U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. MVM, Inc., 1:17-cv-02864

Background

EEOC sued MVM alleging a pattern-or-practice of national-origin discrimination (Africans and foreign-born blacks) and retaliation on the NIH security contract, after an EEOC investigation issued Letters of Determination (LODs) finding reasonable cause.
Allegations centered on Project Manager James Smith expressing animus ("too many Africans," discomfort with accents) and supervisors disciplining, suspending, fabricating misconduct, denying leave, and terminating numerous African or perceived-African employees.
At least nine employees (the Charging Parties) were terminated; others resigned fearing termination and loss of security clearances, reducing African staffing by ~29% on the contract.
EEOC issued LODs, conciliated unsuccessfully, then filed suit asserting: pattern/practice discrimination, disparate terms/conditions, hostile work environment, discriminatory discharge/constructive discharge, and retaliation.
MVM moved to dismiss (arguing some claims exceeded the LODs, perceived-national-origin claims are not cognizable, many acts are not adverse employment actions, constructive discharge and certain retaliation claims fail). EEOC moved to stay to amend LODs and reconduct conciliation. Court granted a 45-day stay and resolved several 12(b)(6) issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should stay to allow EEOC to amend LODs and re-conciliate	Stay promotes judicial economy; EEOC may amend LODs under its regs and then conciliate	Stay unnecessary because EEOC may not amend LODs and should not get another bite	Stay granted for 45 days; court concludes EEOC may amend LODs under 29 C.F.R. §1601.21(d) and Mach Mining supports further conciliation rather than dismissal
Whether Title VII covers discrimination based on perceived national origin	EEOC: Title VII and EEOC guidance cover discrimination based on perceived national origin (accent/appearance)	MVM: "Perceived" not in statute; Fourth Circuit precedent (unpublished) suggests not	Court held perceived national origin claims are cognizable; persuasive circuit and district authority plus EEOC guidance and statutory interpretation support claim viability
Whether alleged acts (denials of leave, undesirable posts, extra hours) are adverse employment actions for disparate-treatment claims	EEOC: These acts are part of broader scheme and support hostile work environment and discriminatory suspensions/terminations; not all are freestanding disparate-treatment claims	MVM: Many alleged acts are mere inconveniences and not adverse actions; therefore should be dismissed	Court dismissed standalone Count II except as to suspensions without pay; found non-termination acts can support hostile work environment, evidentiary intent for terminations, and retaliation (broader standard)
Whether claims for constructive discharge and retaliation (e.g., Nwabuwa) are plausible	EEOC: Conditions (pattern of terminations, animus, loss of clearances risk) made working conditions objectively intolerable; temporal and contextual facts support causation for retaliation	MVM: Constructive discharge standard is high; timing too remote for causation on retaliation	Court denied dismissal: constructive discharge plausibly pleaded for class resignations given alleged scheme to reduce Africans; retaliation claim for Nwabuwa plausible when temporal facts are considered with pattern evidence

Key Cases Cited

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (stay-of-proceedings standard)
Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (remedy for inadequate conciliation; EEOC may be ordered to undertake conciliation)
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (deference to agency guidance under Skidmore factors)
General Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (EEOC enforcement actions not limited to the charging party's exact claims)
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (statutory purpose of Title VII—removing employment barriers)
Green v. Brennan, 136 S. Ct. 1769 (objective-intolerability test for constructive discharge)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))