Arizona Ex Rel Thomas Horne v. the Geo Group
816 F.3d 1189
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hancock filed a June 5, 2009 charge with the Arizona Civil Rights Division and the EEOC alleging sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by Geo at Florence West and CACF.
- The Division found reasonable cause on Hancock’s charge and identified a class of female employees with similar claims.
- The EEOC adopted the Division’s determination; conciliation efforts with Geo failed.
- The EEOC and the Division filed civil actions on behalf of Hancock and the class under Title VII and the Arizona Civil Rights Act.
- The district court dismissed claims of unidentified employees and untimely acts, and held some post-determination acts to be beyond the limitations period.
- The appeal contested (i) pre-suit conciliation scope, (ii) the 300-day limitations period in EEOC class actions, (iii) whether post-determination acts require new charges, and (iv) Hines’s hostile-environment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of pre-suit conciliation for class claims | Horne contends EEOC/Division must conciliate for each aggrieved employee | Geo argues strict, individual conciliation is required | Conciliation for the identified class suffices; no per-claimant pre-suit conciliation required. |
| When the 300-day clock starts in an EEOC class action | Start 300-day period from Hancock’s charge date | Start from class-wide reasonable cause date | Starting date is 300 days prior to Hancock’s charge; not tied to the Reasonable Cause Determination. |
| Need for a new charge for post-determination acts in EEOC class actions | Post-determination acts may be included if related | Post-determination acts require new charges | Aggrieved employees’ post-determination acts may be encompassed if like or related to the initial charge or within the Reasonable Cause Determination. |
| Sophia Hines hostile work environment claim | Conduct was severe or pervasive enough for a hostile environment | Record shows insufficient severity or pervasiveness | Hines’s evidence presents material issues of fact; reversed summary judgment on her claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (U.S. 2015) (limits and reviews EEOC pre-suit conciliation efforts but grants deference to agency decisions)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1980) (EEOC may seek relief without traditional private-case constraints)
- Paige v. California, 102 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1996) (class claims may arise from a single charge if reasonably related to the charge)
- Lucky Stores, Inc. v. EEOC, 714 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1983) (EEOC may notify/expand class coverage beyond explicit charge scope)
- EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 553 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1976) (EEOC claims may be broader than original charge if related to reasonable cause)
- Domingo v. New England Fish Co., 727 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1984) (300-day clock starts at a named plaintiff’s charge for all class members)
- Morgan v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts have separate filing clocks; class actions must consider starting points)
- Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 876 F.2d 16 (3d Cir. 1989) ( EEOC class-action conciliation practice discussed)
- Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1994) (like/related-claim expansion within reasonable cause)
- Bruno’s Restaurant, 13 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1993) (EEOC conciliation documentation not required for class action)