Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bloomberg L.P.
751 F. Supp. 2d 628
S.D.N.Y.2010Background
- EEOC filed suit against Bloomberg after charges of sex/pregnancy discrimination and retaliation by current and former Bloomberg employees.
- Two Bloomberg summary judgment motions: failure-to-conciliate defense and time-barred claims defense.
- Court denied in part Bloomberg’s failure-to-conciliate motion on discrimination claims and granted it on time-barred claims.
- Conciliation standard: EEOC must attempt good-faith conciliation prior to suit; court reviews reasonableness and flexibility of EEOC’s efforts.
- Court found EEOC provided sufficient notice and engaged in a reasonably broad class-type conciliation for discrimination claims; retaliation conciliation was more contentious and ultimately dismissed for failure to conciliate.
- Time-bar analysis held that discrete discrimination acts are timely under 706/707 framework for pattern-or-practice claims, but pre-May 28, 2005, claims are time-barred; Ledbetter Act narrowed back-pay for compensation decisions prior to May 28, 2005.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EEOC failed to conciliate discrimination claims. | Bloomberg contends EEOC did not properly conciliate. | Bloomberg argues insufficient notice and scope; conciliation failed. | Discrimination conciliation proper; notice and process sufficient; not dismissed on this ground. |
| Whether EEOC failed to conciliate retaliation claims. | EEOC contends retaliation claims were subject to conciliation and properly included. | EEOC did not adequately respond to Bloomberg’s information requests and classwide relief proposals. | Retaliation claims dismissed for failure to conciliate. |
| Whether time-barred claims should be dismissed under 706/707 timelines. | EEOC alleges timely, including pattern-or-practice coverage. | Older claims outside 300-day window should be barred. | Time-barred claims dismissed; Ledbetter Act narrows back-pay claims for compensation decisions prior to May 28, 2005. |
| Whether pattern-or-practice claims under section 707 must follow the 706 charge-filing period. | Pattern-or-practice should be treated like ongoing conduct with broader timing. | Section 707 incorporates 706 timing for discrete acts. | Section 707 claims tied to discrete acts subject to 300-day/180-day filing; timeliness applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Caterpillar, Inc., 409 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2005) (reasonable investigation can support later suit; notice to conciliate required)
- EEOC v. Johnson & Higgins, Inc., 91 F.3d 1529 (2d Cir. 1996) (conciliation requires reasonable opportunity and good faith)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes continuing violations vs. discrete acts; timing governs filing)
- Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355 (U.S. 1977) (charge-filing deadlines and time limits govern Title VII actions)
- Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of Am., Inc. v. Soler Chrysler-Delaware, Inc., 990 F. Supp. 1059 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (pattern-or-practice timeliness debates; discrete acts contrasted)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (continuing violation doctrine limitations; applied to pattern-or-practice context)
- Jade Society of New York, Inc. v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 681 F. Supp. 2d 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (pattern-or-practice labeling; context of ongoing conduct vs. discrete acts)
- EEOC v. Am. Express Publ'g Corp., 681 F. Supp. 216 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (notice and scope of conciliation matters for class-type claims)