Office of General Counsel Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Report

Karla Gilbride

General Counsel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Structure and Function of the Office of General Counsel
   1. Mission of the Office of General Counsel
   2. Headquarters Programs and Functions
      1. General Counsel
      2. Deputy General Counsel
      3. Litigation Management Services
      4. Appellate Litigation Services
      5. Research and Analytic Services
      6. Internal Litigation Services
   3. District Office Legal Units
2. Fiscal Year 2024 Accomplishments
   1. Summary of District Court Litigation Activity
   2. Selected Systemic Resolutions
   3. Other District Court Resolutions
   4. Selected Decisions in Appellate and Amicus Cases
3. Litigation Statistics
   1. Overview of Suits Filed
      1. Filing Authority
      2. Statutes Invoked
      3. Bases Alleged
      4. Issues Alleged
   2. Suits Filed by Bases and Issues
      1. Sex Discrimination
      2. Race Discrimination
      3. National Origin Discrimination
      4. Religious Discrimination
      5. Age Discrimination
      6. Disability Discrimination
      7. Retaliation
   3. Bases Alleged in Suits Filed from FY 2020 through FY 2024
   4. Suits Resolved
      1. Types of Resolution
      2. Monetary Relief by Statute
   5. Appellate Activity
   6. Attorney’s Fees Awards
   7. Resources
      1. Staffing
      2. Litigation Budget
   8. EEOC 10-Year Litigation History: FY 2015 through FY 2024

I.  Structure and Function of the Office of General Counsel

A.  Mission of the Office of General Counsel

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 (Titles I and V of the ADA and Title II of GINA). Most recently, the General Counsel became responsible for litigation under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2022 (PWFA) (effective June 27, 2023).

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, GINA, and the PWFA, 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, the PWFA, 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 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 federal district 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, 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 and legal support to field offices in matters such as producing, receiving, and organizing electronically stored information in discovery.

4.  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.

5.  Research and Analytic Services

Research and Analytic Services (RAS) provides testifying and consulting expert services for EEOC cases in litigation. RAS also provides other forms of litigation-related assistance, including database construction, statistical analyses, and labor market determinations. In addition, RAS performs analytic work in support of select charges during administrative investigations that involve complex analyses or large, complicated datasets.

6.  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.

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 Assistant Regional Attorneys, Supervisory Trial Attorneys, Trial Attorneys, Paralegals, and support personnel.

II.  Fiscal Year 2024 Accomplishments

In FY 2024, OGC filed 111 merits lawsuits (110 employment discrimination lawsuits and one lawsuit challenging the breach of a conciliation agreement) and resolved 132 merits cases, obtaining over $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. For information regarding multi-year litigation statistics and multi-year selected district court resolutions, consult the litigation tables in EEOC Explore.

A.  Summary of District Court Litigation Activity

OGC filed 111 merits suits in FY 2024. Merits suits consist of direct suits, interventions alleging violations of the substantive provisions of the Commission’s statutes, and suits to enforce settlements reached during EEOC’s administrative process. In addition to merits suits, OGC filed 13 actions to enforce subpoenas issued during EEOC charge investigations and 18 actions to enforce EEO-1 Component 1 report filing obligations, including at least one in every agency district against employers that repeatedly failed to submit mandatory EEO-1 reports in prior years, including for reporting years 2021 and 2022.

OGC’s FY 2024 merits suit filings had the following characteristics:

• 66 contained claims under Title VII (59.5%)
• 48 contained claims under the ADA (43.2%)
• 7 contained claims under the ADEA (6.3%)
• 5 contained claims under the PWFA (4.5%)
• 2 contained claims under the EPA (1.8%)
• 2 contained claims under GINA (1.8%)
• 34 sought relief for multiple individuals (30.6%)

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 18 of these “concurrent” suits (16.2%) among the FY 2024 filings.

OGC’s merits suit filings alleged violations covering a variety of bases: sex (52), disability (48), retaliation (43), race (15), age (7), national origin (6), religion (3), equal pay (2), color (2), and genetic information (2). The issues raised most frequently in EEOC suits were discharge and/or constructive discharge (80), harassment (39), disability accommodation (32), hiring (21), and terms and conditions (10). At the end of FY 2024, EEOC had 205 merits cases on its active district court docket, of which 87 (42.4%) were class or systemic cases, with 45 (22%) of those being systemic cases.

In FY 2024, EEOC filed 13 systemic lawsuits. The suits included discharge claims based on retaliation, disability, age, and religion; hiring claims based on sex, race, color, disability, and national origin; reasonable accommodation claims based on disability and religion; terms and conditions claims based on disability, color, race, retaliation, sex, and genetic information; harassment claims based on race, sex, color, disability, and genetic information; discipline claims based on disability and retaliation; prohibited medical inquiry and/or exam claims based on disability and genetic information; assignment claims based on disability; disability claims based on unlawful application of a qualification standard; and an insurance benefits claim based on age.

OGC resolved 132 merits suits in FY 2024, recovering $40,399,978 for 4,304 individuals. OGC achieved a successful outcome (settlement or favorable judgment) in 128 (97%) of all suit resolutions. Suit resolutions had the following characteristics:

• 77 contained claims under Title VII (58.3%)
• 54 contained claims under the ADA (40.9%)
• 13 contained claims under the ADEA (9.8%)
• 2 contained claims under the EPA (1.5%)
• 3 contained claims under the GINA (2.3%)
• 44 cases sought relief for multiple individuals (33.3%)

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 17 of these “concurrent” suits (12.9%) among the FY 2024 resolutions.

Part III of the Annual Report contains detailed statistical information on OGC’s FY 2024 litigation activities, as well as summary information for past years.

B.  Selected Systemic Resolutions

In FY 2024, the EEOC resolved 16 systemic suits, obtaining over $23.9 million for approximately 4,074 individuals and significant equitable relief. Below are examples of FY 2024 systemic resolutions.

EEOC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., No. 1:10-cv-06139 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2024): The EEOC alleged that a package delivery service discriminated against a class of 83 Black delivery drivers with respect to terms and conditions of employment, in violation of Title VII. The discrimination included assigning Black drivers more dangerous and demanding routes and more arduous dock work, and segregating drivers based on race. The four-year consent decree provides $8.7 million to the aggrieved individuals, enjoins retaliation and segregation of employees based on race or on the racial demographics of the assigned delivery areas, and requires periodic reporting, annual training on race discrimination, and notice posting.

EEOC v. Radiant Servs Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-06517 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024 (BaronHr) & Aug. 6, 2024 (Radiant)): The EEOC alleged that defendant Radiant Services Corp., a commercial laundry, and BaronHR, a staffing agency, failed to hire a class of applicants because of race (Black, Asian, and white) and/or national origin (non-Hispanic), in violation of Title VII. EEOC also alleged that defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of sex segregation, hiring men exclusively for sorting and transport positions and women exclusively for folding and ironing work. EEOC also alleged that Baron HR failed to recruit, refer, and/or hire individuals with disabilities, in violation of the ADA. BaronHR is no longer in business. EEOC resolved its claims against BaronHR via a seven-year consent decree that provides for a $2.2 million settlement fund and enjoins BaronHR from discriminating on the bases of national origin, race, sex or disability and retaliation, should it resume operations. The five-year decree against Radiant Services provides $1.1 million in monetary relief and enjoins discrimination on the bases of national origin, race, sex, and retaliation. Radiant is required to provide annual training and remedial relief including establishing a recruitment plan to recruit Black, Asian, white, and other non-Hispanic workers into laborer and driver positions and to maintain applicant tracking information. Additionally, the decree requires semi-annual reporting and notice posting.

EEOC v. Sunshine Raisin Corp. d/b/a National Raisin Company and Real Time Staffing Services, LLC d/b/a Select Staffing, No.1:21-cv-01424 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2024 (National Raisin) & July 24, 2024 (Real Time Staffing)): In this Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a dried fruit manufacturer and a company that provides temporary and direct placement employment services subjected three Charging Parties and a class of mostly monolingual Spanish-speaking female agricultural production workers to sexual harassment, discharged one of the Charging Parties in retaliation for her complaint about being sexually harassed, and constructively discharged another Charging Party. Charging Parties and the class of aggrieved individuals were assigned to National Raisin by Select Staffing and were subjected to ongoing sexual harassment for years by a male National Raisin coworker. The harassment included groping and touching of private parts, kissing, inappropriate and unwelcome comments, requests for sex and dates, and intimidation and threats. Defendants ignored complaints about the male harasser for years. After one Charging Party complained about her treatment, she was removed from her assignment at National Raisin and not reassigned to another company. One Charging Party was constructively discharged due to the ongoing harassment. The three-year decree with National Raisin provides for $2 million in monetary relief, and the three-year consent decree with Real time Staffing provides for $500,000.

EEOC v. Lilly USA, LLC and Eli Lilly & Co., No. 1:22-1882 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2023): In this ADEA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a pharmaceutical company engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of refusing to hire individuals 40 years or older for the position of pharmaceutical sales representative because of age. In 2017, Lilly’s Senior Vice President for Human Resources and Diversity announced that, going forward, the company would have a goal of 40% “early career hiring” as part of an effort to increase the number of millennials in the company’s workforce. Thereafter, Lilly managers nationwide altered their hiring practices in favor of younger candidates for sales representative positions. The two-and-a-half-year consent decree provides for $2.4 million to 1,980 aggrieved individuals and enjoins rejecting applicants for sales representative positions because of age in the Diabetes and Obesity Business Unit.

EEOC v. National Telecommuting Inst., No. 5:23-cv-01210 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2024): In this ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a staffing agency and federal contractor that assists individuals with disabilities to find work-at-home jobs violated the ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to a class of blind and low-vision applicants as part of NTI’s pre-placement application process, unlawfully classifying individuals as disabled, and failing or refusing to place such applicants for employment because of their disabilities. The three-year consent decree provides $1.25 million to two Charging Parties and a class of 116 aggrieved individuals and enjoins refusing to provide individuals with disabilities access to defendant’s job board on the basis of their need to use assistive technology; segregating or classifying disabled applicants based on their use of assistive technology; failing to accommodate applicants who are disabled; and denying applicants who are disabled employment opportunities because of their need for reasonable accommodation. Under the decree, defendant will provide priority placement of or referral to aggrieved individuals with appropriate skills and qualifications for positions available. The decree requires annual ADA training, annual reporting, and notice posting.

EEOC v. Didlake, No. 8:23-cv-02618 (D. Md. June 28, 2024): In this ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a not-for-profit organization that connects individuals with disabilities with employment opportunities discriminated against three Charging Parties and a class of other deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals by failing to provide them with medical leave as a reasonable accommodation and terminating employees because of disability and in retaliation for their accommodation requests. Defendant also terminated employees who did not qualify for leave under the FMLA and required employees to certify that they had no restrictions when they sought to return from medical leave. The lawsuit also alleged defendant discriminated against deaf or hard-of-hearing maintenance and janitorial workers throughout the company by failing to provide effective communication-related reasonable accommodations. The five-year consent decree provides for $1,017,500 to Charging Parties and about 140 aggrieved individuals, enjoins disability discrimination, and requires revised policies, annual ADA training, reporting, and notice posting.

EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-01649 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 2023): In this ADA and GINA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that, since 2013, an operator of discount stores discriminated against a class of applicants seeking warehouse positions at a distribution center through post-offer, pre-employment medical examinations that screen out, or tend to screen out, individuals with disabilities. For example, Dollar General rescinded job offers to applicants whose blood pressure exceeded 160/100 or who had less than 20/50 vision in one eye, even when those impairments did not prevent them from safely performing the job. The lawsuit further alleged that defendant violated GINA by seeking genetic information as part of the post-offer medical exam during which applicants were required to divulge past and present medical conditions of family members, such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. In July 2022, the court held that EEOC had established, as a matter of law, that Dollar General’s hiring practices violated GINA. The consent decree, which will remain effective through December 2025, provides for $1 million to Charging Party and a class of almost 500 aggrieved individuals and enjoins disability and genetic information discrimination. Defendant has discontinued the use of the medical exam that led to EEOC’s lawsuit.

EEOC v. Smart Talent, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01102 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2024): In this Title VII case, the EEOC alleged that a staffing agency engaged in a pattern or practice of sex discrimination in hiring and job assignments, including unlawfully honoring customers’ preferences for men for certain openings. The three-year consent decree provides $875,000 to a class of approximately 1,060 female applicants. The decree enjoins engaging in sex discrimination in hiring and job assignment and requires Title VII training, investigating sex discrimination complaints, annual reporting, semiannual training, and notice posting.

EEOC v. Factor One Source Pharmacy, LLC a/k/a Factor One Source Specialty Pharmacy, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01572 (D. Colo. June 14, 2024): The EEOC alleged that a pharmacy providing specialized services to individuals with chronic medical conditions, such as HIV and hemophilia, violated the ADA and GINA when it inquired about employee disabilities and genetic information and pressured employees to use its pharmacy services. Defendant actively recruited people with hemophilia and unlawfully asked applicants about their hemophilia, their children’s hemophilia, and the medications they or their children take for hemophilia. To increase profits, defendant unlawfully pressured employees to use its services for the expensive medications needed to treat hemophilia. Employees who refused were fired, laid off or constructively discharged, while employees who used defendant for hemophilia medications kept their jobs. The two-year consent decree provides for $515,000 to four individuals and enjoins disability and genetic discrimination, and requires revised policies, annual ADA and GINA trainings, annual reporting, and notice posting.

EEOC v. Public Service Co. of New Mexico and PNMR Servs. Co., No. 1:23-cv-00848 (D.N.M. Oct. 3, 2023): In this ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that an electric company failed to accommodate qualified employees with disabilities, terminated employees because of their disabilities or because of the obligation to reasonably accommodate them, and retaliated against employees who sought reasonable accommodations or otherwise exercised their rights under the ADA. The lawsuit further alleged that the defendants’ 100% healed policy, fixed leave policy, and policy against using reassignment as a reasonable accommodation violated the ADA. The two-year decree provides for $750,000 to a class of 10 aggrieved individuals, injunctions against disability discrimination and retaliation, and revised employment policies to prevent discrimination based on disability, including rescinding defendants’ 100% healed policy, fixed leave policy, and policy against using reassignment as a reasonable accommodation. The decree requires annual training on processing reasonable accommodation requests.

EEOC v. Hospital Housekeeping Systems, No. 2:21-cv-02134 (D. Ark. Feb. 13, 2024): In this ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a provider of housekeeping services to hospitals discriminated against a class of disabled individuals, mainly employed in the housekeeping section, when it applied a qualification standard that screened out qualified disabled workers. Specifically, defendant required employees at hire and annually, or upon return from medical leave or after a workplace injury, to pass an Essential Functions Test (“EFT”), which allegedly measured the worker’s strength, flexibility, dexterity, ability to lift, balance, and mobility. Defendant refused to hire and terminated individuals who did not pass the test, even if the individuals could perform the essential functions of the job. The three-year consent decree provides $520,000 to 18 aggrieved individuals and enjoins terminating any employee for failing to pass the EFT and refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities during the administration of the EFT.

C.  Other District Court Resolutions

Below are selected non-systemic FY 2024 resolutions:

EEOC v. McLane Company, No. 5:20-cv-1528 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2024): The EEOC alleged that a supply chain services company violated the ADA by failing to interview and hire Charging Party, who is deaf, because of her disability. Charging Party applied for two warehouse positions, and, on the same day, defendant left a message for Charging Party about her applications. Charging Party returned defendant’s call using a Telecommunications Relay Service (“TRS”), which uses an operator to facilitate telephone calls between people with hearing or speech disabilities and others. During this call, defendant became aware of Charging Party’s disability. Although defendant indicated to Charging Party that someone would call her back to discuss the positions, the following day, defendant rejected her application and continued to seek employees. After a four-day trial, the jury found in favor of EEOC and awarded Charging Party $25,000 for lost wages and benefits, $150,000 for non-pecuniary compensatory damages, and $1.5 million in punitive damages, for a total of $1.675 million. In a post-trial ruling, the court reduced the combined compensatory and punitive damages to the statutory cap of $300,000 and awarded over $8,000 as additional compensation for the negative tax consequences of receiving lump sum backpay. The court also ordered extensive injunctive relief, including requiring two hours of live ADA training for all of defendant’s human resource and supervisory employees that will specifically cover the various ways hearing impaired individuals may communicate with defendant, including via TRS, or with the use of sign language interpreters, and that will include a mock TRS call and guidance on how to respond when such a call is received. The court also ordered that for two years defendant will report semi-annually to EEOC regarding any complaints of disability discrimination by employees or applicants.

EEOC v. Hatzel & Buehler. Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03093 (D.N.J. July 17, 2024): In this Title VII and ADEA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a commercial electrical contractor failed to hire Charging Party and a class of applicants 40 years of age or older because of their ages, subjected the class to discriminatory recruitment practices based on their age, and failed to retain and preserve records. EEOC also alleged that defendant refused to hire older applicants and job candidates for project manager and estimator positions at its New Jersey branch because of their ages. Evidence showed that the vice president of the New Jersey branches asked a recruiting company to seek out younger project manager and estimator candidates and refused to hire older candidates who did not fit within his preferred age range. Defendant also failed to retain job applicant and hiring-related records. The three-year consent decree provides for $500,000 to eight individuals and enjoins age discrimination. The decree also calls for ADEA training, reporting, and notice posting.

EEOC v. Gregg Orr Auto Collection, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00097 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2024): In this ADA and ADEA action, the EEOC alleged that an operator of automobile, marine, and RV dealerships terminated Charging Party, who was the company’s Vice President of Preowned Operations, because of his disability and age. EEOC alleged that defendant terminated Charging Party shortly after he turned 65 and took approximately one month of leave for cancer treatment, resulting in the termination of his health insurance. Defendant replaced Charging Party with an employee in his mid-30s. The two-year consent decree provides for $325,000 and enjoins defendant from age and disability discrimination. The decree requires revised policies prohibiting age and disability discrimination, annual training, semi-annual reporting, and notice posting.

EEOC v. Pilot Freight Services, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-03936 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 9, 2024): In this ADA lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that an international shipping and logistics company discriminated against Charging Party, a manager, by terminating his employment shortly after he was diagnosed with cancer. Soon after hire, Charging Party lost over 35 pounds, experienced swelling in his mouth, and began having difficulty speaking due to tumor growth in his mouth. Charging Party was diagnosed with cancer and informed his supervisors that, as a result of the biopsy of the growth in his mouth, he would need to see his doctor and undergo additional testing. Three days before Charging Party’s employer-provided health benefits were scheduled to start, defendant terminated him, claiming his job was being eliminated. Employees who were hired after Charging Party were retained, and Charging Party’s job was posted a few months later. The one-year consent decree provides $400,000 in compensatory damages and enjoins discrimination on the basis of disability and retaliation. The decree requires training, reporting, and notice posting.

EEOC v. J.A. Croson LLC, No. 5:22-cv-00435 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2024): In this Title VII action, the EEOC alleged that a plumbing and HVAC subcontractor subjected a class of Black and Hispanic employees to a hostile work environment based on race and national origin. EEOC alleged that company supervisors routinely used the n-slur and referred to Black and Hispanic employees in derogatory terms based on race and national origin. The company, which runs an apprenticeship program, also disproportionately assigned Black and Hispanic workers manual labor, which did not count as work credit for the apprenticeship program, effectively hindering their progress in the program. When the two Charging Parties complained to the company about the discrimination, one was terminated and the other was subjected to unwarranted disciplinary action, assigned less desirable work, and then terminated. The three-year consent decree requires defendant to pay $1.6 million to 17 employees and enjoins subjecting Black and Hispanic employees to racial and/or ethnic slurs or making job assignments based on race, and from taking retaliatory action against class members who participated in the lawsuit or assert their rights under the decree. The decree further requires revised anti-discrimination policies, annual harassment prevention training, investigator training, annual reporting, and notice posting.

EEOC v. Hank’s Furniture, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-24533 (N.D. Fla. July 18, 2024): In this Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a nationwide furniture retailer failed to provide Charging Party with a religious accommodation and discharged her. Charging Party worked as an assistant manager at a retail store. In July 2021, defendant imposed a Covid-19 vaccine mandate and asked all managers to immediately obtain the vaccination. Charging Party notified defendant that her religious beliefs precluded her from receiving the Covid-19 vaccination and asked for a religious exemption to the vaccine. Defendant ignored Charging Party’s requests, tried to pressure her into obtaining the vaccine, and disputed the validity of her sincerely-held religious beliefs before discharging her for not getting vaccinated. The three-year consent decree provides $110,000 to the Charging Party and enjoins religious discrimination and retaliation. Defendant will adopt and distribute policies stating it will not require employees who have asked for a religious accommodation to violate sincerely-held religious beliefs, absent undue hardship on the Defendant, and will revise its policies against discrimination and harassment to include procedures for requesting religious accommodation. The decree provides for notice posting and annual training on discrimination.

EEOC v. TCI of Alabama, LLC, No. 23-cv-1200 (N.D. Ala. May 16, 2024): The EEOC alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that an Alabama recycling, removal, disposal, and repair company terminated a management employee for his participation in an internal investigation about a charge filed with the EEOC. After a female job applicant filed a charge of discrimination with EEOC, defendant interviewed the manager about its hiring practices, and he stated that defendant had a practice of not hiring female laborers since it opened in 2007. After the manager refused to recant his statement, despite repeated pressure by defendant’s president, defendant terminated his employment. The three-year consent decree includes monetary damages of $90,000 and enjoins retaliation against applicants or employees for their participation in activity protected by Title VII. The consent decree also requires annual training and notice posting.

EEOC v. Dolgencorp., LLC d/b/a Dollar General, No. 6:21-cv-00295 (E.D. Okla. July 16, 2024): In this ADEA case, the EEOC alleged that a nationwide discount chain discriminated against and harassed a class of employees because of their ages and discharged and constructively discharged employees because of their ages. Defendant hired a new regional director who supervised 17 district managers. During his tenure, the regional director harassed district managers in their 50s by referring to them as “grumpy old men,” and telling them defendant needed “young blood,” that he was building a “millennial team,” and to quit or be fired. One district manager (age 55) quit and reported the harassment. Defendant investigated but failed to take any effective measures to stop the harassment. The regional director continued his harassment, leading to the discharges and constructive discharges of district managers (ages 56, 58, and 65). The 27-month consent decree provides for $295,000 to Charging Party and two other aggrieved individuals and enjoins age discrimination.

EEOC v. Walmart, Inc. and Walmart Stores East, LP, No. 1:22-cv-02596 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2024): The EEOC alleged that a national retailer violated the ADA when it revoked permission for Charging Party, a part-time sales associate, to use one of the store’s electric carts as a reasonable accommodation for his disability, forcing him to take unpaid leave. Charging Party is a congenital amputee who is substantially limited in standing, walking, and gripping. For approximately seven months, defendant allowed Charging Party to use one of its electric carts to perform some of his job duties, which included stocking shelves. Under a new manager, defendant claimed that the carts were for customer use only, but it continued to allow other employees to use them to accommodate temporary injuries. Defendant told Charging Party that he would have to provide his own electric cart, which was not feasible, or transfer to a self-checkout host position that Charging Party could not perform due to his disability. The two-year consent decree provides for $70,000, an offer of a part-time fitting room associate position at another location, and an injunction against disability discrimination.

EEOC v. TA Dedicated, Inc. d/b/a Transport America and TForce TL Holdings USA, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-1802 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 26, 2024): In this Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a trucking company subjected Charging Party and another employee, both gay men working as mechanics, to a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation and retaliated against them. The men were subjected to repeated harassment by their coworkers, including routine use of slurs based on their sexual orientation, unwelcome sexual innuendo, derogatory comments about gay people, physical violence, and unwanted touching. Charging Party reported the harassment to his manager, who told him not to report the conduct to human resources because the manager would take care of it, but the harassment continued. The second employee complained directly to human resources, but defendants failed to take corrective action. As a result of their complaints, the two men were subjected to increased harassment, including false allegations of touching their colleagues and destruction of personal property. After one employee gave notice of his resignation due to the conduct, defendants terminated him before the end of his notice period. The second employee was terminated after repeatedly pressing human resources to address the harassment. The three-year consent decree provides for $460,000 to the two employees and injunctions against sex discrimination and retaliation, and requires annual training, notice posting, and semi-annual reporting.

EEOC v. Pacific Culinary Group, Inc. and CB Foods, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-03018 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2024): In this Title VII action, the EEOC alleged that the chief operating officer of two Asian food companies sexually harassed male and female food production workers, some of whom have limited English proficiency. The harassment included frequent and offensive groping and touching, unwelcome sexual advances and comments about appearance, and inappropriate questions about employees’ sexual preferences and activities. Despite multiple complaints of sexual harassment, the defendants failed to take prompt and effective action, and the harassment continued. Employees who complained faced retaliation, including termination of their employment. The three-and-a-half-year consent decree requires defendants and their successor, JRC Culinary Group, Inc., to pay $245,000 in monetary relief to 14 class members and enjoins a hostile work environment based on sex and retaliation. Defendants will revise their discrimination policies and distribute them in English, Spanish, Chinese, and any other language commonly spoken by their workforce; offer multiple complaint reporting options; and provide separate trainings for non-managers and managers and human resources personnel, notice posting, and regular reporting.

EEOC v. Medsurant Holdings, LLC, Medsurant LLC, and Medsurant Operating, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00501 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 18, 2024): In this EPA and Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that a nationwide provider of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring services to hospitals and surgeons unlawfully paid a female intraoperative neurophysiology monitorist less than her similarly situated male colleagues. Monitorists monitor a patient’s central and peripheral nervous system during a surgical procedure. When Charging Party complained about the wage disparity, defendants subjected her to retaliatory discipline that put her under constant threat of termination, resulting in her constructive discharge. The three-year consent decree provides $80,000 to Charging Party and enjoins engaging in sex discrimination, including in the payment of wages, and retaliation. Defendants must develop and adopt a fair compensation policy, which will include provisions that employees are not prohibited from discussing their compensation and provide a process for requesting pay equity adjustments.

EEOC v. Liberty Energy, Inc., No. 7:23-cv-00100 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2024): In this Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that an energy industry service provider discriminated against one Black employee and two Hispanic employees because of their race and/or national origin by subjecting them to a hostile work environment and constructive discharge. The harassment included the regular use of racist taunts and epithets, including racial slurs, and workplace “pranks” directed at employees of color. All three employees complained about the harassment, but the company failed to take corrective action. One employee quit rather than continue to endure racial harassment. The two-year consent decree provides $265,000 for the three workers, a 1-800 number for reporting discrimination, annual training on Title VII, semi-annual reporting, and notice posting.

EEOC v. Savage River Lodge, LLC and Little Crossings, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-02510 (D. Md. Apr. 25, 2024): In this ADA and Title VII lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that operators of a resort discriminated against Charging Party, a guest services representative, when it terminated her shortly after she notified defendant that she had experienced a miscarriage and would need a few days off from work to recover. Prior to her miscarriage, Charging Party suffered from endometriosis. The two and one-half-year consent decree provides for $150,000 and an injunction against sex, pregnancy, and disability discrimination, and retaliation. The decree requires quarterly reporting, annual training on Title VII and the ADA, and notice posting.

D.  Selected Decisions in Appellate and Amicus Cases

In addition to its nationwide litigation program at the district court level, OGC represents the agency in federal courts of appeals, and participates as amicus curiae in private actions in federal courts of appeals and, on occasion, in federal district courts and state courts. Notable appellate and amicus decisions in FY 2024 include:

EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P, 113 F.4th 777 (7th Cir. 2024): The EEOC challenged Walmart’s decision to fire an employee with Down syndrome who had worked successfully at Walmart for 15 years, in violation of the ADA. The Charging Party relied on a fixed schedule that allowed her to take the same bus each day and get home for dinner at the same time each night, but Walmart unilaterally changed this schedule and then fired her due to resulting attendance infractions despite her repeated requests to return to her prior schedule. A jury agreed with EEOC that Walmart’s conduct violated the ADA and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The district court rejected Walmart’s post-judgment challenges to the jury’s verdict but denied almost all of EEOC’s requested injunctive relief. Walmart appealed, and EEOC cross-appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict and damages awards. The court upheld the jury’s award of compensatory damages ($150,000) and punitive damages ($125 million reduced to $150,000 to conform to the statutory cap). The appeals court also vacated and remanded for reconsideration the district court’s denial of injunctive relief.

EEOC v. Center One, LLC and Capital Management Services LP, Nos. 22-2943 & 22-2944, 2024 WL 379956 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2024): In this Title VII religious discrimination case, the Third Circuit granted the EEOC’s request to vacate summary judgment awarded to the defendant on EEOC’s claims that it discriminated against the Charging Party because it refused to accommodate his religious practice and constructively discharged him. The Charging Party’s Messianic Jewish faith required that he abstain from work on high holy days, which Center One marked as unexcused absences. The district court found it reasonable that Center One insisted on official clergy verification of the Charging Party’s religious practice, which he had been unable to provide. On appeal, the EEOC argued that the Charging Party suffered an adverse employment action when he was constructively discharged. The EEOC also argued that a reasonable jury could find Center One constructively discharged the Charging Party when it forced him to choose between observing his faith and keeping his job and that the district court erred when it found Center One’s insistence on official verification of his religious practice was reasonable. The Third Circuit agreed with EEOC and reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant. The court also noted that Center One’s insistence on official clergy verification was at odds with EEOC’s religious discrimination Guidance, as well as Third Circuit precedent.

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024): In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff alleging a discriminatory job transfer must, in addition to proving discrimination, show that the transfer caused her “some harm” with respect to the terms or conditions of her employment, but need not show that the harm was significant. In doing so, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General – appearing on behalf of the United States and the EEOC – that the Eighth Circuit’s requirement that a plaintiff show a materially significant disadvantage, as well as requirements from other circuits that impose varying degrees of a heightened harm requirement, is not in the statute’s text and is wrong. In requiring proof of “some harm” resulting from the transfer, the Court did not fully embrace the government’s position that differential treatment in and of itself is harmful. The Court underscored, however, that in rejecting a “significant,” “material,” or “serious” injury requirement, the Court was “lower[ing] the bar Title VII plaintiffs must meet.” And under the new standard the Court articulated, “many cases will come out differently.” The Court then held that the plaintiff’s transfer, which negatively impacted the prestige, level of responsibility, flexibility, and perks associated with her position, would easily clear the “some harm” hurdle. The Court acknowledged, though, that the parties disagreed regarding whether she preserved and could prove her allegations regarding the effects of her transfer and therefore vacated the Eighth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 23-cv-00770, 2024 WL 3409146 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2024): The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss this Title VII, ADA, and ADEA action. In his operative complaint, Derek Mobley alleged that Workday used algorithmic tools to screen and refer applicants and make automated hiring decisions on behalf of employers, and that these tools discriminated against him and others similarly situated based on race, disability, and age. In an amicus brief, EEOC argued that Mobley had alleged facts sufficient to support a reasonable inference that Workday is subject to Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA under three longstanding legal theories: as an employment agency, an indirect employer, or an agent of employers. The district court held that Mobley had plausibly alleged that Workday was potentially liable as an agent of employers and therefore declined to address whether Workday might also be an “employer” under an indirect employer theory. Consistent with EEOC’s arguments, the court reasoned that “under the plain language of the anti-discrimination statutes, as well as the case law interpreting their purpose and structure, a third-party agent may be liable as an employer where the agent has been delegated functions traditionally exercised by an employer.” Here, the court concluded, Mobley “plausibly allege[d] that Workday’s customers delegate traditional hiring functions, including rejecting applicants, to the algorithmic decision-making tools provided by Workday.” The court next held that Mobley had not plausibly alleged that Workday operated as an employment agency, finding that Mobley’s allegations that Workday “screens applicants” were “not sufficient to allege that Workday ‘procures’ employees, i.e., finds candidates for employers,” and there were “no factual allegations supporting that Workday recruits or solicits candidates.” EEOC took no position on any other issues, including the accuracy of Mobley’s allegations or the merits of his claims. The ruling left intact Mobley’s disparate impact claims under Title VII, the ADA, and ADEA to the extent they are based on an “agent of employer” theory.

Morgan v. Allison Crane & Rigging LLC, 114 F.4th 214 (3d Cir. 2024): In this ADA discrimination case, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that plaintiff Andrew Morgan’s back injury, which limited his lifting and bending for 48 days, could not, as a matter of law, constitute an actual disability. The court also held that Morgan’s impairment was transitory and minor and therefore could not support liability under the ADA “regarded-as” prong. EEOC’s amicus brief argued that the district court failed to apply the ADAAA’s relaxed standards for what constitutes a disability under the actual disability and “regarded as” prongs. EEOC also argued that a reasonable jury could find Morgan’s 48-day impairment constituted a disability under both definitions. EEOC asked the court to vacate and remand the district court’s summary judgment grant on Morgan’s ADA disparate treatment claim. The EEOC did not address any other issue. In a published opinion, the Third Circuit agreed with EEOC’s arguments. Joining the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits, the court precedentially held that “temporary impairments can qualify as an actual disability under the ADA.” Applying ADAAA standards, the court held that a jury could find Morgan’s general back pain was an actual disability. The court also held that Morgan’s generalized back pain was not minor and therefore qualified him for coverage under the “regarded-as” prong of the ADAAA’s definition of disability.

Ringhofer v. The Mayo Clinic et al., 102 F.4th 894 (8th Cir. 2024): In a published decision, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s entry of judgment for the employer in this Title VII case involving four plaintiffs’ religious accommodation claims arising from Covid-19 vaccine and testing requirements. The district court had granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, holding that the plaintiffs had not plausibly pled religious beliefs and that two plaintiffs had not notified their employer of the need for accommodation. The EEOC filed an amicus brief arguing that the district court erred in dismissing two plaintiffs’ accommodation claims involving the vaccination requirement. Those two plaintiffs alleged that they objected to the vaccination requirement because of their beliefs, rooted in their Christian faith, that they could not use products developed with fetal cell lines and that their bodies were temples to the Holy Spirit. EEOC described the inclusive standard for assessing religion under Title VII, particularly on a motion to dismiss, and argued those two plaintiffs’ claims should have survived because they had plausibly pled that their beliefs were religious and that they had provided notice to Mayo. The panel reversed the district court on all claims. Consistent with EEOC’s brief and citing EEOC’s Compliance Manual, the panel held that the plaintiffs seeking accommodations from the vaccination requirement had adequately pled religious beliefs conflicting with that requirement. The panel concluded that the district court had erred by picking apart the plaintiffs’ allegations to hold they were “personal” or “medical” without considering that “EEOC Guidance says . . . ‘overlap between a religious and political view does not place it outside the scope of Title VII’s religious protections, as long as the view is part of a comprehensive religious belief system.’” (quoting Compliance Manual § 12-I(A)(1)). Consistent with EEOC’s arguments, the panel ruled that the district court erred by emphasizing that not all Christians share the plaintiffs’ beliefs. In a footnote, the panel also held that the plaintiffs had adequately pled notice to Mayo when they alleged that they had completed and submitted Mayo’s religious exemption request forms. The EEOC did not address any other issue.

Sanders v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 108 F.4th 1055 (8th Cir. 2024): In this ADA action, Allan Sanders alleged that his former employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company, discriminated against him by (i) unreasonably imposing work restrictions based on its belief that he had a heart condition and (ii) refusing to let him take an alternative cardiovascular test as part of the fitness-for-duty evaluation that led to those restrictions. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Sanders on his disparate treatment and failure-to-accommodate claims, and the district court denied Union Pacific’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Union Pacific appealed. EEOC’s amicus brief addressed four issues: 1) the jury could have reasonably found that Union Pacific’s imposition of work restrictions based on Sanders’s perceived heart condition constituted discrimination “on the basis of” a disability; 2) the jury could have reasonably found that Union Pacific regarded Sanders as disabled because it perceived him as having a physical impairment (namely, a heart condition) and took an adverse action against him on that basis; 3) the jury could have reasonably found that Union Pacific failed to meet its burden to establish Sanders posed a direct threat to himself or others based on objective medical evidence; and 4) an alternative employment test can be a reasonable accommodation and the jury could have reasonably found that offering an alternative cardiovascular test would have been a reasonable accommodation here. In a published decision that largely tracked EEOC’s arguments, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that “a reasonable jury could conclude that the railroad regarded Sanders as being disabled” based on “evidence that Union Pacific perceived Sanders as having a heart impairment and restricted him from work on that basis.” The panel likewise held that Sanders “presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Union Pacific intentionally discriminated against him because of a perceived disability.” The panel also held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Union Pacific did not establish a direct-threat defense. Finally, the court held that Sanders presented sufficient evidence that Union Pacific failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Snyder v. Arconic, Corp., et al., No. 23-3188, 2024 WL 3813173 (8th Cir. 2024): EEOC filed an amicus brief on behalf of the employer Arconic, Corp. in this case. Arconic terminated plaintiff Daniel Snyder for violating the company’s anti-harassment policies after he posted a message to the company’s intranet message board stating that it is an “abomination to God” to use the rainbow symbol “as a sign for sexual gender.” Snyder claimed that he did not intend to post the message where all employees could see it but instead thought he was privately responding to a company email survey. Snyder alleged that Arconic failed to accommodate his religion in violation of Title VII by firing him instead of excusing his conduct. The district court granted summary judgment to Arconic, holding, in part, that Snyder failed to identify a religious practice that conflicted with a work requirement, as necessary to establish his prima facie case. EEOC’s amicus brief advanced three primary arguments: 1) the district court did not err by requiring Snyder to establish the prima facie elements of a religious accommodation claim; 2) the court correctly found that Snyder failed to satisfy the conflict element of the prima facie case because he never identified any religious practice or observance requiring him to object to use of the rainbow symbol in a manner prohibited by Arconic’s policies but instead repeatedly said his post was accidental; and 3) if the Court reached the issue of undue hardship, it should focus on the accommodation Snyder said he sought: leniency for his past violation of Arconic’s anti-harassment policies. While EEOC did not take a position on whether requiring leniency would establish undue hardship in Snyder’s case, EEOC suggested that an employer may be able to show that such an accommodation would substantially burden the conduct of the business by sending the message to employees that it is permissible to violate anti-harassment rules or by exposing the employer to potential liability arising from coworker harassment suits. The EEOC did not address any other issue. In an unpublished, per curiam opinion, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court and found that Snyder made “no claim that the posting of the comment was motivated by, or a part of, his religious beliefs” but had instead repeatedly said the posting was in error. The court explained that, because “by Snyder’s own description of events, the action of posting the statement on Arconic’s intranet had no religious intent behind it,” there was “no conflict” for purposes of Snyder’s prima facie case.

III.  Litigation Statistics

A.  Overview of Suits Filed

In FY 2024, EEOC’s field legal units filed 111 merits lawsuits (110 employment discrimination lawsuits and one lawsuit challenging the breach of a conciliation agreement). 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. Thirteen filings were systemic suits, and 22 were non-systemic suits that sought relief for multiple individuals. The field legal units also filed 13 actions to enforce subpoenas issued during EEOC charge investigations, and 18 actions to enforce EEO-1 Component 1 data report filing obligations, including at least one in every agency district against employers that repeatedly failed to submit mandatory EEO-1 reports in prior years, including for reporting years 2021 and 2022.

1.  Filing Authority

From 1996 to 2021, the Commission delegated litigation filing authority to the General Counsel in all but a few areas, through the EEOC’s National Enforcement Plan (adopted in February 1996) and then again through its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2017-2021. Early in FY 2021, the Commission instituted a process by which all district office litigation recommendations are either submitted for a Commission vote or reviewed by the EEOC Commissioners for a five-day period to determine which recommendations require a vote by the Commission. The chart below shows the number of merits suits filed during FY 2024 that were authorized by the General Counsel following review by the Commission and the number approved by a Commission vote.

2.  Statutes Invoked

Of the 111 merits suits filed, 59.5% contained Title VII claims, 43.2% contained ADA claims, 6.3% contained ADEA claims, 4.5% contained PWFA claims, 1.8% contained EPA claims, 1.8% contained GINA claims, and 16.2% 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.)

3.  Bases Alleged

As shown in the next chart, sex, disability, retaliation, and race were the most frequently alleged discriminatory bases in EEOC lawsuits filed in FY 2024. Bases numbers in the chart exceed the total suit filings because suits often contain multiple bases.

4.  Issues Alleged

As shown in the chart below, discharge/constructive discharge (counted together) were by far the most frequently alleged issues in EEOC lawsuits filed in FY 2024, followed by harassment, reasonable accommodation (based on disability, pregnancy, and religion), hiring, and terms and conditions.

B.  Suits Filed by Bases and Issues

1.  Sex Discrimination

As shown below, harassment and discharge/constructive discharge allegations were most often raised in the 52 sex discrimination lawsuits filed in FY 2024.

2.  Race Discrimination

As shown in the next chart, discharge/constructive discharge was the most frequent allegation in the 15 race discrimination suits filed in FY 2024, followed by harassment.

3.  National Origin Discrimination

Harassment, hiring, and constructive discharge claims were raised in the six national origin discrimination lawsuits filed in FY 2024.

4.  Religious Discrimination

As shown in the chart below, hiring, reasonable accommodation, and discharge claims were raised in the three religious discrimination lawsuits filed in FY 2024.

5.  Age Discrimination

As shown in the chart below, discharge, hiring, and insurance benefits claims were raised in the seven age discrimination lawsuits filed in FY 2024.

6.  Disability Discrimination

Discharge/constructive discharge, failure to accommodate, and hiring were the most frequent claims raised in the 48 disability lawsuits filed in FY 2024.

7.  Retaliation

Discharge/constructive discharge were by far the most frequent allegations in the 43 lawsuits filed in FY 2024 raising retaliation claims.

C.  Bases Alleged in Suits Filed from FY 2020 through FY 2024

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

*Note that lawsuits including claims of pregnancy discrimination under the PWFA are included here (for FY 2024, when the first such suits were filed), even though the PWFA does not prohibit discrimination based on sex or gender.

D.  Suits Resolved

In FY 2024, the Office of General Counsel resolved 132 merits lawsuits, obtaining $40,399,978 in monetary relief for 4,304 individuals.

1.  Types of Resolution

As the next chart indicates, 96.2% of EEOC’s suit resolutions were settlements, 3.8% (or five cases) were determinations on the merits by district courts or juries, one of which was favorable to the EEOC. The figures on favorable and unfavorable court orders do not take appeals into account.

2.  Monetary Relief by Statute

Of the 132 merits suits resolved, 58.3% contained Title VII claims, and 40.9% contained 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.

As shown in the next chart, Title VII suits accounted for the great majority of the monetary relief obtained in FY 2024, while ADA suits accounted for about 19.7%. Recoveries in concurrent suits are not included in the totals for the particular statutes.

E.  Appellate Activity

OGC filed three briefs on appeal in Commission cases in FY 2024, one as appellant and two as appellee. OGC filed 39 briefs as amicus curiae in private suits. No Commission cases required Supreme Court briefing. EEOC prevailed in three of five merits cases decided on appeal in FY 2024. At the end of FY 2024, EEOC had two cases pending in courts of appeals in enforcement actions and was amicus curiae in 28 pending cases.

F.  Attorney’s Fees Awards

In FY 2024, the EEOC was not ordered to pay attorney fees under the “prevailing party” provision of Title VII (incorporated into ADA, GINA, and PWFA), the attorney fee provision of the EPA, or the Equal Access to Justice Act (applicable to government claims under ADEA). In EEOC v. Fluor Federal Global Projects Inc., et al, No. 6:22-cv-01960-HMH-KRM (D.S.C.), the EEOC was ordered to pay $6,120 in attorney fees and $2,984 in costs for a discovery matter. In EEOC v. Appliance Factory, No. 23-cv-02456 (D. Colo.), the EEOC was ordered to pay reasonable attorney fees related to a discovery dispute. Upon agreement, the parties filed a Stipulation in which EEOC denied that it engaged in any wrongdoing or that the award of fees was proper but agreed to pay $1,802 in fees to save additional expenses for both parties and conserve judicial resources.

G.  Resources

1.  Staffing

As shown in the chart, the number of field attorneys decreased from last fiscal year.

*Appellate Attorney numbers include Supervisory Appellate Attorneys, and Field Attorney numbers include Regional Attorneys, Assistant Regional Attorneys, and Supervisory Trial Attorneys.

2.  Litigation Budget

EEOC’s litigation funding allocation for FY 2024 increased over FY 2023.