Search form

EEOC Announces FY 2015 Performance Results, Touts Increase in Litigation and Systemic Successes

By Paul Patten
  • November 20, 2015

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recently released Performance and Accountability Report (“PAR”) for Fiscal Year 2015 shows the EEOC recovered more than a half billion dollars through litigation and other enforcement activities this past fiscal year, a significant increase over FY 2014.

For the FY period from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, the agency recovered $356.6 million in pre-litigation relief for those who work in the private sector and an additional $65.3 million through its litigation efforts. The EEOC secured an additional $105.7 million for federal employees and applicants through its federal sector process. The EEOC’s total claimed monetary achievements were $527.6 million.

Litigation Pay Dirt and More to Come

The EEOC’s FY 2015 efforts in court were rewarded with significantly greater recoveries compared to FY 2014. With more filings in 2015, expectations will be high for 2016. Disability issues continue to contribute significantly to the EEOC’s litigation playbook.

According to the PAR, the EEOC resolved 155 merits lawsuits in FY 2015. The monetary recovery amounting to $65.3 million was almost triple the $22 million recovered in FY 2014. These resolutions included 87 Title VII claims, 61 Americans with Disabilities Act claims, 12 Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims, one Equal Pay Act claim, and one Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act claim (some lawsuits sought relief under more than one statute). The EEOC claims it obtained a favorable result in almost 90% of these resolutions.

The agency filed 142 merit lawsuits in FY 2015, also an increase from FY 2014. These included 16 systemic lawsuits and 26 lawsuits with multiple victims. Claims broke down as follows: 83 under Title VII, 53 under ADA, 14 under ADEA, seven under EPA, and one under GINA.

Pre-Litigation Enforcement: 250% Increase in Systemic Recoveries

Monetary benefits obtained for private sector workers resulted mainly from the EEOC’s pre-litigation mediation program, settlement, or conciliation. The PAR emphasized the high priority the EEOC has put on redressing alleged systemic discrimination, where the agency sees itself as having a broad impact on an industry, company, or geographic area.

In FY 2015, the EEOC employed additional systemic investigators for which it claimed a significant pay off. The EEOC resolved 268 systemic investigations and obtained more than $33.5 million through those resolutions, a hefty increase from the $13 million obtained in FY 2014. According to the EEOC, its ability to conciliate successfully was even greater for systemic cause findings (64%) than for cause findings overall (44%).

The EEOC highlighted several million-dollar pre-litigation settlements that provide further insight into its targeted issues:

  • A $2.8 million conciliation involving the use of hiring assessments that allegedly violated the ADA and Title VII;
  • A $1.2 million ADA settlement where applicants allegedly were subjected to prohibited medical examinations and inquiries;
  • A $3.8 million sexual harassment/discrimination settlement involving 300 women; and
  • A $2.5 race hiring and recruitment settlement.

Along with these substantial monetary settlements, the PAR devoted several paragraphs to describing pre-litigation criminal background achievements.

The tenor of the PAR is that the EEOC will expand on these FY 2015 systemic achievements in FY 2016 through the developing expertise of its investigators, more training, and the implementation of tools and systems focused on systemic issues.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers faced with an EEOC investigation or lawsuit.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 30, 2017

Chicago Adopts ‘Hands Off Pants On’ Law to Protect Hotel Workers from Sexual Harassment, Assault

October 30, 2017

To provide hospitality workers greater protections against sexual harassment and assault, the Chicago City Council passed the “Hands Off Pants On” Ordinance on October 11, 2017. The Ordinance requires all hotels in the City to adopt a panic button system and an anti-sexual harassment policy. The Ordinance was passed after months of... Read More

October 24, 2017

California Adds ‘Transgender,’ ‘Gender Nonconforming Individuals’ to Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors

October 24, 2017

Employers subject to California’s mandatory sexual harassment training requirement for supervisors will need to ensure their programs include prevention of harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation following an amendment (SB 396) to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). On October 15... Read More

October 5, 2017

Department of Justice Releases Memorandum Restricting Transgender Worker Protection under Title VII

October 5, 2017

On October 4, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the Department of Justice’s position that gender identity is protected as part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against sex discrimination — taking a position that is contrary to current guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In a... Read More

Related Practices