U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Global Horizons, Inc.
860 F. Supp. 2d 1172
D. Haw.2012Background
- EEOC suit filed April 19, 2011 under Title VII seeking relief for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge based on national origin and race.
- Global Horizons recruited Thai workers under the H-2A program; alleged coercive recruitment fees, confiscation of documents, and intolerable housing and working conditions.
- Moving Defendants (Captain Cook, Del Monte, Kauai Coffee, Kelena Farms, Mac Farms, Maui Pineapple, A & B, MZB) are alleged to be joint employers or successors with Global and to have knowledge of misconduct.
- Global has not appeared; the court addresses various motions to strike, dismiss, sever, and amend.
- Court analyzes joint-employer liability, successor liability (MZB), knowledge/ratification of discriminatory acts, statute of limitations under Title VII, and leave to amend.
- Court grants leave to amend; denies sever motions without prejudice; grants in part and denies in part the MTDs; and denies the strike motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is conciliation a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit? | SAC alleges conciliation efforts occurred; general averments are adequate. | Conciliation is jurisdictional and must be pleaded with sufficient detail. | Conciliation not jurisdictional; SAC adequate on conciliation, motions to dismiss denied on jurisdictional ground. |
| Do the Moving Defendants state a plausible Title VII claim against them under Rule 12(b)(6)? | EEOC pleads joint employment, hostile environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge with plausible factual basis. | Allegations are insufficient or improperly plead for certain defendants. | Claims survive for several defendants; A&B's retaliation and some others dismissed; leave to amend granted. |
| Whether a joint-employer theory supports Title VII liability for moving Defendants | EEOC pleads control over terms/conditions of employment and shared operation. | Joint liability may not automatically follow; need knowledge and action. | EEOC plausibly alleges joint-employer relationships with several Moving Defendants; liability depends on each defendant's knowledge and actions. |
| Whether MZB may be liable as a successor to Kauai Coffee/A&B | Bates factors support piercing corporate veil and treating MZB as successor. | Insufficient facts to pierce veil or establish successor liability; no direct notice presumed. | Plausible grounds for successor liability against MZB; piercing veil supported by continuity of operations and notice. |
| Is statute of limitations bar to 706/707 claims? | Claims were filed within worksharing 300-day window; continuing violations potentially tolling. | 180-day limit may apply where not properly docketed; tolling unclear. | Not dismissed on timeliness; 300-day window applies in worksharing states; equitable tolling unresolved; claims survive for purposes of this motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (Reveals pleading standard for plausibility; avoid bare allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (Clarifies that legal conclusions are not entitled to presumption of truth)
- E.E.O.C. v. Klingler Elec. Corp., 636 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1981) (Conditions precedent pleading can be satisfied generally; reservations about conciliation pleading)
- E.E.O.C. v. Federal Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2009) (Conciliation/pre-suit requirements discussed in Title VII context)
- Bates v. Pac. Maritime Ass’n, 744 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1984) (Successor liability factors for employment discrimination)