Serrano v. Cintas Corp.
| Decision Date | 15 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 10–2629,11–2057.,s. 10–2629 |
| Citation | 699 F.3d 884 |
| Parties | Mirna E. SERRANO et al., Plaintiffs, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff Intervenor–Appellant, v. CINTAS CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ARGUED:Jennifer S. Goldstein, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Gregory M. Utter, Keating, Muething & Klekamp PPL, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Jennifer S. Goldstein, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Gregory M. Utter, Rachael A. Rowe, Keating, Muething & Klekamp PPL, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.
Before: MOORE, GIBBONS, and ALARCÓN,* Circuit Judges.
MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALARCÓN, J., joined and GIBBONS, J., joined in part. GIBBONS, J. (pp. 906–08), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) appeals two judgments entered by the district court in favor of Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”) on sex-discrimination claims under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in its hiring practices for the Service Sales Representative (“SSR”) position. In the first judgment, entered on October 18, 2010, the district court granted Cintas's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the EEOC's pattern-or-practice style claim and granted summary judgment for Cintas on the EEOC's thirteen individual-claimant claims. In the second judgment, entered on August 18, 2011, the district court granted Cintas's motion for attorney fees and costs in light of its status as the prevailing party. For the reasons that follow, we VACATE both judgments and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cintas is a corporation that supplies uniforms to businesses throughout North America. Sealed Appx. at A–1095. In fact, it is the largest such supplier with more than 800,000 clients and 400 operating facilities. Id. Cintas's SSRs are a key component of its workforce and provide the essential function of driving trucks to pick up and deliver uniforms and other products requested by clients. Id. at A–911. While performing these functions, SSRs are also expected to act as sales representatives by providing any needed customer service, pitching up-sells to existing clients, and collecting payments due for services. Id. at A–911–12. Because SSRs are constantly out in the field servicing customers, SSRs are in many respects the public “face of Cintas.” Id. at A–851.
Given the various demands of the job, SSRs are required to possess both communication and sales skills as well as the physical capacity to drive trucks and make deliveries. Id. at A–439–442. In addition, all SSRs are required to have a high school diploma or GED and a driver's license. Id. at A–37. The selection process for SSR candidates begins with a review of the candidate's application and resume. Id. at A–226, A–228. Desirable candidates are then selected for a brief screening interview, which may be conducted either in person or on the phone. Id. Candidates who perform well in screening are then invited to participate in more in-depth interviews and on-the-job simulations, after which an offer of employment may be made. Id. at A–234.
Mirna Serrano (Serrano), a female, unsuccessfully “applied numerous times” for a position as an SSR at Cintas's Michigan Westland location. R. 876–5 (Serrano EEOC Charge). Concluding that Cintas's failure to hire her may have been because of her sex, Serrano filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC on April 7, 2000. Id. On July 3, 2002, after investigating Serrano's claims and then expanding the investigation to include Cintas's female hiring practices throughout Michigan, the EEOC issued a reasonable-cause determination stating that the EEOC had “reasonable cause to believe that [Serrano's] allegations are true” and “reasonable cause to believe that [Cintas] has discriminated against females as a class.” R. 836–40 (EEOC Reasonable–Cause Determination). That same day, the EEOC sent a proposed conciliation agreement to Cintas suggesting that relief be provided to Serrano, one-hundred and eleven other specified women, and an unspecified number of “other similarly situated females.” R. 836–41 (Proposed Conciliation Agreement at 3–4). Cintas did not respond or present a counteroffer for settlement. As a result, almost three years later on April 14, 2005, the EEOC notified Cintas that it was terminatingconciliation efforts because they had been unsuccessful. R. 876–8 (EEOC Conciliation Termination Ltr.).
In May 2004, while the EEOC and Cintas were still involved in conciliation, Serrano filed a Title VII class-action complaint against Cintas in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. R. 1 (Serrano Compl.). Shortly after conciliation terminated at the end of 2005, the EEOC intervened in the Serrano action. R. 97 (Dist.Ct.Order, 12/22/05); R. 98 (EEOC Compl.).1 In June 2008, the private plaintiffs jointly moved for nationwide class certification, R. 411 (Plaintiffs' Mot. to Certify Class), which the district court denied on March 31, 2009, R. 627 (Dist.Ct.Order, 3/31/09). The remaining named parties proceeded to litigate their individual claims and, by April 2010, all of the individual plaintiffs save Serrano “had their cases either dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved.” R. 937 (Dist.Ct.Op., 9/20/10, at 2).2 Serrano and Cintas later concluded a settlement agreement in September 2010. See R. 937 (Dist.Ct.Op., 9/20/10).
After the class-certification issues were resolved, the EEOC and Cintas held a scheduling conference on August 10, 2009, and the district court set dates for discovery and the final pre-trial conference. R. 646 . In recognition of the denial of nationwide class certification for the private plaintiffs, the EEOC filed an amended complaint on August 20, 2009, which limited its allegations to “a class of women in the State of Michigan” as opposed to females nationwide. See R. 650 (EEOC First Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9, 11).
On October 21, 2009, Cintas moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the EEOC could assert a claim of pattern-or-practice discrimination only pursuant to the EEOC's authority under § 707, and not under § 706, of Title VII. R. 662 (Cintas Mot. for Judgment). The district court granted Cintas's motion on February 9, 2010, R. 723 (Dist.Ct.Order, 2/9/10), and denied the EEOC's request to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal, R. 752 (Dist.Ct.Order, 3/12/10). Shortly thereafter, the EEOC made a series of motions in light of the district court's ruling. First, the EEOC moved for an extension of the discovery period to allow additional time to investigate individual-based claims. R. 731 (EEOC Mot. to Extend Discovery). Next, the EEOC moved to compel Cintas to produce, among other things, unredacted employment applications bearing the applicants' last names, addresses, and telephone numbers. R. 759 (EEOC Mot. to Compel). With both of these motions still outstanding, the EEOC moved to file a second amended complaint in order to add § 707 as a basis for its claims. R. 765 (EEOC Second Mot. to Amend).
The district court denied the discovery motions one by one. First, after a hearing, the district court denied the motion for an extension of discovery on April 5, 2010. R. 783 (Dist.Ct.Order, 4/5/10). Next, upon advice from the magistrate judge, the district court refused to compel Cintas to produce the unredacted employment applications. R. 807 (Magistrate Order, 4/22/10); R. 843 (Dist.Ct.Order, 7/7/10). After these rulings, on the final day of discovery, the EEOC sent notice of its intent to depose Scott Farmer, Cintas's President and CEO. On May 3, 2010, Cintas moved for a protective order barring the deposition. R. 816 (Cintas Mot. for Protective Order).
On June 2, 2010 after the close of the discovery period, the district court denied the EEOC's motion to file a second amended complaint. R. 829 (Dist.Ct.Order, 6/2/10); R. 940 (Amended Dist. Ct. Order). The next day the magistrate judge held a hearing on Cintas's motion for a protective order, and then issued an order granting the motion. R. 831 (Magistrate Order, 6/10/10). Although the EEOC filed objections, R. 834 (EEOC Objections), it does not appear that the district court ever ruled on them.
On June 25, 2010, Cintas moved for summary judgment alleging that the EEOC failed to satisfy the administrative prerequisites to suit under § 706. R. 836 (Cintas Omnibus Mot. for Summary Judgment). On July 14, 2010, Cintas moved for summary judgment on the merits of each of the individual claimants' claims. See R. 848, R. 850, R. 852, R. 854, R. 856, R. 858, R. 859, R. 862, R. 864, R. 867, R. 869, R. 871, R. 873 (Cintas Mots. for Summary Judgment). Between September 3 and 10, 2010, the district court granted judgment in Cintas's favor on each of the individual summary-judgment motions. See R. 923–935 (Dist.Ct.Opinions). The district court thereafter also granted Cintas's omnibus motion alleging administrative default on September 20, 2010. R. 936 (Dist.Ct.Opinion, 9/20/10). The district court entered judgment on October 18, 2010, R. 941 (Judgment, Case No. 10–2629), and the EEOC filed a timely notice of appeal, R. 1070 (Notice of Appeal, Case No. 10–2629).
On October 18, 2010, Cintas moved, as the prevailing party, for attorney fees and costs, R. 943 (Cintas Mot. for Fees and Costs), and the district court granted the motion on August 4, 2011, R. 1079 (Dist.Ct.Op., 8/4/2011). The district court entered judgment on August 18, 2011, R. 1080 (Judgment, Case No....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Grane Healthcare Co.
...by contending that the multiple claims asserted in this case should have been investigated on a piecemeal basis. Serrano v. EEOC, 699 F.3d 884, 904-05 (6th Cir. 2012). A claim is subject to dismissal only "if it is evident that the [EEOC] failed to even undertake an investigation" of the ma......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Tepro, Inc.
...that "Keco, while not a recent case, is still good law and was recently cited favorably by the Sixth Circuit. See Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884, 904–05 (6th Cir.2012).... Keco remains binding on this Court as controlling law in this circuit." Id. at 888–89.The Court notes its agreem......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Mavis Disc. Tire, Inc.
...is that the district court's decision in Serrano I was promptly vacated and remanded by the Sixth Circuit. Serrano v. Cintas Corp. ("Serrano II "), 699 F.3d 884, 896 (6th Cir.2012), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 92, 187 L.Ed.2d 254 (2013). Once again, the district court decision De......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Grane Healthcare Co.
...by contending that the multiple claims asserted in this case should have been investigated on a piecemeal basis. Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884, 904–05 (6th Cir.2012). A claim is subject to dismissal only “if it is evident that the [EEOC] failed to even undertake an investigation” of......
-
When Must Executives Testify In Corporate Litigation? Wisconsin Judge Provides Insight
...2012). As Epic noted in its briefing on the issue, not all federal circuits recognize the doctrine. See, e.g., Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884, 902 (6th Cir. 2012) (reversing a lower court decision relying on the doctrine, and explicitly rejecting it in favor of basic Rule 26(c) analy......
-
Compel, resist and amend discovery
...5. IV. PRACTICE NOTE A. It is very rare that a party is not entitled to at least proceed with a deposition. See Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F. 3d 884 (6th Cir. 2012) (motion to quash deposition notice to high-level officer of corporate defendant denied); Baron Financial Corp. v. Natanzon ,......
-
Discovery
...embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” as enumerated in FRCP Rule 26(c)(1). See e.g., Serrano v. Cintas Corp. , 699 F.3d 884, 901 (6th Cir. 2012)(“[W] e conclude that the magistrate judge erred as a matter of law in relying on ‘apex doctrine’ to grant the protective order. ......
-
Permitting After-Acquired Evidence of Employee Qualifications Perpetuating a McKennon Distinction Without a Difference.
...motion for summary judgment but permitting after-acquired evidence of qualifications at trial). But see Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884, 904 (6th Cir. 2012) (considering application fraud in remedial phase); Rooney v. Koch Air, EEC, 410 F.3d 376, 382 (7th Cir. 2005) (ignoring after-ac......
-
Compel, resist and amend discovery
...5. IV. PRACTICE NOTE A. It is very rare that a party is not entitled to at least proceed with a deposition. See Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F. 3d 884 (6th Cir. 2012) (motion to quash deposition notice to high-level o൶cer of corporate defendant denied); Baron Financial Corp. v. Natanzon , 2......