San Antonio Employment Law Blog : San Antonio Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Thomas Crane Law Firm : South Texas, Bexar County TX Wage & Discrimination Issues

The EEOC has been hit with another sanction of attorney's fees.  A court assessed $2.6 million in attorney's fees against the EEOC due to a lawsuit they filed which they lost.  See Workplace Prof blog post.  The EEOC had sought class action status in EEOC v. Cintas and lost.  Because the EEOC did not attempt conciliation prior to suit, the federal court dismissed the action.  See the court decision.  The court found that conciliation was required as part of the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.  

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has requires that when the EEOC finds "reasonable cause" to believe that discrimination has occurred, then the EEOC must attempt conciliation or settlement.  This requirement was an early attempt at lawsuit reform.  It requires that individuals bringing suit first attempt all non-lawsuit remedies first.  

In EEOC v. Cintas, the EEOC had been denied class action status.  It then sought a "pattern and practice" type allegation on behalf of thirteen individual women and was again re-buffed.  Responding to the employer's claim that it had not attempted conciliation, the EEOC argued that it did attempt conciliation against Cintas previously as part of its class action suit - which later failed. But, that conciliation apparently did not include these thirteen individual women.  So, yes, the EEOC attempted conciliation on behalf of a class of women, but apparently did not attempt conciliation on behalf of these thirteen ultimate plaintiffs.  This is an important distinction.  But, does this distinction make a difference?  Would Cintas have been any more receptive to conciliation if the plaintiffs were thirteen individual women, instead of a class of women?

As Workplace Prof points out, this decision and others like it are tying the EEOC's hands in regard to pursuing class actions or multiple plaintiff lawsuits.  The EEOC lacks the resources to represent individual plaintiffs.  They simply do not have enough lawyers.  So, they have been trying to focus on larger lawsuits, such as class action lawsuits and "pattern and practice" lawsuits.  This federal court decision will make it more difficult for the EEOC to focus on systemic cases.  We taxpayers will get less bang for our buck from this important federal agency.  And, Cintas skates after having been found reasonably likely to have discriminated against some women. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Employment class actions have been dealt a blow by the recent decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart.  You can look at the decision here.  The decision, as I understand it, finds a lack of "commonality" among the female plaintiffs because there is no one company policy that caused their discrimination.  The "policy" the plaintiffs were relying on was actually a lack of policy.  Wal-Mart lacked protections in place to keep local store managers from discriminating against women.  I have previosuly discussed this case here and here and here.  

Bu, as several lawyers have pointed out, the facts and evidence from Dukes v. Wal-Mart will surely continue in localized class actions.  Class actions can be any size from a handful of potential employees to thousands.  So, the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case will likely become several state and region class action lawsuits.  

Commentators talk about how this is the biggest employment decision in the last ten years.  Not to say it is not an important decision, but, really few of us plaintiff employment lawyers do class actions anyway.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 The very large Wal-Mart class action lawsuit is going to the US Supreme Court for review this week.  See CBS news report. The class involves 500,000 to 1.6 million potential plaintiffs. The suit alleges discrimination against women. The suit was initially filed ten years ago in California.  It was most recently the subject of an appeal at the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California.  Wal-Mart claims the class involves too many women in too many different positions at Wal-Mart.  If the members of the class are too different, then the class action fails.  The case is said to be the largest employment discrimination case ever.   Betty Dukes, Et Al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

I have written about this class action here and here.  It was a close 6-5 decision at the Ninth Circuit. In the midst of the appeals, a report was leaked showing Wal-Mart knew it had anti-female practices in place. A major law firm had prepared a report for Wal-Mart noting disparities in how women are hired and paid.  

Of course, to be a class action, the plaintiffs must show their claims are similar. Does the discrimination apply to all women? All female managers? Or, just female clerical employees? The plaintiffs are apparently trying to show the evidence applies to all female employees. If each individual claim is too small, then the employees would never obtain a lawyer willing to accept their case. 

The plaintiffs have several actual, named plaintiffs who include one female manager and one female greeter. In 2001, when the lawsuit was filed,  job openings were rarely posted.  In 2001, only 14% of store managers were women, while 80% of lower ranking employees were women. These numbers are strong, but statistical evidence in itself is rarely enough.  

The major issue appears to be does the plaintiff's evidence support such a broad class? Twenty other large corporations have filed friends of the court briefs, arguing against class certification.  If the best the plaintiffs could do at the relatively friendly Ninth Circuit is 6-5, then one must wonder about their chances at the relatively employer friendly US Supreme Court. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One would think that law firms would follow the law.  Well, sometimes, its is more the opposite.  A medium sized Ohio law firm is sued for wage violations in its office.  The firm pays salary to secretaries and never pays overtime.  Lazzaro Law Firm in Cleveland represents some 40 secretaries in a class action law suit filed in US district court.  The secretaries were classified as executive, even though none of them supervised other employees or performed any managerial work.  

Anthony Lazzaro, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said he doubted this particular firm is the only firm to commit this violation.  Lazzaro specializes in wage and hour cases.   As one lawyer commented, this is probably a failry common mistake in many businesses and law firms.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link