Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Performance Food Group, Inc., 16 F. Supp. 3d 576

EEOC sues Performance Food Group, Inc. (and related entities) for gender discrimination in hiring and a failure to promote a female employee; claims arise from Broadline Division operations serving restaurants and retailers.
Suit seeks bifurcation of discovery and trial; Phase One for class-wide pattern or practice, Phase Two for individual claims.
Phase One will determine existence/scope of pattern or practice; Phase Two handles individual damages and any punitive awards.
Punitive damages claims in Count One are argued by EEOC as either class-wide or eligibility-based approaches; court rejects both schemes.
Count Two (Julie Lawrence's failed promotion) will be tried without bifurcation; discovery runs concurrently with Count One planning, with later decisions on joint or separate trials.
Court grants EEOC’s motion to bifurcate in part, adopting a two-phase plan for Count One and keeping Count Two non-bifurcated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Count One should be bifurcated into class-wide and individual phases	EEOC favors bifurcation to separate class issues from individual claims	PFG may oppose or limit bifurcation	Bifurcation is approved for Count One (Phase One: class-wide; Phase Two: individual claims)
How punitive damages should be handled in Count One	EEOC proposes either class-wide or eligibility-based punitive damages	PFG opposes class-wide or eligibility-based approaches	Neither class-wide nor eligibility determination plan accepted; proceed with Phase One on pattern; Phase Two for individual damages
Whether to bifurcate Count Two or keep it joined with Count One			Count Two to be tried without bifurcation; discovery on Count Two runs concurrently with Phase One of Count One

Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884 (6th Cir. 2012) (guides treatment of pattern or practice findings in bifurcation)
E.E.O.C. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 88 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (rejects class-wide punitive damages scheme and proportionality concerns)
E.E.O.C. v. Pitre, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D.N.M. 2012) (rejects phase structure that binds Phase II with Phase I findings for punitive damages)
Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (illustrates problems with class-wide punitive damages awards)
E.E.O.C. v. Dial Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 710 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (example of proposed phased punitive damages procedure (disfavored))
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (requires proportional relationship between compensatory and punitive damages)
Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007) (reinforces proportionality considerations in punitive damages)