389 F. Supp. 3d 1015
U.S. Cir. Ct.2019Background
- EEOC sued Austal USA alleging Austal denied reasonable leave accommodations to employee Jimmy Cooper in violation of the ADA; EEOC seeks injunctive relief and individual relief for Cooper (back pay, front pay, pecuniary losses, reinstatement, punitive damages).
- Cooper, a long‑time employee, has insulin‑dependent Type II diabetes that caused intermittent absences and incidents at work; Austal terminated him under its attendance policy in January 2015.
- After termination Cooper executed two agreements in April 2015: a USDOL‑approved LHWCA settlement and a separate General Release that broadly waived known and unknown claims and foreclosed individual monetary recovery for charges filed, while reserving the right to file charges but waiving monetary relief.
- Austal moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the releases bar EEOC’s pursuit of individual relief on Cooper’s behalf and that Cooper waived his individual remedies.
- EEOC opposed, conceding Cooper signed the releases but arguing Austal bears the burden to prove the releases were knowing and voluntary; EEOC also contends it has statutory authority to challenge the adequacy/validity of the settlement.
- The court declined to treat the releases as dispositive at the Rule 12(c) stage because the releases were not referenced in the complaint, their factual circumstances (knowingness, voluntariness, consideration, duress) are disputed or unestablished on the pleadings, and the EEOC has statutory authority to challenge the charging party’s settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may resolve Austal's waiver/release defense on Rule 12(c) motion | EEOC: releases were not pled or authenticated as part of the complaint; Austal must prove release was knowing and voluntary, which raises fact issues | Austal: Cooper signed broad releases that waive individual relief; releases are part of the administrative record and bar EEOC's recovery on Cooper's behalf | Denied: cannot resolve on pleadings because releases were extrinsic, not central to complaint, and factual inquiry required about voluntariness/adequacy |
| Whether court can judicially notice/consider the settlement and release now | EEOC: documents not authenticated to show they are part of EEOC administrative record; court may notice existence but not truth of their factual assertions | Austal: releases were submitted to the EEOC and are public/administrative documents appropriate for notice | Court: may note existence and contents but cannot accept their factual statements as true without further proof; not dispositive at this stage |
| Whether EEOC has authority/standing to challenge a charging party's settlement | EEOC: statute grants EEOC authority to determine adequacy of conciliation and to bring suit; thus it may challenge settlements that impair remedies | Austal: EEOC lacks standing to challenge a private settlement to which it was not party and which purportedly released claims | Court: EEOC has statutory authority to challenge a charging party's settlement/release; this militates against dismissal on the pleadings |
| Whether Waffle House and other precedent bar EEOC relief when employee settled | Austal: argues Waffle House and other cases limit EEOC's remedies when employee releases claims | EEOC: Waffle House preserves EEOC's independent authority; employee settlement may limit relief but does not eliminate EEOC's ability to sue or to contest settlement adequacy | Court: Waffle House does not resolve this exact question; EEOC retains distinct enforcement authority and may contest the settlement's effect on remedies; factual issues remain |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (Sup. Ct.) (EEOC retains independent enforcement authority though employee conduct can affect EEOC recovery)
- Bledsoe v. Palm Beach Cnty. Soil & Water Conserv. Dist., 133 F.3d 816 (11th Cir.) (waiver of statutory rights must be closely scrutinized for knowing and voluntary nature)
- Myricks v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 480 F.3d 1036 (11th Cir.) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for knowing and voluntary waiver)
- Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir.) (court may consider extrinsic documents to show contents but not to prove truth of assertions therein)
- SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.) (documents central to the claim and undisputed may be considered on motion to dismiss)
- Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.) (authenticity requirement for considering extrinsic documents at pleading stage)
- E.E.O.C. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 809 F.3d 335 (7th Cir.) (limits on EEOC pre‑suit procedures and context for challenges to employer practices involving waivers)
- E.E.O.C. v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539 (9th Cir.) (employee settlement may moot individual back‑pay claims though EEOC injunctive claims may survive)
- E.E.O.C. v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 897 F.2d 1499 (9th Cir.) (procedural due process and notice considerations in EEOC class settlements)