Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Karenkim, Inc.
698 F.3d 92
2d Cir.2012Background
- EEOC sued KarenKim for a sexually hostile work environment and related state-law claims, with a jury finding liability and damages for ten employees.
- Allen Manwaring, the store manager, engaged in extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment of teenage female employees; he maintained a romantic relationship with KarenKim’s owner, Connors.
- KarenKim had no anti-harassment policy until 2007 and a vague, predominantly informal complaint process; multiple employees testified they reported harassment but were not adequately addressed.
- Connors initially responded inadequately to complaints and even doubted some allegations; Manwaring was suspended for 30 days after a prior incident but remained a store presence.
- After trial, EEOC sought broad injunctive relief to prevent recurrence, including prohibiting Manwaring from employment or store access, among other measures; the district court denied all relief.
- The district court found the conduct isolated and the company now had policies, thus denying injunctive relief as unnecessary and burdensome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion denying injunctive relief | EEOC asserted ongoing risk and need for comprehensive relief | KarenKim contended relief would be unnecessary and burdensome given policies now in place | Abuse of discretion; injunctive relief required |
| Whether an injunction prohibiting employment of Manwaring and barring him from premises is appropriate | EEOC argued broad relief is necessary to prevent recurrence | KarenKim argued less drastic measures suffice | Injunctions prohibiting employment and premises access warranted |
| Whether additional relief (monitor, wallet photographs, etc.) was overbroad | EEOC sought extensive monitoring and notices | KarenKim argued many measures were excessive | Some relief overbroad; remand for tailoring prior measures |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (injunctions require cognizable danger of recurrence)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (injunctions depend on cognizable danger of recurrent violation)
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) (duty to remedy past discriminatory effects as well as future violations)
- Bridgeport Guardians Inc. v. City of Bridgeport, 933 F.2d 1140 (2d Cir. 1991) (district court fashioning equitable relief within Title VII goals)
- Harris Chemin, Inc., 10 F.3d 1286 (7th Cir. 1993) (EEOC ordinarily entitled to injunctive relief where violation proven)
- Massey Yardley Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 117 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 1997) (district court abused discretion denying relief where violation proven)