Today the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the employer's petition in CRST Van Expedited, Inc v. EEOC, 14-1375. The case is an appeal from the Eight Circuit's reversal of the trial court's award of attorney's fees to CRST when the EEOC's class action sexual harassment suit against the long-haul transport company was gutted due to what the trial court found to be the EEOC's "sue first, investigate later" practices. In dismissing the EEOC's suit, the trial court found that "dismissal is a severe but appropriate remedy. Although dozens of potentially meritorious sexual harassment claims may now never see the inside of a courtroom, to rule to the contrary would work a greater evil insofar as it would permit the EEOC to perfect an end-run around Title VII’s 'integrated, multistep enforcement procedure'... It would ratify a “sue first, ask questions later” litigation strategy on the part of the EEOC, which would be anathema to Congressional intent."
The question now before the Supreme Court is whether a defendant who prevailed in a Title VII action by successfully arguing that the EEOC failed to satisfy it's pre-suit obligations to investigate the claims, make a determination of reasonable cause and attempt conciliation, is entitled to it's attorney's fees and costs. In this case, pending since 2007 and involving 270 individual claims, the costs awarded by the trial court were $4,189,296 in fees, $413,387 in expenses and $91,758 in taxable costs.
This is one to watch on many levels but perhaps the most significant for employers may be the impact affirming this award of fees may be as a deterrent to the EEOC in pursuing multiple claim litigation without a full investigation of each claim. appealed decision 774 F3d 1169 (8th Circuit 2015).
.
Comments