E.E.O.C. v. Sidley Austin Llp
Decision Date | 17 February 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 06-8002.,06-8002. |
Citation | 437 F.3d 695 |
Parties | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
John E. Bucheit, Grippo & Elden, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Deborah L. Hamilton, E.E.O.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
In 1999, Sidley & Austin (as it then was) demoted 32 of its equity partners to "counsel" or "senior counsel." The EEOC began an investigation to determine whether the demotions might have violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. After we upheld the district court's rebuff of Sidley's effort to derail the investigation, EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 315 F.3d 696 (7th Cir.2002), the Commission filed an ADEA suit against Sidley. Sidley asks us to entertain, as recommended by the district judge, an interlocutory appeal from the judge's denial of Sidley's motion for partial summary judgment. The appeal would require us to decide whether the judge was correct to rule that the EEOC may obtain monetary relief on behalf of individuals who, having failed to file timely administrative charges under the ADEA, are barred from bringing their own suits. The question satisfies the criteria in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for an interlocutory appeal and since it has been fully briefed we can proceed to answer it.
The identical question received the opposite answer in EEOC v. North Gibson School Corp., 266 F.3d 607 (7th Cir.2001), but that decision is no longer good law. It was scuttled by the Supreme Court in EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 L.Ed.2d 755 (2002), which held that the EEOC's claim for monetary relief for a victim of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act was not barred by the fact that the victim had agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising out of his employment. The reason there was no bar was not that the arbitration clause was unenforceable but that the Commission was not bound by it because its enforcement authority is not derivative of the legal rights of individuals even when it is seeking to make them whole. Similarly, the Commission is not bound by the failure of the Sidley expartners to exhaust their remedies; the Commission had no duty to exhaust.
Sidley seeks to distinguish Waffle House from the present case on the basis of the following sentence in the Court's opinion: "It is true, as respondent and its amici have argued, that Baker's conduct [Baker was the victim of the alleged violation of the ADA] may have the effect of limiting the relief that the EEOC may obtain in court." 534 U.S. at 296, 122 S.Ct. 754. But the remainder of the paragraph makes clear that the Court was talking about something quite different from a procedural forfeiture. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Does 1-7 v. Round Rock Independent School Dist.
...particular question of law." EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, 406 F.Supp.2d 991, 996 (D.Ill.2005), aff'd by EEOC v. Sidley Austin LLP, 437 F.3d 695, 696 (7th Cir.2006). As the Sidley court explained, "the question to ask is whether the holding (not the rationale) of the Supreme Court......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc.
...The Seventh Circuit has not addressed this proposed application of judicial estoppel directly, but its analysis in EEOC v. Sidley Austin LLP, 437 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2006), is instructive. There, the defendant claimed that because a suit by the individuals alleging discrimination would have ......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, L. L.C.
...S.Ct. 754.13 Id. at 295, 122 S.Ct. 754.14 Id. at 295 n.10, 122 S.Ct. 754.15 559 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009).16 Id. at 273.17 437 F.3d 695, 695 (7th Cir. 2006).18 Id.19 Id.20 See infra, notes 35-38 and accompanying text.21 See General Telephone, 446 U.S. at 324, 100 S.Ct. 1698.22 See id.23......
-
Arizona ex rel. Horne v. GEO Grp., Inc.
...EEOC does not function simply as a vehicle for conducting litigation on behalf of private parties."); EEOC v. Sidley Austin LLP, 437 F.3d 695, 696 (7th Cir.2006)("[T]he Commission is not bound by the failure of the Sidley ex-partners to exhaust their remedies; the Commission had no duty to ......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment. EEOC v. Sidley Austin, LLP, 437 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2006). See also Smith v. Castaways Family Diner, 453 F.3d 971, 98384 (7th Cir. 2006) (although officers, supervisors, and managers,......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act : Procedures and Remedies
...the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment. EEOC v. Sidley Austin, LLP , 437 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2006). See also Smith v. Castaways Family Diner , 453 F.3d 971, 983-84 (7th Cir. 2006) (although officers, supervisors, and manage......
-
Texas commission on human rights act: procedures and remedies
...the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment. EEOC v. Sidley Austin, LLP , 437 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2006). See also Smith v. Castaways Family Diner , 453 F.3d 971, 983-84 (7th Cir. 2006) (although officers, supervisors, and manage......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment. EEOC v. Sidley Austin, LLP , 437 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2006). See also Smith v. Castaways Family Diner , 453 F.3d 971, 983-84 (7th Cir. 2006) (although officers, supervisors, and manage......