Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.
679 F.3d 657
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- EEOC sued CRST Van Expedited in its own name under Title VII alleging a hostile work environment and class-wide harassment of Starke and ~270 similarly situated female employees in CRST's New-Driver Training Program.
- Starke and Peeples intervened, pursuing their own harassment and retaliation claims; district court granted CRST summary judgment on numerous claims and awarded CRST substantial fees as a discovery sanction.
- CRST's training program included a 3.5-day orientation, a Driver Handbook with an anti-harassment policy, multiple reporting channels, and lead drivers who supervise trainees but lack authority to hire/fire.
- EEOC's investigation produced a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe a class was subjected to harassment; later, discovery identified class members and the EEOC identified 67 alleged class members.
- District court concluded the EEOC failed to investigate, determine reasonable cause, or conciliate for the 67 class members, and dismissed those claims; the court also addressed several other pre-suit issues and fee matters.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it held EEOC cannot be judicially estopped when suing in its own name for victims like Starke, and it held questions remained as to Jones and certain notice/remedy issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-suit requirements for class claims | EEOC | CRST | Affirmed district court on dismissal for 67 women |
| Judicial estoppel as to EEOC's own suit | EEOC | CRST | Reversed district court; EEOC may sue in its own name under §706 |
| Supervisory status of Lead Drivers and vicarious liability | EEOC | CRST | Lead Drivers are not supervisors; Ellerth-Faragher defense inapplicable |
| Merits of hostile-work environment for Jones and O'Donnell | EEOC | CRST | Jones raises fact issue on severity; O'Donnell also presents triable issues; others remain nonviable |
| Notice and remedial action by CRST | EEOC | CRST | Affirmed summary judgment for 11 women; for 21 others, issues of notice/remedy remain; largely yes for prompt remediation; others lack notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Nw. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1980) (EEOC authority to sue in its own name; remedial purposes)
- Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355 (U.S. 1977) (integrated enforcement procedure; administrative process precedes suit)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. EEOC, 534 U.S. 279 (U.S. 2002) (EEOC as master of its case; employer-arbitration does not bar victim-specific relief)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (Ellerth-Faragher defense; supervisor status and title VII liability)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (supervisor liability framework for hostile environment claims)
- Delight Wholesale Co., 973 F.2d 664 (8th Cir. 1992) (scope of EEOC investigation and conciliation regarding related claims)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) ( judicial estoppel factors)
- Gordon v. Shafer Contracting Co., 469 F.3d 1191 (8th Cir. 2006) (supervisor threshold for vicarious liability in harassment claims)