Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bloomberg L.P., 778 F. Supp. 2d 458

EEOC sued Bloomberg L.P. alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination against pregnant employees or those returning from maternity leave under Title VII as amended by the PDA.
Class members alleged pay reductions, demotions, reduced responsibilities, exclusion from meetings, and stereotypes against pregnant/mother employees.
EEOC sought a pattern or practice finding; Bloomberg moved for summary judgment.
Court held EEOC failed to show Bloomberg’s discrimination against pregnant employees as a standard operating procedure.
Court granted summary judgment on the pattern or practice claim, end of liability phase.
Court noted lack of admissible statistical evidence and predominance of anecdotal evidence with insufficient comparators.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a pattern or practice of discrimination by Bloomberg?	EEOC asserts widespread discriminatory acts against class members.	Bloomberg contends anecdotes lack sufficiency without statistics to show a standard practice.	No; Bloomberg granted summary judgment.
Is EEOC's anecdotal evidence alone sufficient without statistics?	Anecdotes provide texture to statistics and show intent.	Anecdotes alone cannot prove a company-wide pattern.	Insufficient; statistics required to sustain pattern or practice claim.
Did EEOC fail to provide proper comparator evidence?	Class members compared to similarly situated non-pregnant employees.	No valid comparator evidence; claims rest on isolated anecdotes.	Insufficient comparison defeats pattern or practice claim.
Do Bloomberg's unrebutted statistical analyses negate the claim?	Statistics show discrimination; need to counter with data.	Statistics demonstrate no systemic discrimination; supports no pattern.	Statistical evidence provided by Bloomberg counters EEOC’s claim.
Is evidence of bias or negative stereotypes sufficient to prove a pattern?	Isolated biased statements show discriminatory intent.	Isolated remarks in a large organization do not establish a pattern.	Not sufficient to prove pattern or practice.

Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) (pattern or practice requires substantial proof; statistics central at liability phase)
Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (Supreme Court, 1977) (heavy reliance on statistics in pattern or practice cases; anecdotal evidence as texture)
Ste. Marie v. Eastern Railroad Ass'n, 650 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1981) (absence of statistics weakens anecdotal evidence for pattern or practice)