Court Rejects the EEOC’s Novel Attempt to Impose Disparate Treatment Liability Without Any Injury

Court Rejects the EEOC’s Novel Attempt to Impose Disparate Treatment Liability Without Any Injury

In EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., Case No. 14-CV-5579 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2015), Judge Amy St. Eve of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and against the EEOC in a case in which the EEOC brought a disparate treatment discrimination suit on behalf of an individual who did not suffer an adverse employment action as a result of alleged discrimination.

Latest EEOC Discrimination Suit Targets Employment Exam

Latest EEOC Discrimination Suit Targets Employment Exam

For years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has taken the position that certain employment tests and screening procedures can serve to discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) when not “properly validated” as “job-related” and “consistent with business necessity” under the Uniform Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures (UGESP).

Court Awards the EEOC Attorneys’ Fees and Contempt Fines in Post-Judgment Discovery Dispute

Court Awards the EEOC Attorneys’ Fees and Contempt Fines in Post-Judgment Discovery Dispute

In EEOC v. Northern Star Hospitality, Inc., No. 12-CV-214 (W.D. Wis.), a case we have blogged about previously here, Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin imposed contempt sanctions on an employer for failure to cooperate in post-judgment discovery and granted the EEOC’s request for attorneys’ fees for the time it spent bringing the contempt motion.