*1 am, Furthermore, at nothing 599 F.3d 355. well settled that applicable harm, significant crime caused concrete “suggests forfeiture statutes money depriving Apple potential its wares judgments are forbidden.” Hampton, profits damaging in addition to Mark see also United States v. 691-92; IV’s F.3d at subjected (5th business. The robberies also Olguin, 643 F.3d Cir.2011) the immediate victims to intense distress (collecting holding cases that money judg- type and inflicted the of diffuse social proper ments are in the forfeiture con- harm characteristic of all text). serious crimes. judgments Such would seem espe- circumstances, imposition Given these cially appropriate physical where assets of a forfeiture order the amount of derived from conspiracy are longer $136,601.03 poses no Eighth Amendment See, e.g., United traceable or available. problem. Day, States v. 524 F.3d 1377-78 (D.C.Cir.2008). sum,
In the district court’s forfeiture ruling unsupported by any was relevant remand,
legal authority. IV. On the court should enter a forfeiture order in the reasons, For the affirm foregoing $136,601.03, amount of the value of the Blackman’s conviction but reverse the dis- goods. stolen Blackman is liable for the trict ruling court’s forfeiture and remand reasonably proceeds criminal foreseeable with directions for it to enter a forfeiture United States v. money judgment conspiracy. in the amount of Molían, Cir.1996) $136,601.03. (“Just as li- conspirators substantively are PART, AFFIRMED IN REVERSED able for the foreseeable criminal conduct of PART, IN AND REMANDED. members, conspiracy’s other ... they responsible sentencing are at for co-con-
spirators’ reasonably foreseeable acts and jointly
omissions ... furtherance (internal activity.”) undertaken criminal omitted). quotation proceed- marks below, ings Blackman only offered a con- clusory response government’s dec- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPOR- laration that the minimum value of the COMMISSION, TUNITY $136,601.03, proceeds was an amount Plaintiff-Appellant, generally which corroborated testimony trial Apple prevention of an loss
manager. The sentencing district court at LOGISTICS, INC., PROPAK $136,601.03 imposed restitution of without Defendant-Appellee. objection. Blackman appeal, On contests No. 13-1687. ability impose the court’s forfeiture specific all—not the proposed by sum Appeals, United States Court of which, event, government, any is well Fourth Circuit. statutory below the maximum fíne of Argued: Jan. 2014. $250,000. point At no sug- has Blackman gested figure. an alternative Decided: March
Nor govern is the form of the judgment ment’s forfeiture at issue. It is *2 Oxford,
ARGUED: Susan Ruth U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion, D.C., Washington, Appellant. Cole, Sr., Doughty Pruet, John Nexsen PLLC, Charlotte, Carolina, North for Ap- *3 pellee. ON BRIEF: P. Lopez, David Lor- Davis, raine Equal C. U.S. Employment Commission, Opportunity Washington, D.C., for Appellant. WILKINSON, KEENAN,
Before DIAZ, Judges. Circuit by published opinion. Affirmed Judge KEENAN wrote the opinion, which Judge Judge WILKINSON and DIAZ joined. Judge WILKINSON a wrote separate concurring opinion. KEENAN,
BARBARA MILANO Judge: Circuit appeal, In this we consider whether the district court abused its discretion in or- dering Equal Employment that the Oppor- (EEOC) tunity Commission pay attorneys’ prevailing fees to a employer defendant after the court summary judg- awarded ment to employer brought in an action fees, In awarding attorneys’ EEOC. the district court concluded that unreasonably filing EEOC acted employment complaint, discrimination be- cause during events occurred investigation pre- EEOC’s administrative obtaining cluded the EEOC from either monetary judicial relief. review, Upon our affirm the judgment. court’s
I. January Quintois Michael filed charge
a
of discrimination with the EEOC
against
employer,
his former
Propak Lo-
gistics,
(Propak),
provider
Inc.
of com-
Propak
did not contact
for about
warehousing, transportation, pack- EEOC
mercial
years,
2005 and June
Quintois was
two
between June
shipping services.
aging, and
2007. In
the EEOC contact-
Shelby, North
June
Propak’s
supervisor
Ponder,
Propak
speak
ed
but was
facility,
alleged
Carolina
unable to interview her because she had
based on his
employment
terminated his
job
left her
and her whereabouts were
origin after he com-
“American” national
unknown.
only
hired
His-
plained
company
posi-
panic
supervisory
workers for certain
During the course of the EEOC’s
tions. The EEOC notified
inquiry, Quintois requested
“right
arising under Title
charge
discrimination
sue” authorization.2 After
(Title
Rights Act of 1964
VII of the Civil
Quintois’
Quintois filed a
granted
request,
VII).
against Propak
lawsuit
in March
*4
Quintois’
Based
discrimination which
dismissed about four months
investiga-
charge, the EEOC initiated
upon agreement
parties.
later
Propak
nearly
years.
that lasted
six
tion of
2008,
In September
the EEOC con
investigation
This
included extensive peri-
investigation
Propak
cluded its
and is
delay
inactivity.
ods of
and
sued a “determination letter.” The EEOC
Although Propak responded to the
that it
stated
had found reason to conclude
2003,
May
in
did not
charge
EEOC
that Propak
by failing
violated Title VTI
to
Quintois concerning Propak’s
interview
re-
non-Hispanic job applicants
hire a class of
May
until
sponse
The EEOC also
origin.
because of their race or national
until
delayed
April 2004 its interview of
letter,
In the
Pro-
EEOC also invited
Ponder,
Kathy
manager respon-
a Propak
pak
participate
in informal conciliation
hiring
Shelby,
for
decisions at the
sible
pursuant
to resolve the matter
facility.
North Carolina
statutory
engage
mandate to
in
September
designat-
2000e-5(b).
In
such efforts.3 See U.S.C.
§
However,
ed the matter as
“class case.”
matter,
attempting
to conciliate the
found, Propak
as the district court later
proposed
the EEOC
certain remedial
procedural
did not receive notice of this
concerning Propak’s
measures
facilities in
years
decision until
four
later in
about
North Carolina and South Carolina.
September 2008.1
required
These measures would
Pro-
have
Although
in
pak
the EEOC scheduled and con-
these locations to offer certain em-
ducted two
ployment opportunities,
provide training
witness interviews between Oc-
tober 2004
March
supervisors
managers,
post
little other
for
and to
time, however,
investigative activity
during
By
occurred
this
certain notices.
this
period.
Propak
The record also shows that
had closed all its
in
facilities
those
Corr.,
(4th
Department
Dep’t
1. The United States
of Justice
N.C.
48 F.3d
investigation
Propak
also conducted an
Quintois' allegations.
based on
That investi-
gation,
year,
which lasted about one
ended in
3.Conciliation
is one of the EEOC’s "most
any charges being
November 2005 without
and,
prece-
essential functions”
under our
brought.
dent,
required
engage
in
“good
attempt
faith
at conciliation” before it
“right
may
complaint
2. The EEOC’s issuance of a
to sue”
file a
in a federal court.
Co.,
private
Specialty
letter allows an individual to initiate a
EEOC v. Radiator
1979).
Title VII
lawsuit
federal court. Davis
Cir.
states, thereby rendering
impossible
it
for
laches. The district
granted
court
Pro-
motion,
pak’s
concluding
meas-
Propak
implement
such remedial
that the EEOC’s
delay
initiating
Propak
ures.4
advised the EEOC
this
lawsuit was “unrea-
conclusion,
sonable.” In reaching
one month later.
fact about
emphasized
court
the fact
during
The EEOC nevertheless initiated a law-
investigation, “there
significant peri-
were
against
suit
the district
ods when the
took little
or no ac-
August
more than six and one-half
completing
tion toward
the investigation.”
Quintois
years after
filed his discrimina-
The district court
that Propak
held
suf-
charge.
alleged
tion
The EEOC
in its
prejudice resulting
fered
from the EEOC’s
complaint that between October 2002 and
delay.”
“unreasonable
The court observed
2004, Propak
by
June
violated Title VII
witnesses,
important
that certain
including
hire,
refusing to
on the basis of national
managers
the site
Shelby facility
origin,
non-Hispanic
a class of
individuals
during
period,
the relevant time
were no
Shelby,
facility.
North Carolina
longer
employed
Propak and that “lo-
relief,
sought
The EEOC
certain
difficult,
cating them would be
if not im-
including
requiring
an order
possible.” The court also stated that even
policies
programs
institute
to benefit
if
ultimately
such witnesses
could be locat-
persons in
non-Hispanic
mitigate
order to
ed, they likely would have “faded memo-
of the allegedly
effects
unlawful em-
*5
issue,
period
ries” of the time
which was
practices.
The
ployment
EEOC also
years
more than
complaint
five
before the
sought monetary
relief on behalf
the
was filed.
non-Hispanic employment
affected class of
The court
applicants.
delay
noted that the EEOC’s
Propak
prejudice,
caused
additional
be-
Propak filed a motion to dismiss
Propak routinely
destroyed
cause
had
per-
arguing, among
things,
other
that the ac
years
sonnel records three
after an indi-
tion should be barred under the doctrine of
longer
employed by
vidual no
was
laches.5 The district court denied the mo
Thus,
company.
Propak destroyed the
prejudice
respect
tion without
to Pro-
employees
compa-
records of
who left the
defense,
pak’s
par
laches
and ordered the
ny between 2002 and 2004
being
before
no-
engage
discovery
ties to
limited to the
September
tified in
Propak
preju
issue whether
had suffered
pursuing
was
the matter on a class basis.6
resulting
dice
the EEOC’s extensive
rejected
court specifically
The
the EEOC’s
delay
initiating
litigation.
argument
Propak
that
it had notified
date,
At
discovery peri-
the conclusion of this
designation
the class
at an earlier
od,
summary
Propak
observing
support
filed motion for
that the record did not
judgment, again asserting
Although
the defense of
the EEOC’s assertion.
the court
(citation
(4th Cir.2005)
parties
argue,
4. The
do not
and the record
and
suggest,
Propak's
omitted).
does not
that
decision to
quotation
internal
marks
close its facilities in North Carolina and
South Carolina was
the EEOC's
influenced
parties dispute
appeal
6.The
whether Pro-
investigation.
unlawfully
failing
preserve
acted
pak
records. We need not resolve this issue be-
equitable
requires
defense of
that
The
laches
analysis
cause it is not material to our
of the
"(1)
prove
diligence by
a defendant
lack of
district court’s decision to award
at-
asserted,
against
party
whom
defense is
torneys’ fees.
(2)
party asserting
prejudice
Union,
Navy
defense.” EEOC v.
Fed. Credit
identify
Shelby plant
had closed the
and its other
the EEOC’s failure
also noted
facilities,
unavailability
and that an
and the
of North Carolina
purported victims
relief,
monetary
unlikely
em-
primarily
damages
the court
award of
inability
key
filing the
produce
because the EEOC knew before
phasized Propak’s
identify
of docu-
complaint
and the destruction
that
it could
witnesses
Propak’s
alleged
defense.
victims.
ments essential to
class
judg-
entered its
respect
After the district court
With
to the EEOC’s continued
timely
Propak,
following
the EEOC
discov-
pursuit
litigation
ment in favor of
of the
appeal.
ery,
alternatively
The EEOC later
court
held
filed a notice
district
sought
appeal,
pursuit
which
that such
was unreasonable be-
dismissal
agreed
[during
motion of
upon
again
Court ordered
cause “it was
reaffirmed
parties.
discovery]
purported
that
victims and wit-
nesses could not be located
the fa-
[and]
later considered Pro-
The district court
cilities were closed.” The court further
seeking attorneys’ fees in the
pak’s motion
unreasonably
concluded
$192,602.95, which were in-
amount of
pursue
continued to
after
filed
by Propak
curred
after the EEOC
learning
employment
the relevant
granted
complaint.
longer
records
in existence.”
“were
motion,
Propak nearly
awarded
Relying on the
requested.
Addressing
attorneys’
the full amount
the amount of
holding
fees,
in Christians-
Supreme
analyzed
Court’s
Propak’s
the district court
EEOC,
detail,
434 U.S.
burg
request
Garment Co.
fail-
despite the EEOC’s
(1978),
694,
or
Id. at
151 findings deciding erroneous factual its bad faith is not required for a prevailing defendant to disagree attorneys’ fee award. We with the EEOC’s be awarded fees. Id. arguments. A district court must avoid en
A.
gaging
“post hoc
reasoning”
consider
matter,
general
litigant
ing
plaintiffs
As a
must
whether a
action under Title
unreasonable,
pay
attorneys’
its own
fees in the
VII was
absence
and an award will
if
statutory
only
of a
stand
based
plaintiffs
enforceable contractual
421-22,
prevail.
failure to
Id. at
provision allowing attorneys’ fees to be
694. An award of
prevailing party.
attorneys’
awarded to a
fees to a
See Chris
prevailing
defendant
is a
tiansburg, 434 U.S. at
“conservative
clear error.
Life
(4th Cir.2010);
principles of law.
Co.,
on different
F.3d
Ins.
1071,1079
Hill,
n. 10
F.2d
Daly v.
holding of lach-
summary judgment
The
unjustified
on the EEOC’s
es was based
lawsuit,
and on the
delay
bringing
B.
affecting Propak’s abil-
resulting prejudice
action. That
ity to defend itself
matter,
reject
an initial
As
on the unavaila-
primarily
decision rested
the issue
that we consider
request
that
bility
key
witnesses and documents
as an affirma-
laches is available
whether
support
its defense.
Propak needed
by
to an action filed
tive defense
Although the issue
States.
of the United
contrast,
In
the district court awarded
district court’s sum-
was relevant
attorneys’
chiefly on the basis that the
fees
aban-
holding, the EEOC
mary judgment
effectively
moot at its
was
EEOC’s lawsuit
summary judgment
appeal
its
doned
conclusion,
reaching
In
inception.
do not consider
Accordingly, we
order.
that,
complaint
emphasized
when
court’s laches deter-
the rationale for the
filed,
identify
the EEOC had failed to
mination,
arguments relat-
or the EEOC’s
could be entitled
the class of victims who
decision,
present appeal.
in the
ing to that
relief,
monetary
relief
because
had closed
was unavailable
argu-
turn to consider the EEOC’s
We
its facilities in North Carolina. These
improperly
that
the district court
ment
to the court’s
findings, which were central
awarding attorneys’ fees
based its decision
unreasonably
conclusion
ruling.
earlier laches
The
on the court’s
lawsuit,
not material to
initiated the
were
court en-
asserts that
laches decision articulated on
the court’s
“hindsight logic”
explaining
its
gaged in
Thus,
summary
the court’s fee
judgment.
attorneys’
by referencing
fees
award of
proper
award reflected
consideration
prejudicial
holding
earlier laches
assessing
Christiansburg
by
standard
disagree
delay
caused
the EEOC. We
unreasonably in
whether the EEOC acted
argument.
with the EEOC’s
initiating
litigation.9
attorneys’
under the
awarding
fees
“great deference” to the dis-
Christiansburg
upon finding
standard
accord
We
trict court’s conclusion that the EEOC act-
unreasonably
initiated the liti-
litigation.
unreasonably
initiating
ed
gation, the district court’s award was
Steaks,
summary judgment
See
based on the earlier
Great
the dis-
Although
argues
the court referenced EEOC
nevertheless
decision.
delay
reaching
trict court erred in
this conclu-
previous findings
prejudice
sion,
finding
summary judgment holding, and
and attacks the court’s factual
from the
many
identify
forth
over-
that the EEOC could not
individu-
the two decisions set
relating
overlap with
the district court did not base its
of documents
facts
9. Because
awarding
alternative basis for
at-
decision to award
fees on the rea-
the court's
*8
fees,
torneys’
namely,
opposition
the
to the
that the EEOC's contin-
sonableness of
EEOC's
defense,
pursuit
was unreason-
we do not consider
ued
laches
However,
argument
reasonably thought
able.
because we do not reach the
EEOC's
that it
holding,
ad-
Separately,
court’s alternative
we need not
it could overcome that defense.
aspect
of the court’s deci-
certain facts in the district
dress whether
we observe that
relating
improperly
summary judgment
sion
relied on facts
court's
decision concern-
summary
unavailability
judgment decision.
ing
of witnesses and the loss
eligible
al members of the class of victims
tified individuals
harmed
hir-
Propak’s
monetary
relief.
ing practices during the relevant
peri-
time
Indeed,
od.
showing
evidence
Under onr clear error stan
EEOC’s efforts to identify the class of
however,
dard,
we will not reverse a dis
victims,
any
without
indication that such
trict
factual finding
court’s
unless after
successful,
efforts were
implicitly supports
reviewing the record we are “left
awith
the district
finding
court’s
that claimants
definite and firm conviction that a mistake
could not be
reasons,
identified. For these
has been
Helton v. AT
T
committed.”
&
we do not have a “definite and firm convic-
(4th
Inc.,
Cir.2013).
709 F.3d
tion”
the district court mistakenly
present record contains four entries from
concluded that
the EEOC had failed to
spring
noting
of 2006
that an “[[Investi
identify potential victims in
target
class
gator
potential
member,”
interviewed
class
filing
Helton,
before
complaint.
See
and four similar
early
notations from
The record also entitled to maintain includes a notation that an action seeking against Propak “contact letters relief potential mailed to [were] that, However, despite fact class members.” nine the record months before' filing complaint, does not show that any individuals receiv- EEOC became ing these that Propak longer operated any letters fell within the aware EEOC’s Moreover, definition of the target Contrary class. facilities North Carolina. the fact that engaged contention, the EEOC efforts the Seventh Cir identify “potential claimants” does not cuit’s decision in EEOC v. Konica Minolta U.S.A., Inc., establish that the successfully iden- Business Solutions although 10. We also observe that any prevent- EEOC has not identified reason designated relating documents to various in- ing filing it from redacted versions of these identify terviews and other efforts to class documents in record. material, being privileged members *9 154 de- attorneys’ fees regard to parties (7th Cir.2011), support no offers
366 terminations. in sole- Konica The decision here. EEOC subpoena issue whether the ly concerned informa- requested sought by the in its order court noted The district in view of investigation, to
tion relevant unreasonably by acted “that facilities Konica’s four one of fact that after [a litigation against initiating Id. 367. had closed. Chicago area in the and at a investigation more-than-five-year] sanction Moreover, did not decision fa- noncompliant allegedly time when action enforcement of an the initiation class of and the closed cilities had been longer maintained a defendant when injured had not ex- purportedly individuals al- discrimination facilities where Never- years.” five J.A. at isted for legedly occurred. that it should theless, suggests astonishing leeway for given special be that the court did conclude therefore We suit of this rendered initiation delays that holding that the in not abuse its discretion it offers as For problematic. example, so initiating unreasonably in EEOC acted fact delay the for its partial explanation Christiansburg, 434 litigation. See was by Propak provided that “evidence Steaks, 694; Great S.Ct. U.S. at by the analyzed waiting to be reviewed conclusion, of our view F.3d at 517. Appellant’s staff.” over-burdened EEOC’s court’s the district not address need we (justifying a 52; id. at Br. at see also con- holding alternative by noting the Commission’s activity of lack unrea- pursuit tinued and anal- documents of voluminous “review in developing record light sonable data”). The ysis complex statistical does Finally, because the EEOC case. that because suggest to seems EEOC also appeal that district argue on perform- deference to shown have of attor- determining the amount erred in oth- of its administrative functions ance entitled, we Propak is neys’ fees which circumstances, the court should er well- the district court’s to address decline the Commis- guess[ed]” “second not have fee calculation. reasoned of this and awarded pursuit suit sion’s Together, attorneys’ fees. Id. at 55-56. argue appear these statements III. curve, due graded should be agencies reasons, we affirm the district For these upon them stat- placed burdens judgment. court’s review ute, their own internal regulation, to assure and their need processes, AFFIRMED. resources. deployment finite optimal some intuitive arguments do have These WILKINSON, Judge, Circuit brief, in its As the EEOC notes appeal. concurring: thousands receives tens of the Commission year fine under Judge full in Keenan’s to review complaints I concur in each Rights Act of separately I to address of the Civil opinion. write Title VII Age Dis- in the statutes such as implication appellant’s other unfortunate Act, the Amer- Employment agencies, Equal crimination brief: federal Act, Equal and the Disabilities icans with Opportunity Commission Employment “Commission”) Br. at 6. Appellant’s Act. (“EEOC” Pay See particular, investigate each of required differently private should be treated
155
and, if
complaints
“frivolous,
these
it finds reasonable
unreasonable,
suit was
true, attempt
foundation,”
cause to believe them
or
421,
without
at
id.
98 S.Ct.
any alleged
eliminate
unlawful conduct 694—reflects a determination to head off
through informal methods.
42
unjustified
See U.S.C.
litigation. A party forced to
2000e-5(b).
§
If
potentially
these
time defend against
groundless
a
lawsuit
fail,
consuming efforts
the Commission is prejudiced every bit as much if
litiga-
bring
against
authorized to
a civil suit
a
tion is brought by a federal agency as if it
(f)(1).
private party.
§
See id.
2000e-5
were
by
commenced
a private party. The
in particular
EEOC
brings
against
suit
a
These are substantial
tasks. Notwith-
range
wide
of employers for whom the
burden,
standing the Commission’s
howev-
defense of
may
lawsuits
be prohibitively
er, Congress
Supreme
and the
Court have
expensive. Christiansburg was sensitive
exempt
not seen fit to
it altogether from
problem,
to this
noting
“many
defen-
prevailing
awards to
defendants under Ti-
dants
Title VII claims are small- and
tle VII. The statute specifically provides
employers
moderate-size
for whom the ex-
court,
discretion,
that “the
may
allow
pense of defending even a frivolous claim
prevailing
party, other than the Com-
may
strong
become a
disincentive to the
States,
mission or the United
a reasonable
legal
exercise of their
rights.”
at
Id.
fees)
attorney’s
(including expert
fee
20,
n.
port a Thus, difference in treatment among pri- to vindicate the Title provi- VII fee vate and Government plaintiffs when a goals sion’s of encouraging meritorious prevailing defendant seeks to his recover suits while protecting innocent defendants attorney’s fees.” ones, Id. 423 n. from frivolous the EEOC must be say, Needless to private parties subject most potential to the same penalties as would not dream of trying to excuse the private parties bring litiga- who vexatious delays excessive explanation here with the tion.
that they were otherwise burdened or oc- Applying a different standard to then, cupied. Doctrinally, the issue is any statutory the absence of closed. simply differentiation encourage would good
And with reason. The sub-optimal agency all, Christians- behavior. After burg Court’s standard for prevailing although de- special it faces the burdens de- fendant to plaintiff— case, recover fees from a litigating scribed above when contrast, Government, more un- has a ad- particular operates also *11 hand over those it either serves government As a fettered litigant. as a.
vantages greater upon re- it incumbent investigates, benefits and is thus agency, it often it sues. private parties officials, to maintain public high petty, than do and sources Steaks, Inc., 667 F.3d appreciation EEOC v. Great for the extent of See some Cir.2012) (4th (noting the “vast 510, 519 may impose. that their actions burden govern- between disparity of resources adversary pro- that this is an Granted litigants”); Roanoke private ment and cess, saga it is still remarkable Hudson, 991 F.2d River Basin Ass’n by the delay and indifference recounted Cir.1993) (acknowledging 132, 138 glint a brought has forth not district court parties’ private that congressional concern agency to what the sub- recognition as substantially outweighed by are “resources start-and- jected the defendant to with its The United government”). those of the investigative over a total and stop behavior enjoys procedural certain general States nearly eight years. litigative course of to in federal court not available advantages in this importantly, plaintiff Just Alan 14 Charles private litigants. See badger hanging, action was left forced to al., Practice and Proce- Wright et Federal for his through counsel Commission (3d ed.1998) (noting § various dure right own to sue. The same limbo affected govern- enjoyed by the federal privileges if parties controversy, to this and both And Title VII plaintiff). ment as a here, attorneys’ fees were not awarded with the provides the EEOC particular effectively de- statutory provision would be exact, unintentionally, high ability to albeit capitated. throughout the private employer a costs on an hope judge As one to would subse- investigative process potential and incident, single individual on a so one See, quent litigation. e.g., C.F.R. single a judge agency should not authority (granting § 1601.16 the EEOC in- particular case. One can condemn a subpoenas compel production to and issue diminution of stance of conduct without under the control of those sub- evidence many § for instances where poenaed); (requiring respect 29 C.F.R. 1602.14 charged challenging a with discrimina- illicit discrimi- litigation defendant fi- records until preserve tion all relevant and more properly nation was conducted charge). disposition nal hap- than But what proved its worth. pened here was inexcusable. Of course no potential to advantages These have expects one wants or the Commission aspects of combine with the more dubious bring by But the same prematurely. suit way culture in a that can be bureaucratic token, company deserves to have its danger a particularly toxic. There is by agency up government affairs tied bureaucracy, armed public those inside a if the period of time. Even resources, authority, and significant acknowledge damage will not such discretion, may gradually become numb as litiga- lengthy investigation groundless to how affect those outside their actions their companies tion can inflict on It parties they investigate or sue. is bad individuals, offices, employees, we can. Like busi- enough lawyers’ or for doctors’ right get on with their nesses have retailers to dealerships, car or mail-order Investigations length of this di- affairs. or customers jerk patients or clients resources, around, company’s people vert relationships those are at least but devoting the business from preventing of choice and often based on some element financial, en- capital, human and to those subject discipline. to a measure of market terprising purposes for which it was estab- determined “that the pursuit lished. after filing was unreason- able.” Surely J.A. this is not and deciding litigate In addition to a case must not become the norm. It is not far- winning, it had little chance of fetched to believe that deep nation’s press has continued to its case at commitment combatting discrimination stage. essentially fees Its brief will be affected for good or ill rehashes the same arguments on which it esteem in important which this agency is quite prevail unable to on the merits. *12 held. Supreme The Court has warned “[a] request attorney’s fees should not re- major
sult in a
litigation.” Hensley
second
Eckerhart,
424, 437,
v.
461 U.S.
(1983).
in and of ability itself to work America, UNITED rel; STATES of ex justice.” Sales, Rum Creek Coal Inc. v. BABALOLA; Kayode Samuel Samu- Caperton, 31 F.3d Adetunmbi, Plaintiffs-Appellants el story of this regrettable America, Appellee United States of provides because the EEOC primary re- course to those victims of discrimination persists society our to an unfortu- SHARMA, doing Arun business as Aller- nate extent. The reference statutory gy Asthma Center; Arthritis & Pain goals missions, however, cannot be Sharma, doing Kiran business as Al- divorced from the manner in which those lergy Center, Asthma Arthritis Pain& Here,
purposes implemented. are Defendants-Appellees. spent Commission fíve-and-a-half on-and- No. 13-20182. off years pursuing investigation of Pro- pak, by which point company had United Appeals, States Court of and, closed both in question facilities Fifth Circuit. court, noted agency the district had Feb. purported been unable to locate victims or class members. The district court was left “by observe that the time the EEOC bring
determined to it action abundantly clear that a lawsuit would be moot and it thus was unreasonable to have Furthermore, filed it.” J.A. at 565. once it litigation, had initiated the Commission
acknowledged unusually long delay discovery limited left no doubt victims, witnesses, still lacked the documents or viable theories of relief to win the case. After examining this evi-
dence, the district court not surprisingly