Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CollegeAmerica Denver, Inc.
869 F.3d 1171
10th Cir.2017Background
- CollegeAmerica Denver, Inc. settled an employment dispute with former employee Debbi Potts but later sued her in state court, alleging breach of the settlement.
- The EEOC sued CollegeAmerica in federal court, alleging (among other claims) that CollegeAmerica unlawfully interfered with Potts’s and the EEOC’s statutory rights under the ADEA framework.
- CollegeAmerica disavowed the legal positions that initially concerned the EEOC; the district court dismissed the EEOC’s unlawful-interference claim as moot on that basis.
- While the EEOC’s retaliation claim proceeded, CollegeAmerica advanced a new theory in defense/continuing litigation: that Potts breached the settlement by reporting adverse information to the EEOC without notifying CollegeAmerica.
- The EEOC contended the new theory continued the allegedly unlawful interference; the Tenth Circuit held the unlawful-interference claim was no longer moot and reversed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (EEOC) | Defendant's Argument (CollegeAmerica) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unlawful-interference claim is moot after defendant disavowed the originally challenged positions | Disavowal is incomplete because CollegeAmerica later asserted a new theory that amounts to continued unlawful interference; risk of recurrence remains | Disavowal and counsel declarations show cessation; no reasonable expectation of recurrence and no real-world effect from relief | Not moot: voluntary cessation test fails; risk of recurrence exists and injunctive relief would have real-world effect |
| Whether voluntary cessation doctrine requires absolute certainty of non-recurrence | EEOC: defendant’s new theory undermines any assurance of non-recurrence | CollegeAmerica: counsel declarations and prior disavowal eliminate reasonable expectation of recurrence | Court: defendant did not meet its burden to show it is "absolutely clear" wrongful behavior cannot recur |
| Whether a favorable ruling would have a real-world effect (redressability) | Injunction would bar CollegeAmerica from asserting the new theory in state court, thus redressing harm | Defendant: outcome would not affect anything concrete in the real world | Court: injury is redressable; injunction would prevent presentation of the new theory in state litigation |
| Whether § 626(f)(4) provides an independent affirmative cause of action for the EEOC | EEOC relies on § 626(f)(4) to seek injunctive relief against interference | CollegeAmerica contends § 626(f) does not provide independent affirmative relief except narrowly | Tenth Circuit declined to resolve this novel statutory-question on appeal and remanded for the district court to consider it in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- WildEarth Guardians v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 690 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir.) (standing and mootness review standards)
- Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2016) (mootness requires live personal stake)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (voluntary cessation standard: "absolutely clear" that behavior will not recur)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation mootness principle cited)
- Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010) (interim relief/events must irrevocably eradicate effects)
- Whitehead v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co., 187 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 1999) (discussion of § 626(f) scope)
- Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978) (dismissal is improper solely because plaintiff seeks overly broad relief)