Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAMES W. MOELLER, Plaintiff, v. No. 19-cv-2330 (DLF) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION James Moeller, representing himself pro se, alleges that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissi

EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge: Following a six-day trial, a jury found that EmCare, Inc. (“EmCare”) terminated three employees in retaliation for complaining of sexual harassment in the workplace. The district court denied EmCare’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. EmCare' appeals the judgment with respect to one employee, Luke Trahan. Specifically, EmCare contends that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EE

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge. World-renowned poker expert Kenny Rogers once sagely advised, “You’ve got to know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold ‘em. Know when to walk away.”1 In the Title VII context, the plaintiff who wishes to avoid paying a defendant’s attorneys’ fees must fold ‘em once its case becomes so groundless that continuing to li

PER CURIAM: As we noted in our opinion, Texas v. EEOC, 827 F.3d 372, 382-83 (5th Cir. 2016), shortly before the opinion’s issuance the Supreme Court decided U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1807, 195 L.Ed.2d 77 (2016), which held in the context of the Clean Water Act that a jurisdictional determination (“JD”) is

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BADER FAMILY FOUNDATION Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-976 (JMC) v. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Bader Family Foundation (Bader) filed a Freedom of Information Act

JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge: A jury awarded the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") and Contrice Travis back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages after finding that Travis's employer, Exel, Inc., discriminated against her because of her sex. The discrimination occurred when Dave Harris, Travis's supervisor, denied her a promotion in favor of Michael Pooler, a male employee. After the verdict, Exel filed a

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Andrea R. Wood, United States District Judge This case concerns the allegedly discriminatory use of criminal background checks in hiring and firing determinations by Defendant Dolgencorp, LLC (“Dollar General”). After receiving charges of discrimination from two former Dollar General -employees, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) investigated and d

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I am not persuaded that this controversy meets Article Ill’s demand of ripeness, injury, and adversarial engagement. Nor am I persuaded that we have been called upon to review an action of the EEOC with sufficient finality to support our jurisdiction. Texas seeks to challenge an EEOC “Enforcement Guidance” document that the EEOC cannot enforce against it. This

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Thomas A. Varían, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This civil action is before the Court on the following motions: (1) plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Affirmative Defense Alleging the EEOC Failed to Conciliate in Good Faith [Doc. 24]; (2) defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 28]; (3) plaintiff and intervening plaintiffs (hereinaf

USCA11 Case: 21-13799 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 05/10/2023 Page: 1 of 30 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-13799 ____________________ EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Thomas A. Varían, CHIEF UNITED ■ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This civil action is before the Court on the following motions: (1) defendant’s Motion to Amend Judgment and Motion for Judgment as' a Matter of Law or, Alternatively, for New Trial [Doc. 159]; (2) plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (the “EEOC”) Motion for Permanent Inju

OPINION AND ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity' Commission has' filed this civil action against defendant Flambeau, Iric., alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, plaintiff contends that defendant violated 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A), which generally prohibits employers from requiring their employees to submit to medical examinations, by

J. PHIL GILBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on a variety of motions in this suit under Title I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC” or

JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: Catastrophe Management Solutions does not hire anyone, black or white, who uses an “excessive hairstyle! ],” a category that includes dreadlocks. So when Chastity Jones, a black woman, refused to remove her dreadlocks,’ CMS rescinded her employment offer. The EEOC sued on her behalf, claimi

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is investigating Aerotek, Inc., a staffing company, to determine if Aerotek or its clients are engaged in age-related employment discrimination. In the course of its ongoing investigation, the EEOC issued two administrative subpoenas to Aerotek seeking information regarding the company’s clients. Aerotek

ORDER REGARDING THE EEOC’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER VOIDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVISION Gordon P. Gallagher; United States Magistrate Judge This matter comes before the Court on the EEOC’s motion for an order voiding settlement agreement" provisions (ECF # 40)1 (which was referred to this Magistrate Judge (ECF # 41-)),2 Defendant’s re

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. On the merits, this Americans with Disabilities Act case would turn on the interplay between the ADA’s prohibition on involuntary medical examinations and its insurance safe-harbor provision. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(d)(4) and 12201(c). Defendant Flambeau, Inc. adopted an employee wellness program. It required its employees, as a condition of receiving emp

CONLEY, District Judge. Union Pacific Railroad challenges the legal authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to continue an enforcement action after issuing a right to sue letter and subsequent resolution of the underlying charges of discrimination in a private lawsuit. The EEOC petitioned the district court to enforce its subpoena for Union Pacific’s employment records related to these charges. After denying U

BAUER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), filed suit against AutoZone, Incorporated (“AutoZone”), for dismissing Margaret Zych (“Zych”) from AutoZone’s Cudahy, Wisconsin, location in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). Specifically, the EEOC alleged that AutoZone failed to accommodate Zych’s lifting restriction and

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge AGEE and Judge DIAZ joined. Judge AGEE wrote a separate concurring opinion. GREGORY, Circuit Judge: In 2001, Freeman began conducting background checks on its job applicants, *465which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleges had an unlawful disparate