Seyfarth Synopsis: On October 5, 2017, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued an agency memorandum stating that the language contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status.” It represented a head-snapping pivot of the position of the U.S. Department of Justice. In this video, Jerry Maatman of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP gives blog readers an overview of the recent history regarding legal interpretation of Title VII. Jerry discusses potentially conflicting statutes and court rulings, as well as the ways in which this Department of Justice memorandum could affect businesses and those who litigate under Title VII.

Summary

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been a prevalent federal statute since its passage over 50 years ago. Therefore, it is an especially important statute to understand for nearly every employer. During the Obama Administration, Attorney General Eric Holder stated in a 2014 memorandum that the Department of Justice does, in fact, apply the concept of sex discrimination in the workplace to transgender workers. However, Congress has rejected all attempts thus far to amend Title VII. To that end, the language of the law leaves legal interpretation open for debate.

The EEOC’s current view of Title VII is that it includes protections for transgender workers. In addition, 20 states and the District of Columbia include both sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories under their discrimination statutes. The recent statement by the Department of Justice has renewed the widespread debate over the definition of sex discrimination, a dispute which we suspect will not end any time soon. Make sure to stay tuned to our blog and Twitter account for updates and insights on this important legal issue!

By Matthew J. GagnonChristopher J. DeGroff, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Seyfarth Synopsis: With uncertain times and profound changes anticipated for the EEOC, employers anxiously await what enforcement litigation the EEOC has in store. Although 2016 showed a marked decline in filings, fiscal year 2017 shows a return to vigorous enforcement filings, with a substantial number of filings in the waning days of the fiscal year.

Employers are living in uncertain times. The impact of a Trump Administration and the EEOC’s new Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) for fiscal years 2017-2021 are still working themselves out in the FY 2017 filing trends. Nonetheless, one trend has reemerged: a vigorous number of EEOC case filings. It looks like the anemic numbers of FY 2016 were just a bump in the road, as FY 2017 has revealed an increase in total filings, even eclipsing the numbers from FY 2015 and 2014. (Compare here to here and here.) This year, the EEOC filed 202 actions, 184 merits lawsuits and 18 subpoena enforcement actions.

The September filing frenzy is still an EEOC way-of-life, as this past month yet again holds the title for most filings compared to any other month. At the time of publication, 88 lawsuits were filed in September, including 21 in the last two days alone. In fact, the EEOC filed more cases in the last three months of FY 2017 than it did during all of FY 2016. The total number of filings for the remaining months remains consistent with prior years, including a noticeable ramp up period boasting double digit numbers through the summer.

Filings out of the Chicago district office were back up in FY 2017 after an uncharacteristic decline to just 7 total filings in 2016. This year, Chicago hit 21 filings, an enormous increase from last year. This is closer to the total number of Chicago filings in FY 2015 and 2014 (26 in each year). The Los Angeles district office also increased its filings, hitting a high of 22, a substantial jump compared to previous years and the most of any district office in FY 2017. On the other end of the spectrum, the Phoenix district office has seen a notable drop, with only 7 filings compared to 17 in FY 2016.

New SEP, Same Focus

Every year we analyze what the EEOC says about its substantive focus as a way to understand what conduct it is targeting. This year, Title VII takes center stage. Although Title VII has consistently been the largest category of filings, last year showed a dip in the percentage of filings alleging Title VII violations, at only 41%. Nonetheless, this year Title VII has regained its previous proportion, accounting for 53% of all filings. This is on par with FY 2015 and 2014, showing once again that FY 2016 seems to have been an outlier.

Although the 2017-2021 SEP outlined the same general enforcement priorities as the previous version of the SEP (covering FY 2012 to 2016), the new SEP added “backlash discrimination” towards individuals of Muslin/Sikh/Arab/Middle Eastern/South Asian communities as an additional focus. One would expect this focus might increase the number of Title VII claims alleging either religious, racial, or national origin discrimination. However, those filings stayed relatively even, and were even a bit down from previous years. Religious, national origin, and race discrimination claims made up 42% of all Title VII claims, compared to 50% in 2016 and 46% in 2015.

Uncertainty For Equal Pay Claims

With a new administration came a new Acting Chair for the EEOC. President Trump appointed Victoria Lipnic as Acting Chair on January 25, 2017. Employers expected the EEOC’s new leader to steer the EEOC’s agenda in a different direction. Some believed Lipnic was foreshadowing future trends when she made it clear at her first public appearance – hosted by none other than Seyfarth Shaw – that she is “very interested in equal pay issues.” (See here.) And indeed, we have seen a slight uptick in the number of EPA claims filed in FY 2017. In FY 2017, The EEOC filed 11 EPA claims, compared to 6 in 2016, 5 in 2015, and 2 in 2014.

However, on June 28, 2017, President Trump tapped Janet Dhillon as Chair of the EEOC. Dhillon would come to the EEOC with extensive experience in a big law firm and as the lead lawyer at three large corporations, US Airways, J.C. Penney, and Burlington Stores Inc. Although it is too early to know how she could change the direction of the agency if confirmed, it is entirely possible that she could back away from previous goals to pursue equal pay claims more aggressively.

The Trump Administration has also made other moves that may indicate a change in direction with respect to equal pay initiatives. On February 1, 2016, the EEOC proposed changes to the EEO-1 report that would require all employers with more than 100 employees to submit more detailed compensation data to the EEOC, including information regarding total compensation and total hours worked by race, ethnicity, and gender. This was a change from the previous EEO-1 report, which only required employers to report on employee gender and ethnicity in relation to job titles. However, on August 29, 2017, the new EEO-1 reporting requirements were indefinitely suspended. We will have to wait and see whether the slight uptick in EPA claims in FY 2017 was a one-year anomaly.

Implications For Employers

The changes brought by the Trump Administration are still in the process of working themselves down into the rank and file of many federal agencies. The EEOC is no exception. Despite all of the unrest and uncertainty about where the EEOC may be headed, the FY 2017 filing trends largely show a return to previous years, albeit with a slight uptick in EPA claims. Certainly, changes in top personnel will have an impact on how the EEOC pursues its enforcement agenda. Exactly what that impact will be remains to be seen.

Loyal readers know that this post is merely a prelude to our full analysis of trends and developments affecting EEOC litigation, which will be published at the end of the calendar year. Stay tuned for our continued analysis of FY 2017 EEOC filings, and our thoughts about what employers should keep an eye on as we enter FY 2018. We look forward to keeping you in the loop all year long!

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

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth SynopsisAfter a federal district court dismissed the EEOC’s unlawful-interference claim against a private college that had sued a former employee for allegedly breaching a settlement agreement by filing an EEOC charge, the Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the EEOC’s unlawful-interference claim, citing the employer’s introduction of a new case theory relative to the EEOC’s still-pending retaliation claim.

This ruling serves a cautionary tale for employers regarding the timing of their assertion of new case theories in EEOC litigation involving multiple claims.

***

After CollegeAmerica resolved a dispute with a former employee by entering into a settlement agreement, upon belief that the employee breached the settlement agreement, CollegeAmerica sued the employee in state court.  Id. at *1-2.  Thereafter, the EEOC sued CollegeAmerica in federal court alleging that CollegeAmerica’s interpretation and enforcement of the settlement agreement was unlawfully interfering with statutory rights of the former employee and the EEOC.  Following the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado’s dismissal of the EEOC’s claim for unlawful-interference with statutory rights, on appeal in EEOC v. CollegeAmerica Denver Inc., No. 16-1340, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17094 (10th Cir. Sept. 5, 2017), the Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal, holding that the EEOC’s unlawful-interference claim should not have been dismissed as moot in light of a new theory asserted by CollegeAmerica prior to its trial regarding the EEOC’s pending retaliation claim.

Employers should keep this ruling in mind when preparing trial theories that may have implications on claims that had previously been dismissed as moot.

Case Background

The EEOC brought a claim for unlawful-interference with statutory rights, which the District Court ultimately dismissed as moot.  Regarding the EEOC’s retaliation claim, which remained for trial, CollegeAmerica presented a new theory against the employee: that she had breached the settlement agreement by reporting adverse information to the EEOC without notifying CollegeAmerica.  In response, the EEOC argued that by presenting this new theory, CollegeAmerica was continuing to interfere with the statutory rights of the former employee and the EEOC.  As such, the EEOC appealed the dismissal of its unlawful-interference claim, arguing that the claim was no longer moot in light of CollegeAmerica’s new theory.

The Tenth Circuit’s Decision

The Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the of the EEOC’s unlawful-interference claim.  First, the Court instructed that in determining whether a claim is moot, a special rule applies when the defendant voluntarily stops the challenged conduct.  Id. at *4-5.  When the conduct stops, the claim will be deemed moot only if two conditions exist: (1) it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur, and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.  In arguing that the case was moot, CollegeAmerica submitted two declarations from its general counsel assuring that CollegeAmerica would not take the “positions known to trouble the EEOC.”  Id. at *6.  In response, the EEOC argued that the declarations should not be relied upon since CollegeAmerica presented a new theory after the filing of the declarations–that the employee had breached the settlement agreement by reporting adverse information to the EEOC without notifying CollegeAmerica–an argument that continued CollegeAmerica’s unlawful interference with statutory rights.  The Tenth Circuit held that because CollegeAmerica planned to present its new theory in its state court suit, the potential for CollegeAmerica to repeat its allegedly wrongful behavior remained, and CollegeAmerica thus did not satisfy its burden of demonstrating the absence of a potential for reoccurrence.  Id.

Next, the Tenth Circuit rejected CollegeAmerica’s argument that the case was moot because the outcome “would not affect anything in the real world.”   Id. at *7.  The Tenth Circuit noted that in its state court suit, CollegeAmerica planned to argue that the employee breached the settlement agreement by reporting adverse information to the EEOC without notifying CollegeAmerica. The EEOC alleged that this argument would constitute unlawful-interference with the employee’s rights, and thus sought a permanent injunction prohibiting CollegeAmerica from unlawfully interfering with the statutory rights of the employee and the EEOC.  The Tenth Circuit accepted the EEOC’s argument, holding that if the EEOC prevailed on the merits and obtained an injunction, CollegeAmerica could not present its new theory in the state court suit against the employee, which “would constitute an effect in the real world.”  Id.

Finally, the Tenth Circuit declined to consider CollegeAmerica’s argument that the EEOC’s unlawful-interference claim brought under 29 U.S.C § 626(f)(4) failed as a matter of law since it could not be used as an affirmative cause of action, noting the District Court had not yet ruled on the issue and therefore it was to consider that issue on remand.  Id. at *7-8.  The Tenth Circuit also refused to consider CollegeAmerica’s argument that the EEOC sought overly broad, unauthorized injunctive and declaratory relief, explaining it would not consider this issue since it was raised on appeal for the first time.  Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s dismissal of the EEOC’s unlawful-interference claim.

Implications For Employers

For employers facing litigation, this ruling provides an important lesson: when considering the defense of one claim, it is imperative to be cognizant of how that argument can impact the defense of another claim, even if the other claim has been dismissed.  Further, this decision illustrates the EEOC’s willingness to combat employers who bring causes of action against former employees who may have breached settlement agreements by asserting discrimination claims.  As such, employers should be cautious when suing former employees who later file EEOC charges, and must exercise further caution when considering how their strategies to defend one claim may affect another.

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

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth Synopsis: Four African-American teachers alleged that their school district employer discriminated against them on the basis of race by failing to hire them as assistant principals, and filed a motion for class certification. A federal district court in Florida denied the teachers’ motion for class certification, finding the employees failed to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23 based on the exercise of discretion by different hiring principals at different schools. The ruling has important lessons for employers facing Rule 23 motions in workplace class actions.

***

In Gittens v. The School Board of Lee County, Florida, No. 2:16-CV-412, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115987 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2017), Plaintiffs brought suit against their employer, the School Board of Lee County, Florida (“School District”), alleging that the School District discriminated against them on the basis of their race, i.e., African-American.  After Plaintiffs moved for class certification, Judge Mac R. McCoy of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied their motion, finding that Plaintiffs “fail[ed] to provide the necessary glue to hold the putative class claims together under [the] commonality analysis,” that was set forth in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).  Id. at *34.  The Court also found that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the sufficiency of the proposed class definition, the ascertainability of the putative class, adequacy, typicality, and the Rule 23(b) requirements.

For employers facing workplace class actions where putative class members are subjected to employment decisions by different supervisors at different facilities, this ruling is another post-Wal-Mart employer victory that can be used to oppose class certification.

Case Background

Plaintiffs, four African-Americans, held various teaching and administrative positions at various schools within the School District.  Id. at *6-12.  All four Plaintiffs had advanced degrees, and sought administrative positions at various schools, including the position of assistant principal.  All four had at least one interview for the assistant principal position, and two were interviewed by panels of all-White school administrators.  All four Plaintiffs were rejected for assistant principal positions.

To be considered for an assistant principal position, an applicant must first apply and be accepted into the AP Pool.  Id. at *13.  Once accepted, an individual may then apply and be hired for a specific assistant principal position at a certain school.  Each individual school advertises its open assistant principal positions, screens the applicants, conducts its own interviews and, when selected by the Principal of that specific school, the candidate’s name is submitted to the Superintendent, who then sends it to the School Board for final approval.

Plaintiffs alleged that the School District had a pattern or practice of refusing to hire well-qualified, African-American employees to administrative positions.  After bringing class-wide allegations under Title VII for race discrimination, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of current and former employees who had applied for various positions with the School Board, including assistant principal positions.

The Decision

The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  First, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ class definition, “[a]ny and all black/African-American employees who applied for an AP Pool position in the four years preceding this action but who were denied such a position by Defendant,” as being improperly vague and ambiguous.  Id. at *18-20.  The Court noted that that the class definition was unclear as to whether “denied”  referred to the AP Pool or the actual assistant principal position.

After the Court found that Plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity requirement of Rule 23, it held that Plaintiffs failed to establish that there were common questions of law or fact sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement.  The Court opined that “[s]imilar to [Wal-Mart v. Dukes], the Plaintiffs here wish to bring suit calling into question a relatively large number of employment decisions at once. Without some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question why was I disfavored.”  Id. at *28 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  The Court held that the exercise of discretion by schools and principals over time at different schools precluded a finding of commonality.  Id. at *30.

Turning to the typicality requirement of Rule 23, the Court held that the named Plaintiffs failed to meet this requirement because each individual school advertised its opening for an assistant principal position and had its own decision-maker screening applicants and conducting interviews before the school principal selected the top applicant.  Id. at *37.  The Court determined that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show that their claims were based on the same event, pattern, or practice as the claims of other putative class members.  Regarding the adequacy of representation requirement, citing Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of one of the named Plaintiffs due to “a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship,” the Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden.  Id. at *39-40.  Finally, Plaintiffs could not meet the Rule 23(b) requirements since not all of the Rule 23(a) requirements were met.  Id. at *40-41.  Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Implications For Employers

One of the most crucial events in employment law class actions is class certification briefing, which can potentially lead to several more commas and zeros in a settlement figure or jury verdict if an employer is not successful.  The Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision has given employers an avenue to attack large class actions where decisions made by different supervisors at different facilities can make it difficult for employees to prove common questions of law and fact.  Although the Court here identified several reasons not to certify this particular putative class, employers are now armed with another post-Wal-Mart ruling that they can use as a blueprint to fight class certification on the basis of commonality.

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.

 

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!

EEOCBy David J. Rowland and Andrew L. Scroggins

Seyfarth Synopsis:  In a case filed May 8 in federal court in New Jersey, the EEOC sued an IT staffing firm for age discrimination on behalf of a candidate seeking placement into an position with one of the firm’s clients.  If the startling allegations are true, the case may be a lay-up for the EEOC, but even if the allegations are inaccurate, staffing firms and companies that utilize staffing resources should view this as a reminder about the process by which they evaluate candidates, and what NOT to do with potentially unlawful instructions from clients.

In EEOC v. Diverse Lynx, Inc., 3:17-CV-03220 (D.N.J), the EEOC alleges that Kadami Vijaisimh posted his resume on the website Diverse Lynx (DL) maintains for job applicants.  The EEOC alleges that at around the same time Vijaisimh posted his resume, DL was sourcing candidates for an IT project management opportunity available at one of its clients.

According to the complaint, Vijaisimh had substantial IT project management experience and was contacted by DL regarding the position. After several discussions with Vijaisimh regarding the details of the position at issue, DL allegedly wrote Vijaisimh this e-mail:

Thanks for your reply. I check the details of [sic] you. And you [sic] born in 1945. So I discussed with the client side. Age will matter. That why I can’t [sic] be able to submit your profile to client side.

Predictably, DL did not refer Vijaisimh to its client for the IT project management spot and the EEOC alleges it did not do so because of his age.

Taking these facts as true, it is hard to imagine a better case for the EEOC, and it is easy to see why the agency brought it.  But, putting that aside, the alleged actions of the staffing firm in this case serve as a stark reminder of the obligations of staffing firms to comply with employment laws as they work with their clients and candidates to fill open positions.

Here are the top takeaways from the case and some suggested strategies:

Takeaway 1:  In evaluating a candidate, a staffing firm’s recruiters cannot use candidates’ profiles for the purposes of excluding candidates based upon protected statuses.  It is not clear from the complaint what information led DL’s recruiter to conclude that Vijaisimh was born in 1945.  One reasonable presumption is that it was the result of a search of social media sources, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter, all of which harbor dangers as a screening tool.  Another reasonable presumption is that it was the result of online searches of publicly available information, which can often be unreliable.

Takeaway 2:  Beware about making assumptions about a client’s wishes.  In this case, if the DL recruiter initiated a conversation with the client about whether age would “matter” for this IT project management job, the staffing firm has not only placed itself in potential trouble, it has also set its client up for a possible legal disaster. It is not clear in this case whether the client actually cared about age, or if that was simply the recruiter’s intuition, but either way, the candidate’s age (specifically or in general) should never have been raised or discussed with the client.

Takeaway 3: A client’s wish is not a staffing firm’s command.  Sometimes a client may make an up-front request for candidates who fit a particular paradigm without considering how the EEOC or plaintiff’s lawyers might construe the language.  Requests like “seeking recent college grads”, “need someone who fits in with our youthful culture”, “inexperienced candidates have been the most successful”, or “fresh blood is needed to replace our aging workforce” are not necessarily intended to be age-based – a recent college grad could be over 40, for example – but they are the sort of quotes that raise the eyebrow of enforcement agencies and may not play well with a jury.

Remedy 1: Publish a written policy.

Staffing firms should memorialize their policies prohibiting employment discrimination against those placed to work with clients, and make the policy available to applicants, employees, and clients.

Remedy 2: Train, train, and train.

Training employees on how and whether to use social media or other online searches is essential for every employer and staffing firm.  Too much can be learned (and put to bad use), and too much of what is learned may be inaccurate.

Staffing firm employees would benefit from training to recognize the types of job “requirements” and messages that could be perceived – rightly or wrongly – as potential problems.

In addition to training to identify potential pitfalls in requests, staffing firm employees would benefit from training on the tools to correct an issue before it becomes a problem.  At a minimum, staffing firm employees should be trained to eliminate questionable phrasing from any job posting or search materials and to fill the position with the most qualified candidate.  Even better, train and empower employees to appropriately counsel (and, where needed, correct) the client who presents a job requisition in less-than-ideal fashion.

Remedy 3: Management support.

Front line staffing employees will be better able to fulfill their duties with management support.  Staffing firm managers should remind their employees to take the extra time to look at how job requirements have been documented to ensure compliance with the letter and spirit of EEO laws.  Staffing firm managers also should lead by example,

Remedy 4:  Staffing agency / client partnership.

In addition to having and sharing a written policy, staffing firms should consider making an explicit statement about the important of equal employment opportunity in its contractual arrangements with clients, ensuring that jobs are filled by the best candidates, without regard to protected characteristics. Periodic reminders to clients will help reinforce this message.

Finally, staffing firms should approach equal employment opportunity matters as an area where their expertise can serve their own and their clients’ interests.  Avoiding potentially problematic requests, and addressing them with clients when questions arise, set up all concerned for future success when staffing.

gavel on white backgroundBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christopher J. DeGroff, and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth Synopsis:  A federal district court in Illinois recently granted the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment in EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 13-CV-4307 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2017), relative to two defenses advanced by an employer, including: (1) the EEOC’s claims were barred as beyond the scope of the charges of discrimination and investigation; and (2) the EEOC failed to satisfy its Title VII pre-suit duty to conciliate with the employer. The ruling should be required reading for any employer facing or engaged in litigation with the Commission.

***

An increasingly common issue in EEOC litigation against employers involves the scope of the Commission’s lawsuits as related to the charges of discrimination, as well as the EEOC’s conciliation efforts, or lack thereof.  In EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 13-CV-4307 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2017), the EEOC moved for partial summary judgment regarding two defenses enumerated by the defendant, Dolgencorp, LLC (“Dollar General”): (1) the EEOC’s claims were barred as beyond the scope of the charges of discrimination and investigation; and (2) the EEOC failed to satisfy its Title VII pre-suit duty to conciliate with the employer.  On April 10, 2017, Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment as to these defenses asserted by Dollar General.

As Judge Wood acknowledged, many courts across the country have embraced defenses asserted by employers relating to the sufficiency of the EEOC’s investigation.  However, this ruling demonstrates that not all courts may be as receptive to those arguments.

Case Background

Two former Dollar General employees filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC regarding Dollar General’s allegedly discriminatory use of criminal background checks in hiring and firing determinations.  Id. at 1.  The EEOC investigated and determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that Dollar General had engaged in employment discrimination on the basis of race. The parties then engaged in written and oral communications regarding the alleged discrimination, which did not result in a conciliation agreement acceptable to the EEOC.  Id. at 2.  Thereafter, the EEOC brought a lawsuit against Dollar General under Title VII.

Amongst its enumerated defenses, Dollar General asserted that the EEOC’s claims were barred as beyond the scope of the charges of discrimination and investigation (its 7th enumerated defense), and that the EEOC failed to satisfy the statutory precondition for bringing suit when it failed to conciliate with Dollar General (its 8th enumerated defense). The EEOC moved for partial summary judgment as to Dollar General’s two enumerated defenses.  Id. at 3. The EEOC contended that, on the undisputed facts, these two defenses failed as a matter of law.

The Court’s Decision

The Court granted the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding Dollar General’s two enumerated defenses.  Dollar General’s seventh enumerated defense relied upon two separate propositions: first, the EEOC’s claims were barred because they went beyond the claims delineated in the charges of discrimination that generated the EEOC’s lawsuit; and second, the EEOC’s claims were barred because the EEOC failed to investigate those claims adequately prior to bringing suit.  Id. at 4.  The Court rejected the first proposition, holding that when the EEOC files suit, it is not confined to claims typified by those of the charging party, and further, that any violations that the EEOC ascertains in the course of a reasonable investigation of the charging party’s complaint are actionable.  Id.  As to the second proposition, the Court similarly opined that the Seventh Circuit has held that if courts may not limit a suit by the EEOC to claims made in the administrative charge, they likewise cannot limit the suit to claims that are found to be supported by the evidence obtained in the Commission’s investigation.  Id.  Accordingly, the Court rejected Dollar General’s defenses insofar as it sought to dismiss the EEOC’s claims because they went beyond the charges of discrimination or because they were not subject to an adequate pre-suit investigation.  Id. at 4-5.

In addition, the Court addressed Dollar General’s eighth enumerated defense, which contended that the suit could not go forward because the EEOC did not satisfy its pre-suit statutory obligation to conciliate.  The EEOC sent two Letters of Determination to Dollar General that stated that the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that Dollar General engaged in discrimination in violation of Title VII because, through application of its background check policy, a class of African-American applicants and employees were not hired, not considered for employment, or discharged.  Dollar General argued that this notice of the charge was not specific enough because it failed to identify the persons allegedly harmed and to identify the allegedly discriminatory practice.

Rejecting Dollar General’s argument regarding the specificity of notice, the Court held that the EEOC’s letters clearly set forth that there were African-American applicants and employees who were harmed by the allegedly discriminatory practice.  Id. at 6.  Further, the Court opined that as the Seventh Circuit has explained, the sufficiency of the EEOC’s investigation was not a matter for the judiciary to second-guess.  Dollar General also argued that the EEOC failed to specifically describe the allegedly discriminatory practice, and that merely pointing to the background check policy was not sufficient.  The Court rejected this argument, holding that the EEOC’s notice was sufficient since it identified the two complainants and further put Dollar General on notice that the EEOC’s allegations related to African-American applicants and employees that were not hired, not considered for employment, or discharged due to failing a background check.  Id. at 8-9.

Finally, Dollar General contended that the EEOC’s conciliation discussions were inadequate because the EEOC did not provide Dollar General with an opportunity to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice.  Id. at 9.  Citing Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645, 1655-56 (2015) (which we analyzed here), the Court refused to examine the sufficiency of the EEOC’s investigation, noting it was beyond the scope of its review.  Id.  The Court thus rejected Dollar General’s argument that the EEOC did not adequately engage the employer in conciliation discussions.

Accordingly, the Court granted the EEOC motion for partial summary judgment on Dollar General’s seventh and eighth enumerated defenses.

Implications For Employers

While the Court did not find in the employer’s favor, other courts have routinely held the EEOC accountable in instances where it did not fulfill its pre-suit obligations.  With rulings such as this one, it can be expected that the EEOC will continue to test courts’ willingness to force the Commission to abide by its statutory duties under Title VII.  As such, employers should continue to be aggressive in attacking instances where the EEOC improperly expands its lawsuits beyond charges or fails to conciliate.

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

 

fingerprintBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Thomas E. Ahlering, and Alex W. Karasik 

Seyfarth SynopsisIn a class action alleging that the criminal background policy of Washington D.C.’s local transit authority had a disparate impact on African-Americans, a federal district court recently certified three classes of African-American employees and applicants despite the employer’s workforce being 75% African-American. The ruling – in Little v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 14-1289, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48637 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017), is a “must read” for employers that use hiring screens.

***

One of the hottest areas in workplace class actions involves criminal background checks used by employers.  On one end of the spectrum, employers want to be sure they are not subjecting their businesses, employees, and clients to any potential criminal conduct by their own workers.  On the other hand, many prospective employees with criminal backgrounds may have been adequately rehabilitated through the criminal justice system and merely need an opportunity to prove they can be counted on as an employee.  In Little v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 14-1289, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48637 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017), Plaintiffs alleged that a criminal background check policy used by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) to screen candidates and employees was facially neutral, but had a disparate impact on African-Americans.  After the Plaintiffs moved for class certification , Judge Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part and certified three classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4), finding that Plaintiffs had satisfied Rule 23’s requirements with respect to liability and the availability of injunctive or other declaratory relief, but that the proposed classes failed to meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because the case involved “more than just the individual determination of damages.”  Id. at *65. 

The Little ruling puts employers on notice that even if their workforce is predominately made up by one protected class, their criminal background policies can still be challenged as having a disparate impact on that class for purposes of class certification.

Case Background

WMATA, the primary public transit agency for the Washington D.C. metropolitan region, adopted its Policy 7.2.3 to govern how and when individuals with criminal convictions can obtain or continue employment with WMATA and its contractors and subcontractors.  Id. at *4-5.  Plaintiffs alleged that although the policy was facially neutral, it had a disparate impact on African-Americans.  WMATA argued that the policy was adopted as a business necessity.  Id. at *6.  Further, WMATA  argued that the make-up of its employee and contractor workforce, which included 12,000 individuals, was 75% African-American, thus demonstrating that no discrimination occurred.

Plaintiffs moved for certification of a hybrid Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) class, seeking both injunctive and individual monetary damages for the alleged discriminatory policy.  Id. at *16.  Alternatively, if the Court determined monetary damages were not suitable for class-wide determination, Plaintiffs proposed certification under Rule 23(b)(2) for liability and injunctive relief determinations and the application for Rule 23(c)(4) to allow the question of liability to be answered on a class-wide basis (but with individual hearings on damages owed to each specific class member).

The Court’s Decision

The Court held that certification was proper under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(c)(4) and certified three classes for a determination of liability and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), but withheld any individual damages determinations.  Id. at *46.  Beginning with its Rule 23(a) analysis, the Court first noted that as WMATA did not dispute Plaintiffs assertion that the overall class included over 1,000 individuals, and each subclass included at least 200, the Court found that Plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity requirement.  Further, the Court determined that Plaintiffs satisfied the commonality requirement since the policy at issue was mandated for non-discretionary application to all hiring decisions regard the class members, regardless of whether the candidates applied for positions with different contractors, subcontractors, or directly with the WMATA.  Id. at *50.  Regarding typicality, the Court concluded that the class representatives’ claims were typical of the class as they addressed each part of the policy with the exception of one policy appendix, for which Plaintiffs did not present a class representative.  Finally, regarding adequacy, the Court rejected WMATA’s argument that the proposed named Plaintiffs were inadequate because they lacked standing, noting the merits of their allegations were not to be considered as part of the class certification calculus.  Id. at *56-57.

Next, the Court analyzed Plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a hybrid Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) class.  WMATA argued that Plaintiffs failed to identify which parts of Policy 7.2.3 produced a disparate impact, and their failure to identify the particular challenged employment practice prohibited certification.  Noting that each appendix to the policy constituted a separate employment practice, and that Plaintiffs identified three appendices to the policy that allegedly had a disparate impact on African-Americans, the Court found that Plaintiffs satisfied their burden under Rule 23(b)(2).  Id. at *59-60. 

However, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to meet the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3) and therefore refused to certify the class for monetary damages.  Id. at *65-66.  Specifically, the Court reasoned that the case involved “more than just the individual determination of damages” – namely, the trier of fact must also determine, for each individual class member, whether that class member was not hired or fired due to the Policy 7.2.3., or for some other reason.  Accordingly, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified three classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(c)(4) with respect to liability and the availability of injunctive relief.

Implications For Employers

This ruling illustrates that even if a majority of an employer’s workforce is part of a protected class, an employer’s policies potential can still be considered to have a disparate impact on that class for purposes of Rule 23 class certification.  Plaintiffs will likely use this ruling in subsequent motions for class certification in class actions involving the disparate impact of criminal background policies.  As such, employers should be cognizant of the effect of its policies, and continue to ensure they are neutrally applied.

court-northern-district-of-iowaBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., John S. Marrese, and Christopher M. Cascino

Seyfarth Synopsis:  A group of female truck drivers sued their employer for policies allegedly resulting in a hostile work environment for and retaliation against women who complained of sexual harassment on the job.  Under Rules 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa certified both a hostile work environment class and retaliation class on issues relating to the employer’s liability.  Such certification was made possible by the drivers’ bifurcation proposal, which involved a representative trial on aspects of liability and individualized trials on remaining aspects of liability and damages.  Employers should take note that there is a trend among some federal courts to use Rule 23 in novel ways to certify classes of employees to avoid confronting issues that, traditionally, would preclude class certification.

***

Class actions are supposed to promote the efficiency and economy of litigation by allowing the claims of a group of individuals with the same claims to be decided in one proceeding.  Many claims brought in the employment context, such as hostile work environment and retaliation claims, are not amenable to class treatment, but some courts have taken an expansive reading of Rule 23 to allow certification of classes even when resolution of the class claims would not resolve the claims of the individual class members.  This is precisely what happened in Sellars v. CRST Expedited, Inc., No. 15-CV-117 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 30, 2017), where Chief Judge Leonard T. Strand of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa certified classes alleging hostile work environment and retaliation even though individualized trials would be required to establish remaining issues of liability and damages for each individual class member.

Case Background

Plaintiffs, three female truck drivers, brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act against their employer, CRST Expedited, Inc. (“CRST”).  Id. at 3.  CRST employs thousands of truck drivers on two-person teams, so that one driver can sleep while the other drives.  Id.  Plaintiffs alleged that CRST maintained patterns or practices of discrimination amounting to a hostile work environment and retaliation toward female drivers who reported sexual harassment.  Id.

Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that three practices of CRST created a hostile work environment, including: (a) failing to find a harassment complaint corroborated without an admission by the accused himself or a third-party’s eyewitness account; (b) failing to discipline male drivers even when a harassment complaint was corroborated; and (c) tolerating the failure of responsible employees to act promptly in the face of a harassment complaint and instead encouraging the accuser to keep driving with the accused.  Id. at 8-15.

Plaintiffs also alleged that three practices of CRST constituted retaliation against female drivers who reported harassment, including: (a) requiring an accuser to exit the truck upon complaining and thereby precluding her from earning wages by continuing to drive; (b) forcing accusers to cover transit and lodging costs after exiting the truck; and (c) extending student-driver training for those student-driver accusers who were forced to exit the truck after complaining of harassment. Id. at 13-18.

Based on evidence which included testimony from CRST employees and eight female drivers supporting the foregoing allegations, Plaintiffs moved for certification of two classes under Rule 23, including: (a) female drivers subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex (“Hostile Work Environment Class”); and (b) female drivers subjected to retaliation in response to complaints of sexual harassment (“Retaliation Class”).  Id. at 23-24.  Plaintiffs also moved to certify a California-only class of female drivers.  Id. at 24.

The Court’s Decision

In a lengthy opinion, Judge Strand certified the Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Classes only with respect to particular issues under Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule 23(c)(4), but denied certification of the California-only classes.

The Court’s decision to certify the classes depended heavily upon Plaintiffs’ proposal of bifurcating the case into two phases.  Id. at 28, 46.  Under Plaintiffs’ proposal, Phase I – the “liability” phase, as the Court characterized it – would determine whether CRST: (a) created or tolerated a hostile work environment; and (b) retaliated against women based on sex.  If such liability were established, each case would then proceed to Phase II to determine in individual trials whether: (a) each plaintiff subjectively believed the work environment to be hostile (a finding required to prove a hostile work environment claim and, therefore, a part of liability omitted from Phase I’s “liability” trial); and (b) damages.  Id. at 28, 40 n.15.

In finding that liability issues for the Hostile Work Environment Class satisfied Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court found that all three of Plaintiffs’ theories of discrimination provided common questions of law and fact which predominated over individual questions affecting the claim.  Id. at 27-39 & 43-48.  The Court emphasized that the fact that Plaintiffs would attempt to prove those theories through one-off accounts of individual employees did not preclude certification.  Id. at 35 (“Plaintiffs’ reliance on anecdotal evidence to establish a pattern or practice does not defeat commonality”) (citations omitted)).

In finding that liability issues for the Retaliation Class also satisfied Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ theory that CRST retaliated by requiring female drivers to exit the truck after complaining of harassment provided common questions of law and fact that  predominated over individual questions affecting the claim.  Id. at 36-37 & 43-48.  However, the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ two other theories of retaliation – forcing accusers to cover transit and lodging costs and extending student-driver training –  presented too many individualized questions for adjudication by representative evidence, even in a bifurcated trial.  Id. at 37-39.

The Court cited Rule 23(c)(4) in certifying the above classes, which allows a court to certify a class “with respect to particular issues,” as opposed to an entire claim.  Id. at 48. Nonetheless, the Court went on to consider Plaintiffs’ “alternative” request for certification under Rule 23(c)(4) in a separate portion of the opinion.  Id. at 50-52.

In addressing Rule 23(c)(4), the Court noted a circuit split as to whether a plaintiff must show that his entire claim satisfies the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) before certifying particular issues under Rule 23(c)(4), or whether a plaintiff need only show predominance with respect to the particular issue for certification under 23(c)(4).  Id. at 51-52.  The Court opined that while the Eighth Circuit has not yet decided the issue, the Court would follow the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits in certifying the sufficiently common issues presented by Plaintiffs despite the fact that Plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety did not merit certification.  Id. at 52.

Accordingly, as to the Hostile Work Environment Class, the Court certified the issues of whether CRST had any of the following policies, patterns or practices that create or contribute to a hostile work environment: (1) failing to find their complaints were corroborated without an eyewitness or admission; (2) failing to discipline drivers after complaints were corroborated; and (3) failing to discipline responsible employees for not promptly responding to sexual harassment complaints.  Id. at 55.  As to the Retaliation Class, the Court certified the issue of whether CRST has a policy, pattern, or practice of retaliating against women complaining of sexual harassment by requiring them to exit the truck after complaining.  Id.

In other parts of the opinion, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for hybrid certification of injunctive relief classes under Rule 23(b)(2). Id. at 49-50.  The Court also rejected CRST’s arguments against certification based on the Rules Enabling Act and Article III standing.  Id. at 52-54.

Implication For Employers

This case is part of a trend, post-Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), whereby courts have used Rule 23(c)(4) issue certification or an expansive view of Rule 23(b)(3) to sidestep individualized issues that would otherwise preclude certification.  In this case, the Court certified a class claim despite the fact that individual issues of liability as well as damages would remain in individual trials in Phase II under the bifurcation plan at issue.  The Court did not address in great detail whether such a hyper-segmented plan is likely to achieve the efficiency and fairness objectives the class action device was designed to achieve.  In circumstances like this, employers should emphasize the absence of such efficiency and fairness in defending against certification.