U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. PMT Corp.
40 F. Supp. 3d 1122
D. Minnesota2014Background
- EEOC filed a charge of discrimination against PMT on Oct. 27, 2010, alleging female applicants were discriminatorily passed over for sales positions.
- EEOC alleges PMT maintained a gender-based hiring system; Alfred Iversen was final hiring decision-maker; conduct allegedly instructed to reject female applicants.
- EEOC alleges age discrimination: no sales hires over 40 between 2007 and 2010; Iversen allegedly directed age screening.
- Post-charge retaliation alleged: Iversen directed a criminal complaint against former HR Manager Patricia Lebens after learning she was the source of the EEOC allegations; sheriff investigation yielded no finding of theft.
- Conciliation occurred after the charge; EEOC declared conciliation futile on May 13, 2013; complaint filed March 5, 2014, asserting multiple claims including retaliation and pattern/practice allegations.
- The court denied PMT’s motion to dismiss the complaint overall but granted dismissal of the Lebens-related claims; issues include continuing-violation theory, pattern/practice pleading, and exhaustion of administrative remedies for retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuing-violation theory applies to pre-300-day acts | EEOC asserts a pattern or practice extends beyond 300 days. | PMT argues time-barred acts should be excluded. | Court agrees continuing-violation theory applies; not time-barred; dismissal not warranted. |
| Adequacy of identifying victims in pattern/practice claim | Pattern claim sufficiently identifies scope/time/perpetrator; not required to name every victim. | Lacks named victims; insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal. | Court finds complaint states a plausible pattern claim and provides fair notice; not dismissed. |
| Retaliatory hostile work environment against Lebens | Lebens’s protected activity caused a hostile environment. | PMT lacked knowledge of Lebens’s protected activity during employment. | Dismissal of retaliatory hostile work environment against Lebens warranted. |
| Constructive discharge claim tied to Lebens | Conditions allegedly intolerable due to Lebens’s protected activity. | No facts showing employer awareness or opportunities to correct; not plausible. | Dismissal of constructive discharge claim warranted. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for retaliation claim (police report) | Retaliation claim related to police report should be exhausted as tied to charge. | Retaliation claim not reasonably related to underlying charge; not exhausted. | Retaliation claim not exhausted; dismissal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trans States Airlines, Inc. v. EEOC, 462 F.3d 987 (8th Cir.2006) (conciliating in good faith required before suit; reasons depend on conduct)
- Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. EEOC, 340 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir.2003) (conciliatory process obligations; reasonableness of EEOC conduct)
- Madison v. IBP, Inc., 330 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir.2003) (continuing violations concept; not discrete acts)
- Wedow v. Kan. City, Mo., 442 F.3d 661 (8th Cir.2006) (administrative exhaustion generally required; post-charge retaliation not always related)
- Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847 (8th Cir.2012) (exhaustion exceptions for related subsequent claims)
- CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 679 F.3d 657 (8th Cir.2012) (retaliation claims not reasonably related to underlying charge require exhaustion)
- Brooks v. Monroe Sys. for Business, Inc., 873 F.2d 202 (8th Cir.1989) (Rule 9(c) pleading of conditions precedent can be raised by motion)