Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. United Parcel Serv.
| Decision Date | 29 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | 15-CV-4141 (MKB) (CLP) |
| Parties | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") commenced this action on July 15, 2015 against Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"), alleging that UPS had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 by discriminating against two UPS employees, Muhammad Farhan and Bilal Abdullah, as well as a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) After engaging in motion practice,1 UPS filed an Answer to the Complaint on August 2, 2016, asserting thirty affirmative defenses. (Ans., Docket Entry No. 32.) On August 23, 2016, the EEOC requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of a motion to strike several of UPS' affirmative defenses. (Pl. Pre-Mot. Conference Request, Docket Entry No. 35.) The Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak for a report and recommendation. (Order dated Aug. 31, 2016.) By report and recommendation dated March 9, 2017 (the "R&R"), Judge Pollak recommended that the Court grant the EEOC's motion to strike UPS' fourth,fifteenth and twenty-second affirmative defenses and deny the EEOC's motion to strike UPS' fifth, sixth, twelfth and twenty-third affirmative defenses. (R&R 44, Docket Entry No. 56.) The parties timely filed objections to the R&R. (Pl. Obj. to R&R ("Pl. Obj."), Docket Entry No. 58; Def. Obj. to R&R ("Def. Obj."), Docket Entry No. 59; Pl. Opp'n to Def. Obj. ("Pl. Reply"), Docket Entry No. 60.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R as to the fourth, fifth, twelfth, fifteenth and twenty-second affirmative defenses, except as to the unnamed claimants in the twenty-second affirmative defense, and declines to adopt the R&R as to the sixth and twenty-third affirmative defenses.
The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts as set forth in the R&R and the parties' briefing and exhibits from the prior motion to dismiss, and includes only those facts necessary to decide the instant motion. UPS maintains an appearance policy that applies to all employees in customer contact, supervisory and managerial positions. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Pursuant to the policy, male employees in those positions, but not back-of-the-facility positions that avoid customer contact, are prohibited from wearing beards or growing their hair longer than collar length. (Id.) According to the EEOC, UPS has used the appearance policy to deny equal employment opportunities to individuals whose religious beliefs require them to maintain a beard or refrain from cutting their hair — including Muslims, Rastafarians,Native Americans, Fundamentalist Christians, Sikhs, and Orthodox Jews. (Id. ¶ 15.) The EEOC alleges that UPS violated Title VII by (1) refusing to provide religious accommodations to individuals in the class or unreasonably delaying their requests; (2) failing to hire, promote, or transfer them into positions covered by the appearance policy; and (3) segregating them into non-supervisory positions and positions without customer contact. (Id. ¶¶ 16-18.)
On January 19, 2006, Abdullah filed a charge of discrimination with the local Buffalo office of the EEOC, alleging that Defendant had failed to hire him because of his religion and failed to accommodate his sincerely-held religious beliefs by requiring him to conform to UPS' appearance policy. In January of 2006, the EEOC provided UPS with notice and a copy of the charge. (Pl. Mot. to Dismiss Mem. 4.) In March of 2006, an EEOC investigator held a preliminary fact-finding conference with UPS supervisors about Abdullah's allegations. (Id.) The same month, the EEOC issued to UPS its first Request for Information ("RFI"), which included requests for nationwide information. (Id.) UPS requested an extension of time to respond to the RFI and, in May of 2006, objected to several requests as overly broad and as requesting private and confidential information about its employees. (Id. at 5.) Thereafter, the EEOC investigator interviewed supervisory personnel at the UPS facility to which Abdullah had applied. (Id.; see Def. Letter dated Aug. 30, 2006 ("Def. Aug. 30, 2006 Letter"), annexed to Lario Cert. as Ex. 7.)
In August of 2006, the EEOC investigator informed UPS that its responses were incomplete because they did not provide information pertaining to any facilities beyond the Rochester, New York facility to which Abdullah had applied. (Pl. Mot. to Dismiss Mem. 6.) The parties continued to exchange requests and responses through March of 2007, with UPS refusing to produce information on a nationwide basis. (Id. at 6.)
On April 26, 2007, Farhan filed a charge of discrimination against UPS with the EEOC's local office in Buffalo. (Farhan Charge, annexed to Lario Cert. as Ex. 2.) Farhan alleged that UPS had demoted him because of his religion and that UPS had "a pattern or practice of refusing to accommodate the religious observances, practices, and beliefs of its employees." (Id.) The EEOC provided UPS with notice and a copy of the charge on May 2, 2007 and asked UPS to provide a statement of position with supporting documentation by the end of the month. (Pl. Mot. to Dismiss Mem. 7.) When UPS did not respond, the EEOC sent a follow-up request in June of 2007. (Fox-Solomon Decl. ¶¶ 16-17.) The EEOC then issued an administrative subpoena seeking nationwide discovery in connection with the Abdullah and Farhan charges on July 25, 2007. (EEOC Subpoena, annexed to Lario Cert. as Ex. 10.) On August 6, 2007, UPS petitioned the EEOC to revoke or modify the subpoena, which the EEOC denied. (Pl. Mot. to Dismiss Mem. 8; Def. Petition dated Aug. 6, 2007, annexed to Lario Cert. as Ex. 11; EEOC Denial of Petition, annexed to Lario Cert. as Ex. 12.) UPS did not respond to the subpoena, and in November of 2007, the EEOC filed an application to enforce its subpoena in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. (Lario Cert. ¶ 15.) In January of 2008, UPS opposed the EEOC's enforcement motion. (Id. ¶ 16.) In September of 2008, Judge William Skretny of the Western District of New York issued a decision denying the EEOC's enforcement motion. (Id. ¶ 17; Judge Skretny Mem. & Opinion, annexed to Lario Cert. as Ex. 13.) The EEOC appealed Judge Skretny's decision to the Second Circuit. (Lario Cert. ¶ 18.)
While Judge Skretny's decision was on appeal, the EEOC issued a Commissioner's Charge in December of 2008 that, according to the EEOC, permitted it to continue investigating UPS' alleged practices of nationwide discrimination before making a final determination. (Pl. Mot. to Dismiss Mem. 9; EEOC Comm'r Charge, annexed to Lario Cert. as Ex. 3.) In January of2009, the EEOC issued an RFI in connection with the Commissioner's Charge. (Pl. Mot. to Dismiss Mem. 9.) UPS objected to the RFI in February of 2009.2 (Id.) The EEOC replied to UPS' objections in March of 2009 and requested the information from the January of 2009 RFI. (Id.) According to the EEOC, UPS did not respond. (Fox-Solomon Decl. ¶ 30.) In September of 2009, the EEOC renewed its request for responses to its January of 2009 RFI, and counsel for UPS replied by requesting that the EEOC permit UPS to continue its process of negotiating with the EEOC's New York District Office over the scope of discovery in the Abdullah charge. (Def. Letter dated Sept. 21, 2009, annexed to Lario Cert. as Ex. 19.)
According to UPS, the parties conferred in November of 2009 and reached an agreement as to the scope of the information UPS would produce. (Lario Cert. ¶ 25.) However, in November of 2009, the Second Circuit reversed Judge Skretny's order and upheld the relevance of the EEOC's nationwide inquiries. (Pl. Mot. to Dismiss Mem. 9.) In February of 2010, UPS again objected to portions of the EEOC's January of 2009 RFI.3 () In March of 2010, Judge Skretny issued an order granting the EEOC's enforcement application and directing UPS to provide the required information within forty-five days. ( ) UPS completed its production by November of 2010. (Lario Cert. ¶¶ 27-30.)
According to the EEOC, the Buffalo Office took eighteen months to complete itsinvestigation of the three charges and issue a letter of determination. (Fox-Solomon Decl. ¶ 40.) During that time, an EEOC investigator mailed approximately 200 letters to applicants identified in UPS' production as having been denied employment because of a conflict with the Appearance Guidelines, and sent an additional fifty letters to UPS employees who had sought religious accommodations. (Id. ¶ 41.) After two rounds of following up on undeliverable letters and identifying individuals by other means, the EEOC investigator collected and analyzed responses, made dozens of telephone calls, and conducted approximately thirty interviews.4 (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) On March 14, 2012, UPS wrote to the EEOC requesting a final determination. (Def. Letter dated Mar. 14, 2012, annexed to Lario Cert. as Ex. 25.) In that letter, UPS noted that "[t]his is a case where the EEOC has conducted a thorough and extensive investigation," and "[t]he time has come for the charge process to end." (Id.)
On June 29, 2012, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial