We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc. et. al., Case No.
1:13-CV-215 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 21, 2015), a jury found in favor of
the EEOC in its claim brought under Title VII that the employer
denied an employee a religious accommodation involving an exemption
from using a biometric hand scanner. Prior to trial the parties
filed motions in limine concerning certain issues relating to
damages, which was held in abeyance pending trial. Id. at 1. Given
the EEOC's trial verdict, the Court then decided the motions
and what damages (other than compensatory which was awarded by the
jury) should be awarded. Id. at 2. For good measure, the Court also
entered a significant injunctive relief award.
The ruling ought to be required reading for any corporate
counsel and human resources professional dealing with EEOC
litigation issues.
The Court's Decision On Damages
With respect to monetary damages, the parties disagreed
concerning the level of back and front pay the Charging Party
should receive. Namely, the EEOC argued that the pension benefits
the Charging Party received should not be used as an off-set to any
back or front pay award as they are collateral (not paid directly
from and entirely by the employer, rather, by a third source).Id.
at 3. The collateral source rule provides that compensation from a
collateral source should be disregarded in assessing damages. The
employer argued that as the pension plan was 100% employer funded,
it is a non-collateral source, and as such, should off-set any
economic damages the Charging Party receives. Id. at 4.
The Court agreed with the EEOC and held that the pension
benefits are a collateral source as "there has been no
evidence that the fund is meant to be used as an indemnifying fund
for potential litigation that is not in an employer's
favor" and "there has been no evidence that the
applicable collective bargaining agreement contains a provision
contemplating a set-off of benefits received in a case such as the
one at hand." Id. at 7.
The employer also argued that the Charging Party's back and
front pay award should be limited as he failed to adequately
mitigate his damages. Id. at 11. Namely, that he failed to seek
similar employment in the coal mining industry (he only attended a
single job fair and didn't seek similar employment as he did
not want to lose his pension payments) and that he failed to apply
for available openings in the coal industry that he was
"likely aware." Id. at 12.
The Court found that the Charging Party reasonably mitigated his
damages given the limited available positions in the coal mining
industry, his personal economic circumstances (he had a wife and
two grandchildren to support at the time) and although he was
skilled in certain industries, he was limited by his education for
higher-paying jobs in his area as well as by his age. Id. at
18-20.
Given the Court's ruling on damages, it awarded the Charging
Party (before interest) $586,860.74 in economic damages. Id. at
39.
The Court's Decision On Injunctive Relief
The EEOC also sought a company-wide permanent injunction that
would dissolve after three years and prohibit the following: any
requirement or rule for the use of a biometric hand scanner will be
in conformity with Title VII as long as absent undue hardship on
the defendants; provide a complete exemption as an alternative for
persons who need such an exemption as a reasonable accommodation;
and provide training to all management personnel regarding Title
VII within 60 days of the injunction being entered. Id. at 25. In
support of its request, the EEOC argued that once a plaintiff
prevails in a Title VII case, "injunctions are presumptively
appropriate." Id.
The Court agreed with the EEOC and issued the permanent
injunction it sought as "defendants have not met their heavy
burden of proving that future discrimination will not occur."
Id. at 33. Although the Court noted that the employer had taken
steps to eradicate any discrimination, that is not enough to
warrant a denial of the injunction. Id. at 33. Furthermore, the
Court found the scope of the injunction reasonable as it targets
religious discrimination based on precedential case law and the
biometric hand scanning device – which was at issue in the
underlying lawsuit. Id. at 35.
Implications for Employers
This decision serves as a good primer on the factors that courts
will rely upon in determining what damages are available (and, even
if available, should be reduced). Although the Court ruled in favor
of the EEOC in this case, employer access to specific types of
claimant information can make a critical difference in mounting key
defenses, testing claimant credibility, and limiting available
damages.
Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog
here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In the latest chapter of the ongoing legal battle between the EEOC and delivery company CRST Van Expedited regarding the agency's sexual harassment claims...
This year, California, Illinois, and Nevada amended their non-compete statutes to help protect the right of employees to change employers. Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York...
California is oft thought of as a trailblazer in the arena of sexual harassment law. Because California's Fair Employment and Housing Act mirrors Title VII, practitioners and employers...
One of my at-will employees, angry about not receiving a promotion, just posted a photo and nasty rant on Instagram about a coworker who did receive a promotion.
When an employee seeks leave as an accommodation for a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the decision regarding whether to grant or deny the request can be challenging.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
