The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to give litigation authority to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) and provide for a General Counsel, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with responsibility for conducting the Commission's litigation program. Under a 1978 Presidential Reorganization Plan, approved by the Senate, enforcement of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) was transferred from the Department of Labor to the Commission, and the Commission’s General Counsel became responsible for litigation under those statutes. With the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (effective July 26, 1992) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) (effective November 21, 2009), the General Counsel became responsible for litigation under the employment provisions of those statutes (Title I of the ADA and Title II of GINA).

The mission of EEOC’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) is to conduct litigation on behalf of the Commission to obtain relief for victims of employment discrimination and ensure compliance with the statutes EEOC is charged with enforcing. Under Title VII, the ADA, and GINA, the Commission can sue nongovernmental employers with 15 or more employees. The Commission’s suit authority under the ADEA and the EPA includes both private and state and local governmental employers. Private employers must have 20 or more employees for ADEA coverage; there is no employee minimum for governmental employers. There is no employee minimum for EPA coverage, but for most private employers coverage requires $500,000 or more in annual business. Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the ADEA also cover labor organizations and employment agencies, and the EPA prohibits labor organizations from attempting to cause an employer to violate that statute. OGC also represents the Commission on administrative claims and litigation brought against the agency by its employees and applicants for employment.

B. Headquarters Programs and Functions

1. General Counsel

The General Counsel is responsible for managing and coordinating the Commission’s enforcement litigation program, and provides overall direction to all components of OGC, including district office legal units (see section C below). The General Counsel also provides reports to the Commission on litigation activities and, upon request, advises the EEOC Chair and Commissioners on agency policies and other matters affecting enforcement of the statutes within the Commission’s authority.

2. Deputy General Counsel

The Deputy General Counsel is responsible for overseeing all programmatic and administrative functions of OGC, including the litigation program and the litigation support budget allocated to OGC by the EEOC Chair. OGC functions are carried out through the operational program and service areas described below, which report to or through the Deputy.

3. Litigation Management Services

Litigation Management Services (LMS) oversees and supports the Commission's court enforcement program in the agency’s district offices. In conjunction with EEOC’s Office of Field Programs, LMS also oversees the integration of district office legal units with the offices’ investigative units. LMS provides direct litigation assistance to district office legal units, drafts guidance, develops training programs and materials, and collects and creates litigation practice materials. LMS also reviews litigation recommendations submitted by district offices. LMS reviews various other field litigation related matters, such as requests to contract for expert services and proposed resolutions in cases in which the General Counsel has retained settlement authority. LMS contains a unit that provides technical support to field offices in matters such as producing, receiving, and organizing electronically stored information in discovery, extracting and preserving digital media, and collecting and preserving information from social media sites.

4. Internal Litigation Services

Internal Litigation Services (ILS) represents the Commission and its officials on claims brought against the agency by its employees and applicants for employment, and advises the Commission and agency management on employment-related matters.

5. Appellate Litigation Services

Appellate Litigation Services (ALS) represents the Commission in the federal courts of appeals in all litigation where the agency is a party. ALS also participates as amicus curiae, as approved by the Commission, in federal courts of appeals, federal district courts, and state courts, in cases of interest to the Commission. ALS represents the Commission in the United States Supreme Court through the Department of Justice’s Office of the Solicitor General. ALS also makes recommendations to the Department of Justice in cases where the Department is defending other federal agencies on claims arising under the statutes the Commission enforces. ALS reviews EEOC policy materials, such as proposed regulations and enforcement guidance drafted by the Commission’s Office of Legal Counsel, prior to their issuance by the agency.

6. Research and Analytic Services

Research and Analytic Services (RAS) provides testifying and consulting expert services for EEOC cases in litigation. RAS also provides various forms of litigation-related assistance, including database construction, statistical analyses, and labor market determinations; drafting discovery requests regarding technical matters; review of employment tests and other selection procedures; and damages calculations. In addition, RAS performs analytic work in support of select charges during administrative investigations that involve complex analyses or large, complicated datasets. Other RAS activities include providing training to district office legal and investigative staff in RAS areas of expertise (e.g., economics, statistics, industrial organizational psychology), and representation of EEOC at various agency and interagency initiatives that involve analytic and data-related issues.

C. District Office Legal Units

District office legal units conduct Commission litigation in the geographic areas covered by the agency’s 15 district offices and provide legal advice and other support to district staff responsible for investigating charges of discrimination. In addition to the district office itself, OGC Trial Attorneys are stationed in most field, area, and local offices within districts. Legal units are under the direction of Regional Attorneys, who manage staffs consisting of Assistant Regional Attorneys, Supervisory Trial Attorneys, Trial Attorneys, Paralegals, and support personnel.

II. Fiscal Year 2022 Accomplishments

In fiscal year 2022, OGC filed 91 merits lawsuits and resolved 96, obtaining just under $40 million in monetary relief. Section A below contains summary statistical information on the fiscal year’s trial court litigation results (more detailed statistics appear in part III of the Annual Report). Sections B and C contain descriptions of selected district court resolutions, and Section D contains descriptions of selected appellate and amicus curiae resolutions.

A. Summary of District Court Litigation Activity

OGC filed 91 merits suits in FY 2022. Merits suits consist of direct suits and interventions alleging violations of the substantive provisions of the Commission’s statutes, and suits to enforce settlements reached during EEOC’s administrative process. All FY 2022 merits suits were direct actions. In addition to merits suits, OGC filed two actions to enforce subpoenas issued during EEOC charge investigations.

OGC’s FY 2022 merits suit filings had the following characteristics:

62 contained claims under Title VII (68.1%)
6 contained a claim under the EPA (6.6%)
7 contained claims under the ADEA (7.7%)
27 contained claims under the ADA (29.7%)
38 sought relief for multiple individuals (41.7%)

The above statutory claims exceed the number of suits filed (and percentages total over 100) because some cases contain claims under more than one statute. There were 11 of these “concurrent” suits (12.1%) among the FY 2022 filings.

OGC’s merits filings alleged violations covering a variety of bases: sex (45), retaliation (32), disability (27), race (17), national origin (6), EPA (6), age (6), and religion (3). The issues raised most frequently in EEOC suits were discharge (including constructive discharge) (58), harassment (39), hiring (21), and disability accommodation (15). At the end of FY 2022, EEOC had 177 merits cases on its active district court docket, of which 77 (43.5%) were class or systemic cases.

In FY 2022, EEOC filed 13 systemic lawsuits. Claims in these cases included: hiring and assignment based on race, national origin, and sex; hiring based on age; pay based on sex; and sexual harassment. At the end of FY 2022, 32 cases on EEOC’s active litigation docket were systemic suits, accounting for 18.1% of the 177 active merits suits.

OGC resolved 96 merits suits in FY 2022, recovering $39,746,956 for 1,461 individuals. OGC achieved a successful outcome (settlement or favorable judgment) in 94.8% of all suit resolutions. Suit resolutions had the following characteristics:

53 contained claims under Title VII (55.2%)
3 contained claims under the ADEA (3.1%)
34 contained claims under the ADA (35.4%)
31 cases sought relief for multiple individuals (32.3%)

The above statutory claims exceed the number of suits filed (and percentages total over 100) because cases sometimes contain claims under more than one statute. There were 6 of these “concurrent” suits (6.3%) among the FY 2022 resolutions.

Part III of the Annual Report contains detailed statistical information on OGC’s FY 2022 litigation activities, as well as summary information for past years.

B. Selected Systemic Resolutions

In FY 2022, the EEOC resolved 10 systemic suits, obtaining over $28 million for approximately 1,300 individuals and significant equitable relief. Below are some examples of FY 2022 systemic resolutions:

EEOC v. Chicago Meat Authority, Inc., No. 18-cv-1357 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2021)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that a Chicago, Illinois-based processor, packager, and shipper of beef, pork, and poultry products failed to hire African Americans into bargaining unit positions because of their race, used recruitment and hiring practices that had a disparate impact on African Americans, and subjected African American employees to racial harassment. African Americans were underrepresented at statically significant rates in butcher, operative, and laborer jobs, and defendant engaged in practices, such as relying on employee referrals and advertising on Spanish-language radio stations, that disproportionately excluded African American applicants. African Americans employees were subjected to racially offensive comments, including use of the n-word, and defendant failed to take corrective action. A 3-year consent decree provides $1.1 million to African Americans denied employment or subjected to racial harassment, and prohibits race discrimination in hiring into or termination from bargaining unit positions. When filling general labor or skilled labor positions, defendant will hire one individual from separate instatement lists provided by EEOC for every two individuals whom it hires from another source. After exhausting hiring from the instatement lists, defendant will exercise best efforts to meet hiring goals for African Americans of 50% for general labor positions and 43% for skilled labor positions.

EEOC v. Staffing Solutions of WNY, Inc., No 1:18-cv-00562 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII, ADA, ADEA case that a Buffalo, New York-based staffing firm that places individuals in mainly unskilled, clerical, industrial, and warehouse positions engaged in sex, race, age, and disability discrimination in hiring and placements, and retaliated against individuals for opposing the discrimination. Defendant rejected highly qualified African American applicants or placed them in the lowest paying, least desirable jobs; complied with clients’ race and sex preferences; rejected pregnant applicants and applicants over the age of 50; and asked pre-offer questions about injuries and medical conditions and rejected applicants considered disabled. Defendant discharged employees who complained about discriminatory practices. A 3-year consent decree provides $550,000: $475,000 in backpay and compensatory damages and $75,000 to an outside monitor identified in the decree. The decree enjoins failing to refer or offer jobs to applicants/employees due to race, sex or pregnancy, age, or disability; making pre-offer medical or disability-related inquiries; and retaliation.

EEOC v. American Freight Management Company, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00273 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 2, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that a Delaware-headquartered operator of discount warehouse-style furniture stores throughout the United States denied female applicants warehouse and sales positions because of their sex. Women were underrepresented at statistically significant rates in sales and warehouse positions. Defendant considered women “too much of a distraction to male employees,” and believed women were not capable of performing the warehouse lifting work and were not as good as men at selling furniture. A 3-year consent decree provides $1 million in backpay and $4 million in compensatory damages to unsuccessful female applicants for sales or warehouse positions. The decree enjoins sex discrimination against applicants and enjoins retaliation. Defendant will use best efforts to hire women for sales and warehouse positions at a rate equal to their applicant percentage during the preceding 12 months.

EEOC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc. and King.Com, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-07682 (C.D. Cal. March 29, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that related California-based businesses that create and distribute video games and other gaming-related content subjected female employees to sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination, and retaliated against employees for complaining about the discrimination. A 3-year consent decree provides $18 million to affected individuals, with EEOC determining eligibility and the amount and characterization of monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendants from sex discrimination and retaliation. Defendants will reclassify alleged retaliatory terminations as voluntary resignations, and will ensure terminated individuals are not prohibited from reemployment.

EEOC v. Coughlin, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00099 (D. Vt. June 16, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that a McDonald’s franchisee operating stores in Vermont and New Hampshire subjected male and female employees, many of whom were teens, to sexual harassment. A male second assistant manager subjected crew members of both sexes to sexually explicit comments, requests for sex, and offensive touching. Employees reported the assistant manager’s conduct to management to no avail. The assistant manager was finally terminated after an incident was captured on camera and reported to the sheriff’s department. A 5-year consent decree provides $1.6 million, including $125,000 to the State of Vermont, which intervened alleging violations of State law. The decree permanently enjoins defendant from sexual harassment and retaliation. Defendant will retain an independent EEO compliance monitor with duties detailed in the decree.

EEOC v. Willis Knighton Medical Center, No. 2:21-cv-01774 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2021)

EEOC alleged in this ADA lawsuit that a nonprofit medical center in Shreveport, Louisiana used qualification standards that screened out individuals with disabilities, failed to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities, and discharged individuals due to their disabilities. Defendant maintained policies that required employees to be 100% healed after reaching its 26-week caps on leave and light duty. A 3-year consent decree provides $450,000 in backpay and compensatory damages to affected individuals in amounts determined by EEOC. The decree enjoins denial of reasonable accommodations due to fixed limits on leave or light duty, and enjoins retaliation.

C. Other District Court Resolutions

Below are representative non-systemic FY 2022 resolutions:

EEOC v. Suisan Company. Ltd., No. 1:21-cv-00397 (D. Haw. Aug. 23, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that a Hawaii-based food distributor subjected an African American warehouse employee to a racially hostile work environment and retaliated against him for complaining. When the employee’s supervisor yelled racial slurs at him, including the n-word, he reported the conduct to management. Defendant investigated and confirmed the employee’s report; however, the manager who conducted the investigation told the employee he did not believe using the n-word was a problem, and used the term himself during their meeting. At a follow-up meeting with the employee, the manager and another supervisor both used the n-word and made derogatory comments about African Americans in general. The employee objected and was discharged the next day. A 2-year consent decree provides the former employee $90,000 in compensatory damages.

EEOC v. Neighborhood Restaurant Partners Florida, LLC d/b/a Applebee’s Restaurant, No. 8:21-cv-01931 (M.D. Fla. July 6, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that a franchisee of a national restaurant chain subjected an African American line cook at a restaurant in Plant City, Florida, to a hostile work environment due to his race and sex/sexual orientation, and retaliated against him for complaining of the harassment, causing his constructive discharge. Coworkers regularly made inappropriate jokes about the employee’s sexual orientation, and used sexually derogatory terms and the n-word toward him. The employee complained frequently, but managers characterized the coworkers’ conduct as joking, and told the employee to ignore it. After the restaurant manager learned the employee had contacted human resources, the employee’s shifts were substantially reduced, forcing him to resign. A 3-year consent decree provides the former employee $10,000 in backpay and $90,000 in compensatory damage. The decree prohibits making work assignments and reducing schedules and compensation based on race or sex/sexual orientation, enjoins harassment based on race or sex/sexual orientation, and enjoins retaliation.

EEOC v. LJS OpCo Two, LL d/b/a Long John Silver’s, No. 3:21-cv-00717 (S.D. Ill. March 16, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that a national owner/operator of fast-food seafood restaurants subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment and constructively discharged an employee in retaliation for her complaints about the harassment. The employee was hired at defendant’s Centralia, Illinois, location just prior to turning age 17. Two male shift managers in their mid-30s made explicit sexual comments to her and touched her intrusively. One manager sent her a video of himself masturbating and both managers sent her sexual messages by texts and through Facebook. The employee complained to the restaurant’s general manager and showed him the explicit text messages and the masturbation video. One of the harassing managers confronted her about complaining, and then reduced her hours, causing her to resign. A 2-year consent decree provides the former employee $170,000 in compensatory damages and $30,000 in attorney’s fees, and enjoins sexual harassment and retaliation.

EEOC v. Konos, Inc., d/b/a Vande Bunte Eggs, No. 1:20-cv-00973 (W.D. Mich. May 27, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII action that a Michigan-based egg producer subjected a female employee working as an egg inspector at a defendant facility to a sexually hostile work environment and retaliated against her for opposing the harassment. A male supervisor sent the employee texts soliciting sex, and touched and grabbed her in a sexually intrusive manner. The employee reported the supervisor to defendant officials and the police and the supervisor was criminally prosecuted, pleading no contest to 4^th degree criminal sexual conduct. Rather than address the employee’s complaint about the supervisor, defendant berated her and sent her home for going to the police. A 3-year consent decree provides the former employee $165,000 in compensatory and punitive damages and $10,000 in attorney’s fees to the Michigan Immigration Rights Center, which represented her. The decree prohibits sexual harassment, failing to address sexual harassment complaints, and retaliation.

EEOC v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-02939 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that a national provider of laboratory medical testing services refused to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and discharged her because of her religion. Following her hire as a phlebotomist in the patient services department of defendant’s Dallas, Texas, location, defendant accommodated the employee’s religious practice as a Seventh Day Adventist of not working on her Sabbath -- sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday -- by excusing her from work on its rotating Saturday schedule. Some months later, however, defendant told the employee it could not continue the accommodation due to the undue hardship it would place on other employees. The employee called out of work on the next five Saturdays for which she was scheduled and defendant then terminated her. A 3-year consent decree provides the former employee $90,000, split evenly between backpay and compensatory damages, and enjoins failing to accommodate employees whose religious beliefs prohibit working on the Sabbath and enjoins discharging employees due to such beliefs.

EEOC v. Noble House Sole, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-20754 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2021)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that a resort hotel in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, terminated a room attendant because of her religion. When the room attendant was hired, she told defendant she was a Seventh Day Adventist and her religion prohibited her from working on Saturdays. Defendant initially accommodated her, but about a year later a new director of housekeeping scheduled her to work on a Saturday. When the room attendant said that due to her religion she could not work on Saturdays, the director of housekeeping told her she “didn’t want to hear it.” After the room attendant failed to report for work on a Saturday, defendant discharged her. A 3-year consent decree provides $99,000 to the former employee. The decree requires defendant to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees.

EEOC v. Davis Automotive Group, Inc. t/a BMW Cleveland, No. 1:19-cv-02257 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2021)

EEOC alleged in this ADEA lawsuit that the operator of an automobile dealership in Solon, Ohio, denied hire to one individual because of her age and discharged two employees because of their ages. At the recommendation of her former supervisor, a former dealership employee, age 52, applied to be the manager of defendant’s newly created call center. Defendant instead hired a person age 32 for the position. The two oldest client advisors in defendant’s sales department, ages 67 and 70, were discharged after being told in the presence of managers that they were too old to relate to millennial customers, too set in their ways, and too old to do their jobs. A 2-year consent decree provides $390,000 in backpay and liquidated damages to the three individuals in amounts determined by EEOC, and enjoins age discrimination.

EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Texas, LLC., No. 4:18-cv-03407 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2021)

EEOC alleged in this ADA lawsuit that a multinational retailer refused to hire an applicant born without a right forearm because of her actual or perceived disability. The applicant was interviewed for a stocker position at defendant’s Conroe, Texas, store. Despite her experience performing similar duties at a prior employer, the assistant manager who interviewed her told her she could not do the job due to her arm impairment, and said he would contact her if a more suitable position arose. A 2-year consent decree provides the applicant $70,000 split equally between backpay and compensatory damages. Defendant will provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees with disabilities and train hiring officials to refer applicants for interviews without regard to disability.

EEOC v. Ranew’s Management Company, Inc., Ranew’s Truck & Equipment Company, LLC, Ranew’s Fleet Service, LLC, Inc., Ranew’s Outdoor Equipment, Inc., Ranew’s Companies, LLC, and Ranew’s Well Services Division, LLC, No. 5:21-cv-00443 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 14, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this ADA lawsuit that Georgia-headquartered providers of fabrication, assembly, and logistic services, operating as an integrated enterprise, discharged their chief financial officer because of his disability or because it regarded him as disabled. The chief financial officer was diagnosed with major depression and asked defendants’ CEO for medical leave recommended by his doctor. The CEO told him to take whatever time he needed, but when six weeks later he presented a doctor’s note releasing him to work, the CEO told him couldn’t trust him to do accounting work if he had a depressive episode, and then terminated him. A 1-year consent decree provides $250,000 to the former chief financial officer, who intervened, and prohibits denying disabled employees reasonable accommodations and discharging employees due to disabilities.

EEOC v. Heart of CarDon, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-998 (S.D. Ind. March 25, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this ADA lawsuit that an operator of long-term care and assisted living facilities denied a certified nursing assistant employed at its Pendleton, Indiana, facility a reasonable accommodation for her disability, resulting in her discharge. Due to an on-the-job injury to her rotator cuff, spinal column, and neck, the employee had a 10-pound lifting restriction on her left arm and was therefore unable to continue in her current position. Defendant initially accommodated her with temporary light duty, including working as a receptionist. After learning that her 10-pound lifting restriction was permanent, defendant removed her from the schedule and gave her 30 days to find and apply for a permanent job within her restrictions. Defendant denied the employee a transfer to a vacant receptionist job she was able to perform, failed to assist her in finding other positions for which she was qualified, and then terminated her when she was unable to find another position. An 18-month consent decree provides the former employee $65,000 in backpay and $50,000 in compensatory damages. The decree enjoins failing to provide the reasonable accommodation of transfer to a vacant position within an hour commute to an employee with a disability who is qualified for the vacant job.

EEOC v. CampusPoint Corp. and Viewpoint, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-01429 (D. Ore. June 3, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this ADA lawsuit that CampusPoint, a staffing agency headquartered in Seattle, Washington, and Viewpoint, a Portland, Oregon-headquartered software developer, acting as joint employers, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to a hearing impaired applicant, and denied him a job because of his disability or need for accommodation if hired. CampusPoint referred the applicant for a product and pricing analyst position at Viewpoint. Viewpoint’s hiring official interviewed him through a video relay service and referred him for a group interview. Neither defendant would pay the cost of an ASL interpreter for the group interview, and Viewpoint assumed, incorrectly, that the applicant would need a full-time interpreter if hired.

A 4-year consent decree provides the applicant $22,000 in backpay and $203,000 in compensatory damages, each defendant paying half. The decree enjoins defendant from disability discrimination in hiring and from failing to provide reasonable accommodations to applicants.

EEOC v. Clean Harbors Industrial Services, Co., No. 4:22-cv-03304 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2022)

EEOC alleged in this ADA lawsuit that a La Porte, Texas, provider of industrial waste management services withdrew an offer of employment to an applicant because of his record of a disability or his perceived disability. The applicant had a history of opioid dependence and took prescription suboxone as part of a medically supervised treatment program. He was hired for an environmental technician II job responsible for hazardous waste cleanup, site-remediation, and equipment decontamination, contingent on passing a drug screen. The applicant’s drug screen showed the presence of suboxone. His treating physician completed a form indicating the applicant’s medication was prescribed for an impairment and that he could perform safety-sensitive work without restrictions. Despite this, defendant rescinded the job offer. A 2-year consent decree provides $71,320 in backpay, $19,180 in lost benefits, and $59,5000 in compensatory damages to the applicant, enjoins refusing to hire or withdrawing an offer of employment due to disability, and enjoins using the results of a post-offer medical examination or inquiry in a manner that violates the ADA.

D. Selected Decisions in Appellate and Amicus Cases

EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 38 F.4th 651 (7th Cir. 2022)

EEOC sought relief in this ADA case for an individual with serious hearing, visual, and intellectual impairments who had worked as a cart attendant at a Wal-Mart store in Beloit, Wisconsin, for 16.5 years with the assistance of a Medicaid-paid job coach. A new store manager suspended the employee and required him to submit a renewed request for a reasonable accommodation. The employee submitted the request, but defendant took no action on it for eight months, and then did not permit the employee to return to work. A jury determined that defendant had failed to reasonably accommodate the employee and had discharged him due to his disabilities, awarding him $200,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages (reduced to $100,000 to comply with the statutory$300,000 damages cap).

On defendant’s appeal, the Seventh Circuit found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude the employee was able to perform all essential functions of the cart attendant position. The court next rejected defendant’s argument that a full-time job coach is an unreasonable accommodation as a matter of law. Given that Medicaid rather than defendant paid for the employee’s job coach, the court declined to consider whether an employer would ever be required to pay twice for the same work. Last, the court rejected defendant’s argument that punitive damages were unavailable because EEOC’s theory that a permanent, full-time job coach could be a reasonable accommodation was “novel or otherwise poorly recognized.” The court said that because the definition of reasonable accommodation turns on fact-specific circumstances, defendant was on notice that a jury could find a full-time job coach to be a reasonable accommodation if the coach did not perform the essential functions of the employee’s position.

EEOC v. Ryan’s Pointe Houston, L.L.C., No. 19-20656, 2022 WL 4494148 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2022) (unpublished)

EEOC alleged in this Title VII suit that a Houston, Texas, apartment complex and its management entity fired their property manager because of her Mexican national origin and her pregnancy. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, and on EEOC’s appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed. The court of appeals found that EEOC had produced direct evidence of national origin discrimination in the form of explicit biased comments by individuals with authority over the property manager’s termination. The remarks included complaints that office staff were all Mexicans, statements about “changing the demographics” of the staff and preferring a white staff, and directions to the property manager’s supervisor to replace her with a higher class of individual with “the look of Ken and Barbie” (which the supervisor understood to mean someone “petite, attractive, young[,] and Caucasian”). The court also found that EEOC had produced sufficient circumstantial evidence of pregnancy discrimination to present a jury question. This included the property manager’s supervisor encouraging her to get an abortion because her “job was taking off.”

EEOC v. Cash Depot, Ltd., No. 21-20515, 2022 WL 3644186 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2022) (unpublished)

EEOC alleged in this ADA case that a business that installs and services ATM and air/vacuum machines failed to reasonably accommodate the disability of a field service technician for its Houston, Texas, region when he sought to return to work after recovering from a stroke, and alleged that it terminated him because of his disability. The employee notified human resources that he was medically cleared to return to his job, subject only to a temporary 25-pound lifting restriction. Defendant, however, placed the employee on unpaid leave, hired a replacement, and then fired him, without exploring or offering an accommodation. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant, and the Fifth Circuit reversed. The court said that EEOC did not have to prove its case at the summary judgment stage; rather, defendant had the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact existed. The district court had characterized the employee’s testimony about how he could and did perform the essential functions of his job as “speculation.” Rejecting this finding, the court of appeals said the employee “was testifying as to what he actually did on that job on a daily basis,” which was supported by his doctors and by defendant’s job description. The court also held that the district court erred in giving deference, rather than just consideration, to defendant’s judgment on what were essential job functions.

Chambers v. District of Columbia, 35 F.4th 870 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (en banc)

The female plaintiff in this Title VII case alleged she was denied lateral transfers in the District of Columbia’s Office of Attorney General because of her sex. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant based on the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1999), which held that denial or forced acceptance of a job transfer is actionable under Title VII only if the plaintiff can show she suffered “objectively tangible harm.” On appeal, a panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed, but the court granted rehearing en banc to reconsider Brown. The Department of Justice and EEOC filed an amicus curiae brief asking the court to revisit and reject Brown’s “objectively tangible harm” standard.

The en banc court overruled Brown, concluding that transfer denials on a basis prohibited by Title VII constitute discrimination with respect to “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” under section 703(a)(1) of the statute. The court emphasized the breadth of that language and of the word “discriminate,” and said that any judicial gloss – such as “objective tangible harm” -- lacked textual support. The court noted the possibility of an implicit exclusion of de minimis harms, but declined to decide that issue because the plaintiff’s allegations “easily surmount[ed] this bar.” The court also said that limitations on the scope of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision to “materially adverse actions” have no bearing on the antidiscrimination provision’s reach because the two provisions have different textual bases and different objectives. The court said the anti-retaliation provision’s terms are broader, encompassing nonemployment-related actions, and for this reason, the Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), applied the material-adversity standard as a limiting principle on retaliation claims. But the court of appeals said the statute’s antidiscrimination provision is sufficiently limited by its text. Because Brown ignored the statutory text in favor of policy concerns, and Burlington Northern fatally weakened Brown’s conceptual underpinnings, the en banc court concluded it was justified in overruling Brown.

Patterson v. Georgia Pacific, LLC, 38 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2022)

The plaintiff in this Title VII action was a human resources official at defendant’s cellulose mill in Perdue Hill, Alabama, who alleged she was terminated in retaliation for giving deposition testimony in a pregnancy discrimination suit other individuals had filed against her previous employer. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant based on its determination that the plaintiff had not engaged in protected activity under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. The district court applied the “manager rule,” a judicially created doctrine that originated in Fair Labor Standards Act cases and holds that actions human resources officials take in the course of performing their job duties cannot qualify as protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim under that statute. EEOC filed an amicus curiae brief arguing both that the manager rule should not apply in Title VII cases, and that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision protects employees against retaliation for actions taken against prior employers as well as current ones.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed. Echoing many of EEOC’s arguments, the court rejected application of the manager rule in the Title VII context, saying the rule had no basis in the text of either of the anti-retaliation provision’s clauses. The court acknowledged that it had applied the manager rule in a Title VII action, Brush v. Sears Holdings Corp., 466 F. App’x 781 (11th Cir. 2012), but concluded that nothing in that unpublished opinion convinced it that the manager exception was a viable rule of law. The court also rejected defendant’s argument that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision does not protect opposition to a prior employer’s unlawful employment practice, saying that “[a] former employer’s unlawful employment practice is just as much an unlawful employment practice as one of a current employer.”

Gosby v. Apache Industrial Services, Inc., 30 F.4th 523 (5th Cir. 2022)

In this ADA case, the plaintiff, who has diabetes, worked as a scaffold helper at a defendant construction site in Beaumont, Texas. A month after she started, and six days after experiencing a low blood-sugar incident at work, she was laid off in a reduction in force (RIF). She had expected the job to last about six months. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant, finding that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case. In assessing whether plaintiff’s disability and her termination were causally linked, the court attributed little weight to the short time between her diabetic incident and the layoff because the job was supposed to last only six months. The court also found that the RIF constituted a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for the plaintiff’s layoff. EEOC filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the district court wrongly rejected evidence that a six-day temporal proximity could show the requisite causal connection for a prima facie case, explaining that the relevance of such evidence depends on multiple contextual factors, including the relative time span between a triggering event and an adverse employment action vis-à-vis how much longer the plaintiff expected to continue working.

The Fifth Circuit reversed. As EEOC had argued, the court emphasized the fact-specific nature of the causation inquiry, saying that the plaintiff’s termination occurred immediately after an event that highlighted her ADA-protected disability. The court said that defendant was free to show there were other reasons that plaintiff’s position ended when it did, but that “[t]he proximity of her diabetic episode on the job and her termination was sufficient to constitute a prima facie case.” The court also found the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence to show that defendant’s RIF explanation was pretextual – defendant’s changing reasons for the RIF and its failure to provide evidence that it used fixed criteria to evaluate both terminated and retained employees.

III. Litigation Statistics

A. Overview of Suits Filed

In FY 2022, EEOC’s field legal units filed 91 merits lawsuits. Merits suits include direct suits and interventions alleging violations of the substantive provisions of the Commission’s statutes, and suits to enforce settlements reached during EEOC’s administrative process. All FY 2022 filings were direct suits alleging substantive violations. Thirteen filings were systemic suits, and 25 were non-systemic suits that sought relief for multiple individuals. The field legal units also filed two actions during the fiscal year to enforce subpoenas issued during administrative charge investigations.

1. Filing Authority

In EEOC's National Enforcement Plan, adopted in February 1996 and reaffirmed in the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2018-2022, the Commission delegated litigation filing authority to the General Counsel in all but a few areas. Early in FY 2021, the Commission instituted a process in which all district office litigation recommendations are reviewed by the EEOC Commissioners for a 5-day period to determine which recommendations require a vote by the Commission. The chart below shows the number of suits filed during FY 2022 that were authorized by the General Counsel and the number approved by a Commission vote.

FY 2022 Suit Authority

	Count	Percent of Suits
General Counsel	65	71.4%
Commission	26	28.6%

2. Statutes Invoked

Of the 91 merits suits filed, 68.1% contained Title VII claims, 29.7% contained ADA claims, 7.7% contained ADEA claims, 6.6% contained EPA claims, and 12.1% were filed under more than one statute. (Statute numbers in the chart below exceed the number of suits filed and percentages total over 100 because suits filed under multiple statutes (“concurrent” cases) are included in the totals of suits filed under each of the statutes.)

Merit Filings in FY 2022 by Statute

	Count	Percent of Suits
Title VII	62	68.1%
ADA	27	29.7%
ADEA	7	7.7%
EPA	6	6.6%
Concurrent	11	12.1%

3. Bases Alleged

As shown in the next chart, sex (49.5%), retaliation (35.2%), disability (29.7%), and race (18.7%) were the most frequently alleged discriminatory bases in EEOC suits. Bases numbers in the chart exceed the total suit filings because suits often contain multiple bases.

FY 2022 Bases Alleged in Suits Filed

	Count	Percent of Suits
Sex	45	49.5%
Retaliation	32	35.2%
Disability	27	29.7%
Race	17	18.7%
Equal Pay	6	6.6%
National Origin	6	6.6%
Age	6	6.6%
Religion	3	3.3%
Color	1	1.1%

4. Issues Alleged

As shown in the chart below, discharge was by far the most frequently alleged issue (63.7%) in EEOC suits filed, followed by harassment (42.8%), hiring (23.1%), disability accommodation (16.5%), and terms and conditions (15.4%). (Counts of discharge include constructive discharge and layoff.)

FY 2022 Issues Alleged in Suits Filed

	Count	Percent of Suits
Discharge	58	63.7%
Harassment	39	42.8%
Hiring	17	23.1%
Disability Accommodation	15	16.5%
Terms/Conditions	14	15.4%
Wages	9	9.9%
Discipline	4	4.4%
Assignment	3	3.3%
Religious Accommodation	3	3.3%
Recordkeeping Violation	2	2.2%
Prohibited Med. Inq./Exam	1	1.1%

B. Suits Filed by Bases and Issues

1. Sex Discrimination

As shown below, 57.8 of sex discrimination claims contained a discharge allegation and 53.3% contained a harassment allegation.

Sex Discrimination Issues

	Count	Percent
Discharge	26	57.8%
Harassment	24	53.3%
Hiring	8	17.8%
Wages	6	13.3%
Terms/Conditions	4	8.9%
Assignment	2	4.4%

2. Race Discrimination

As shown in the next chart, harassment was the most frequent allegation (52.9%) in race discrimination claims; discharge was alleged in 41.2% of the claims.

Race Discrimination Issues

	Count	Percent
Harassment	9	52.9%
Discharge	7	41.2%
Wages	2	11.8%
Hiring	2	11.8%
Assignment	1	5.9%
Recordkeeping Violation	1	5.9%
Terms/Conditions	1	5.9%

3. National Origin Discrimination

Harassment was an allegation in four of the six national origin discrimination claims.

National Origin Discrimination Issues

	Count	Percent
Harassment	4	66.7%
Discharge	2	33.3%
Hiring	2	33.3%
Referral	1	16.7%

4. Religious Discrimination

Discharge and reasonable accommodation were allegations in all three of the religious discrimination claims.

Religious Discrimination Issues

	Count	Percent
Discharge	3	100.0%
Reasonable Accommodation	3	100.0%
Harassment	1	33.3%

5. Age Discrimination

Failure to hire was alleged in four of the six age discrimination claims.

Age Discrimination Issues

	Count	Percent
Hiring	4	66.7%
Discharge	2	33.3%

6. Disability Discrimination

Discharge (66.7%), failure to accommodate (55.6%), and hiring (25.9%) were the most frequent allegations in disability claims.

Disability Discrimination Issues

	Count	Percent
Discharge	18	66.7%
Reasonable Accommodation	15	55.6%
Hiring	7	25.9%
Prohibited Med. Inq./Exam	1	3.7%
Harassment	1	3.7%
Assignment	1	3.7%
Breach of Confidentiality	1	3.7%
Terms/Conditions	1	3.7%

7. Retaliation

Discharge was by far the most frequent allegation in retaliation claims.

Retaliation Discrimination Issues

	Count	Percent
Discharge	28	87.5%
Terms/Conditions	10	31.3%
Harassment	4	12.5%
Discipline	4	12.5%
Reasonable Accommodation	3	9.4%
Intimidation	2	6.3%
Waivers	1	3.1%
Wages	1	3.1%

C. Bases Alleged in Suits Filed from FY 2018 through FY 2022

The table below shows the bases on which EEOC suits were filed over the last 5 years.

FY	Sex-Female	Sex-Preg.	Sex-Male	Sex - LGBTQ	Race	Color	Nat’l Origin	Relig.	Disab.	Genetic Info.	Age	Retal.
2018	26.1%	9.5%	3.5%	1.0%	8.0%	0.5%	4.0%	4.5%	42.2%	0.0%	4.5%	25.6%
2019	29.2%	8.3%	4.9%	0.0%	11.1%	0.0%	2.8%	4.9%	36.8%	0.0%	4.2%	32.6%
2020	25.8%	9.7%	2.2%	2.1%	14.0%	1.1%	4.3%	5.4%	31.2%	0.0%	7.5%	28.0%
2021	33.6%	6.9%	3.4%	0.9%	17.2%	0.9%	4.3%	4.3%	34.5%	0.0%	2.6%	37.1%
2022	36.3%	6.6%	5.5%	1.1%	18.7%	1.1%	6.6%	3.3%	29.7%	0.0%	6.6%	35.2%

D. Suits Resolved

In FY 2022, the Office of General Counsel resolved 96 merits lawsuits, obtaining $39,746,956 in monetary relief for 1,461 individuals.

1. Types of Resolution

As the next chart indicates, 91.7% of EEOC’s suit resolutions were settlements, all by consent decree; 8.3% were determinations on the merits by courts or juries, five of eight of which were favorable to EEOC. (The figures on favorable and unfavorable court orders do not take appeals into account.)

FY 2022 Types of Resolutions

	Count	Percent
Consent Decree	88	91.7%
Unfavorable Court Order	5	5.2%
Favorable Court Order	3	3.1%
Total	96	100%

2. Monetary Relief by Statute

Of the 96 merits suits resolved, almost all contained Title VII or ADA claims. (Statute numbers in the chart below exceed the number of suits resolved and the percentages total over 100 because suits resolved under multiple statutes (“concurrent” cases) are also included in the totals of suits resolved under each statute.)

FY 2022 Resolutions by Statute

	Count	Percent Suits
Title VII	53	55.2%
ADA	34	35.4%
ADEA	3	3.1%
Concurrent	6	6.3%

As shown in the next chart, Title VII suits accounted for the great majority of the monetary relief obtained in FY 2022, while ADA suits accounted for about 10%. Recoveries in concurrent suits are not included in the totals for the particular statutes.

FY 2022 Monetary Relief by Statute (rounded)

	Relief (millions)	Relief (percent)
Title VII	$34.0	85.7%
ADA	$4.0	9.9%
ADEA	$0.7	1.8%
Concurrent	$1.0	2.6%
Total	$39.7	100%

E. Appellate Activity

OGC filed eight briefs on appeal in Commission cases in FY 2022, all as appellant, and filed 21 briefs as amicus curiae in private suits. Represented by the Solicitor General, EEOC filed one brief in response to a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. EEOC prevailed in three of four merits cases decided on appeal in FY 2022. At the end of FY 2022, EEOC had nine cases pending in courts of appeals in EEOC suits and was amicus curiae in 24 pending cases.

F. Attorney’s Fees Awards

In EEOC v. Imperial Pacific International LLC, No. 1:19-cv-00017 (N. Mar. I. Oct. 15, 2021), a sexual harassment (female) action against operators of gaming and resorts properties, the court granted EEOC $1,800 in attorney’s fees for a successful contempt action based on defendants’ failure to make payments to claimants under a consent decree entered in the case.

EEOC was not ordered to pay attorneys’ fees in any case.

G. Resources

1. Staffing

As shown in the next chart, the number of field attorneys slightly increased from last fiscal year.

OGC Staffing (On Board)

Year	Appellate Attorneys*	Field Attorneys*
2018	13	195
2019	13	175
2020	13	159
2021	12	175
2022	12	181

* Includes Supervisory Appellate Attorneys, Regional Attorneys, Assistant Regional Attorneys and Supervisory Trial Attorneys

2. Litigation Budget

EEOC’s litigation funding allocation for FY 2022 was much lower than in the four preceding years.

Litigation Support Funding (Millions)

FY	Funding
2018	$3.68
2019	$3.60
2020	$3.68
2021	$3.72
2022	$2.60

H. EEOC 10-Year Litigation History: FY 2013 through FY 2022

	FY13	FY14	FY15	FY16	FY17	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22
All Suits Filed	149	168	174	114	201	217	157	97	124	93
Merits Suits	131	133	142	86	184	199	144	93	116	91
Suits with Title VII Claims	77	77	83	46	107	111	87	59	71	62
Suits with ADA Claims	49	49	52	36	76	84	55	32	43	27
Suits with ADEA Claims	7	11	13	2	12	10	7	7	4	7
Suits with EPA Claims	5	2	7	5	11	5	7	1	3	6
Suits with GINA Claims	3	2	1	2	3	0	0	0	0	0
Suits filed under multiple statutes1	9	7	14	5	24	10	12	6	5	11
Subpoena and Preliminary Relief Actions	18	35	32	28	17	18	13	4	8	2
All Resolutions	228	144	193	171	125	156	180	175	141	100
Merits Suits	213	136	157	139	109	141	173	164	137	96
Suits with Title VII Claims	137	87	86	84	57	82	96	98	91	58
Suits with ADA Claims	60	47	64	48	48	55	78	57	40	39
Suits with ADEA Claims	17	11	12	12	3	10	6	11	10	5
Suits with EPA Claims	4	5	1	7	4	9	6	5	6	0
Suits with GINA Claims	1	1	1	4	1	1	0	1	0	0
Suits filed under multiple statutes	6	13	6	16	4	16	13	8	10	6
Subpoena and Preliminary Relief Actions	15	8	36	32	16	15	7	11	4	4
Monetary Benefits ($ in millions)2	39.0	22.5	65.3	52.2	42.3	53.6	39.1	106.2	33.8	39.7
Title VII	22.4	15.3	56.9	36.8	21.7	21.5	25.8	72.6	28.0	34.0
ADA	14.0	16.6	6.3	12.1	7.1	21.8	8.5	15.7	3.1	4.0
ADEA	2.1	8.4	.81	.94	12.1	3.9	0.9	16.3	1.2	0.7
EPA	.24	.56	0	.04	0.2	0.1	0.2	0.016	0.2	0.0
GINA	0	0	0	0	0.1	0	0	0	0	0.0
Suits filed under multiple statutes3	.24	6.5	1.3	2.3	1.1	6.3	3.7	1.5	1.3	1.0

1 Suits filed and resolved under multiple statutes are also included in the tally of suits filed under the particular statutes.

2 The sum of the statute benefits in some years will be different from total benefits for the year due to rounding.

3 Monetary benefits recovered in suits filed under multiple statutes are counted separately and are not included in the tally of suits filed under the particular statutes.

Breadcrumb

Office of General Counsel Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Report

I. Structure and Function of the Office of General Counsel

A. Mission of the Office of General Counsel