Company sued by EEOC can collect attorney fees absent a ruling on the merits, Supreme Court rules
A company sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may be able to collect attorney fees even when there is no ruling on the merits, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a unanimous opinion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion in a case that interprets a Title VII provision authorizing the award of attorney fees to a defendant that is a “prevailing party.” The case before the court involved an EEOC class action in which a federal appeals court said the agency employed a “sue first, ask questions later” litigation strategy.
One purpose of an attorney fee award is to deter lawsuits that are frivolous or without foundation, Kennedy wrote. “Congress must have intended that a defendant could recover fees expended in frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless litigation when the case is resolved in the defendant’s favor, whether on the merits or not,” he said.
The EEOC had filed the class action against CRST Van Expedited on behalf of about 250 employees who were allegedly subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. A federal court dismissed claims on behalf of the women on a variety of grounds.
First, the court dismissed claims on behalf of nearly 100 women as a discovery sanction because the EEOC failed to produce them for depositions. Then the district complaint dismissed other claims for reasons such as expiration of the statute of limitations, the employee’s failure to quickly complain of harassment, and the company’s effective response to harassment reports. Finally, the district court dismissed 67 remaining claims for the EEOC’s failure to abide by pre-suit requirements to investigate and conciliate.
The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld all of the dismissals except for claims by two women, including Monika Starke, whose complaint about harassment by her trainers precipitated the EEOC investigation. Starke settled her claim and the EEOC withdrew the other.
On remand the trial awarded CRST more than $4 million in attorney fees, finding the company had prevailed on 150 claims, including the 67 claims dismissed for failing to satisfy the pre-suit requirements. On appeal, the 8th Circuit found CRST did not prevail on the 67 claims and ordered more particularized findings on other claims.
Kennedy said the lower courts needed to resolve additional factual and legal questions regarding the attorney fees and remanded. He noted the EEOC filed the complaint nearly nine years ago and said he was confident the lower courts “will resolve the case by taking any proper steps to expedite its resolution.”
