that under Title VII, the EEOC may obtain evidence if it relates to unlawful employment practices and is relevant to the charge under investigation.  Quoting EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 68-69 (1984), the Ninth Circuit opined that the relevance standard encompasses “virtually any material that might cast light on the allegations against the employer.”  Id. at *5.

Applying Shell Oil, the Ninth Circuit found that the pedigree information was relevant to the EEOC’s investigation since conversations with other McLane employees and applicants who have taken the strength test “might cast light” on the allegations against McLane.  Id.  McLane argued that, given all of the other information it had produced, the EEOC could not show that the production of nationwide pedigree information was relevant to the Charge or its investigation under either a disparate treatment or disparate impact theory.  Id. at *6. The Ninth Circuit construed the District Court’s application of relevance to be a heightened “necessity” standard, and noted that the governing standard was “relevance,” not “necessity.”  Id.

The Ninth Circuit then found that the District Court erred when it held that pedigree information was irrelevant “at this stage” of the investigation.  Id.  Rejecting the District Court’s conclusion that the EEOC did not need pedigree information to make a preliminary determination as to whether use of the strength test resulted in systemic discrimination, the Ninth Circuit held that the EEOC’s need for the evidence—or lack thereof—did not factor into the relevance determination.  Id. at *6-7. While McLane had argued that the pedigree information was not relevant because the charge alleged only a “neutrally applied” strength test, which by definition cannot give rise to disparate treatment, systemic or otherwise, the Ninth Circuit rejected this approach, holding “[t]he very purpose of the EEOC’s investigation is to determine whether the test is being neutrally applied; the EEOC does not have to take McLane’s word for it on that score.”  Id. at *7.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that because the District Court based its ruling on an incorrect view of relevance, it necessarily abused its discretion when it held that the pedigree information was not relevant to the EEOC’s investigation.

The Ninth Circuit concluded by noting that on remand, McLane was free to renew its argument that the EEOC’s request for pedigree information was unduly burdensome.  Id. at *8. Further, explaining that it did not reach the issue in its original decision, the Ninth Circuit instructed that “[o]n remand, the district court should also resolve whether producing a second category of evidence — the reasons test takers were terminated — would be unduly burdensome to McLane.”  Id.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Implications For Employers

As employers who are confronted with EEOC subpoenas may ultimately find themselves in a subpoena enforcement action, the McLane case is a must-follow in terms of what standard of review will be applied if those district court decisions are later reviewed.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s adoption of the more “hands off” abuse-of-discretion standard means that greater weight will be given to district court decisions.  Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling here illustrates that appellate courts may still be willing to overturn district court decisions to enforce or quash EEOC subpoenas depending on the circumstances.  The decision will also, no doubt, be cited by an emboldened EEOC as authority for its position that expansive pedigree information is relevant in a broad swath of cases.  Understanding these trends will provide useful guidance for employers when deciding if and how to challenge what often can be burdensome demands for information from the EEOC.

Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog here.

Magnifying_Glass_PhotoBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Andrew Scroggins and Christopher DeGroff

Seyfarth Synopsis: An in-depth analysis by Seyfarth Shaw sheds new light on how quickly the EEOC moves matters from letter of determination, through conciliation, to litigation.  For charges that result in litigation, the EEOC spends, on average, just over two months in conciliation.  After declaring that conciliation has failed, the EEOC takes, on average, about three months to file suit.  However, there are notable differences in speed among the EEOC’s district offices.

***

Employers on the wrong side of an EEOC enforcement action know all too well that there is little rhyme or reason to the timeline from investigation to litigation.  The EEOC issues Performance and Accountability Reports for each fiscal year.  Those reports can yield useful insights into the EEOC’s strategic priorities, as well as the volume of charges and litigation matters it brings.  However, the EEOC has never reported information that shows how long a charge typically is in the pipeline before it reaches litigation.

Based on our own in-depth analysis of EEOC complaints, we now have insight to how long it takes the EEOC to move a charge from determination to a declaration that conciliation has failed, and how long again from that point until a complaint is filed in federal court.

In addition to finally providing some insight to the timeline on charges that the EEOC takes to litigation, this analysis sets an important benchmark.  On January 25, 2017, President Trump appointed Victoria Lipnic as acting chair of the EEOC.  Speaking at an event sponsored by Seyfarth Shaw, Ms. Lipnic stated her intention to focus on more targeted litigation that can still have an impact on a larger scale.  Monitoring the pace at which the EEOC moves charges to litigation will be one way to measure the changes in the agency’s enforcement approach.

Background And Methodology

In April 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015), holding that the EEOC must demonstrate that it has satisfied its statutory duty of “conference, conciliation, and persuasion” before filing suit.  (We have written extensively on the decision in prior blog posts.)  In an apparent effort to meet the Supreme Court’s directive, the EEOC began later that year to routinely include additional information in its complaints, such as when it had issued determinations in connection with the underlying charges and when it had declared conciliation efforts to have failed.

We analyzed and collected this and other information from nearly 150 complaints filed around the country by the EEOC from 2015 through January 2017.  From that data, we could roughly calculate how long it takes for the EEOC to move from step to step, as well as the relative pace of the EEOC district offices.

How Long Is Conciliation Likely To Last?

If you are an employer that has responded to a charge and just received a letter of determination, how long can you expect the EEOC to engage in conciliation?

According to our analysis, the median time spent in conciliation is 72 days.  For most employers, the EEOC will declare that conciliation has failed in three months or less.  In some instances, however, conciliation has lasted for years.

Employers are more likely to spend longer in conciliation when dealing with the EEOC’s district offices in Birmingham, Memphis, Phoenix, Houston, or Miami.  Conciliation moves faster in the EEOC’s district offices in Baltimore, Little Rock, Detroit, and Washington DC.

Additional details are summarized in the infographic.

If Conciliation Fails, How Long Until A Complaint Is Filed?

The common assumption among employers is that it is a race to the courthouse once the EEOC deems conciliation failed, but our analysis suggests otherwise.

Although about 19% of complaints are filed within the first month, the median time from the notice of conciliation failure to filing of a complaint is almost three times that:  91 days.

The quickest to file are the EEOC district offices in Kansas City, Little Rock, Oklahoma City, and Los Angeles.  The EEOC moves most slowly in its district offices in Phoenix, Dallas, St. Louis, Chicago, Indianapolis, Birmingham, and Memphis.

See the infographic for additional details.

A Determination Was Just Issued In An Intractable Case – How Long Until Court Proceedings Commence?

Taking both of these together, how much time can an employer expect to pass from determination to the start of litigation?

Our analysis found that employers have at least two months before the complaint is filed, and that short timeline is uncommon.  The median time from determination to complaint is 196 days.

Charges move most quickly to court in the EEOC’s district offices in Kansas City, Little Rock, and Baltimore.  The EEOC moves most slowly in its district offices in Phoenix, Memphis, Birmingham.

The infographic provides additional details.

 We will continue to analyze the EEOC’s complaints and monitor for results that may suggest some change in approach in response to new leadership at the agency.