Mirna Serrano v. Cintas Corporation
699 F.3d 884
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- EEOC sues Cintas for sex discrimination in hiring SSR positions in Michigan; Serrano, a female applicant, alleged repeated failures to hire; EEOC investigated class-wide Michigan claims and sought class relief; district court ruled against Teamsters pattern-or-practice under §706 and granted summary judgment on individual claims; EEOC later sought amended pleadings and discovery orders, including unredacted applications and deposition of Cintas's CEO; after multiple pre-trial rulings, district court awarded attorney fees to Cintas, which the EEOC appeals; the panel vacates judgments and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- SSR job requirements include driving, customer service, communication, HS diploma, and license; de facto “face of Cintas” with field work; class-wide investigation and proposed conciliation sought relief for many women; the EEOC intervened in Serrano action; class certification issues were resolved against private plaintiffs prior to EEOC’S involvement.
- District court held EEOC could not pursue Teamsters pattern-or-practice under §706 and denied leave to amend; EEOC sought discovery extensions and unredacted applications; district court denied, then later granted protective order barring CEO deposition; summary judgment on 13 individual claims was granted to Cintas; district court concluded EEOC failed administrative prerequisites; attorney-fees order issued in favor of Cintas.
- On appeal, court vacates judgments, holds EEOC may pursue Teamsters pattern-or-practice under §706, reverses class-wide pretrial rulings, remands for new proceedings; concludes EEOC satisfied conciliation prerequisites; vacates fee award.
- Remand for discovery and merits under Teamsters framework; potential reconsideration of amended complaint and damages framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EEOC may use Teamsters pattern-or-practice under §706 | EEOC may apply Teamsters framework under §706 | Cintas argues Teamsters applies only to §707 and §706 cannot support pattern-or-practice | EEOC may pursue Teamsters pattern-or-practice under §706 |
| Whether EEOC needed to plead Teamsters in the complaint | Swierkiewicz allows pleading flexibility; need not plead framework | Cintas argues lack of explicit Teamsters pleading defeats claim | Pleading without explicit Teamsters is permissible; not a default basis for dismissal |
| Discovery rulings and unredacted applications | Discovery necessary under Teamsters framework; unredacted applications probative | Rulings supported by prior §706 framework; limited need for discovery | Vacate and remand to address discovery in light of Teamsters framework |
| Deposition of Scott Farmer (apex doctrine) | Apex doctrine misapplied; CEO deposition may be probative | Protective order appropriate to prevent harassment and burden | Apex-based protective order vacated; remand to address deposition |
| Administrative prerequisites and class-wide conciliation | EEOC satisfied conciliation notice; class-wide investigation contemplated | District court found lack of proper class conciliation | EEOC satisfied prerequisites; reverse district court on this point |
Key Cases Cited
- Teamsters, 431 U.S. 324 (1977), 431 U.S. 324 (Supreme Court (1977)) (pattern-or-practice proof; bifurcated proceedings for class relief)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), 534 U.S. 506 (Supreme Court (2002)) (pleading standard not requiring McDonnell Douglas framework at pleading stage)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995), 513 U.S. 352 (Supreme Court (1995)) (after-acquired evidence; not per se bar to relief at liability stage; damages issue later)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Nw. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (1980), 446 U.S. 318 (Supreme Court (1980)) (EEOC authority under §706 to pursue group-relief claims)
- Monarch Mach. Tool Co., 737 F.2d 1444 (6th Cir. 1980), 737 F.2d 1444 (6th Cir. 1980) ( EEOC pattern-or-practice in §706 context; ambiguity in precedent)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court (1973)) (burden-shifting framework for individual Title VII claims)
- Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747 (1976), 424 U.S. 747 (Supreme Court (1976)) (class-action/Pattern-principle guiding Teamsters context)
- Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2000), 220 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2000) (EEOC class claims; framework discussion)