Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 07–CV–95–LRR,07–CV–95–LRR |
| Citation | 277 F.Supp.3d 1000 |
| Parties | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. CRST VAN EXPEDITED, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Ann Marie Henry, Jean P. Kamp, EEOC, Jeanne Bowman Szromba, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL, Brian C. Tyndall, Milwaukee District Office, Milwaukee, WI, Nicholas J. Pladson, EEOC, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.
Carla J. Rozycki, Emma J Sullivan, J. Andrew Hirth, James T. Malysiak, John H. Mathias, Jr., Richard P. Campbell, Robert T. Markowski, Sally K. Sears Coder, Jenner and Block LLP, Chicago, IL, Kevin J. Visser, Thomas D. Wolle, Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant.
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND...1005
III. ANALYSIS...1008
I. NTRODUCTION
The matter before the court is the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals's Mandate ("Mandate") (docket no. 452).
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The factual underpinnings of the sexual harassment and retaliation allegations underlying this litigation have been well-documented by the court and the appellate courts. See, e.g., CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. E.E.O.C. , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1642, 194 L.Ed.2d 707 (2016) ; E.E.O.C. v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. , 679 F.3d 657 (8th Cir. 2012). At issue here is this court's award of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $4,694,442.14, which the court awarded on August 1, 2013. See August 1, 2013 Order (docket no. 400) at 40. Included in that amount were fees associated with sixty-seven claims which the court dismissed due to the Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") failure to comply with presuit requirements—namely, failure to investigate and attempt to conciliate. See id. at 24–25.
In the August 1, 2013 Order, this court specifically considered the EEOC's argument that Defendant CRST Van Expedited, Inc. ("CRST") was incapable of being awarded attorneys' fees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984 because CRST was not a prevailing party. Id. at 20. The EEOC argued that "the court's dismissal of [the sixty-seven] claims due to the EEOC's failure to satisfy the Title VII administrative prerequisites [was] not a judicial determination on the merits."Id. at 20. The court disagreed and ruled that the EEOC's failure to satisfy presuit requirements constituted a failure to prove "an ingredient" of its claim, and found that its dismissal of the sixty-seven claims was a merits decision. Id. at 20–21. Under Eighth Circuit precedent at the time this court issued the August 1, 2013 Order, a favorable ruling on the merits was essential to a party's status as a prevailing party under Title VII. See id. at 15–16 (citing Marquart v. Lodge 837, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers , 26 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 1994) ). This court further found that the EEOC's abdication of its statutory duties was "unreasonable, contrary to the procedure outlined by Title VII and imposed an unnecessary burden upon CRST and the court" such to satisfy the standard for awarding attorneys' fees under Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C. , 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). Id. at 25 (quoting February 9, 2010 Order (docket no. 320) at 16).
The EEOC appealed the fee award and, before the Eighth Circuit, argued that "its Title VII presuit obligations are nonjurisdictional preconditions," while CRST argued that "such requirements are elements of the EEOC's cause of action." E.E.O.C. v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. , 774 F.3d 1169, 1181 (8th Cir. 2014). The Eighth Circuit agreed with the EEOC and reversed this court's award of attorneys' fees, in part, because it determined that the "court's dismissal of [sixty-seven] claims for the EEOC's failure to satisfy Title VII's presuit obligations d[id] not constitute a ruling on the merits." Id. The Eighth Circuit also reversed this court's fee award because the court failed to make individualized findings with respect to the seventy-eight women this court dismissed on the merits at summary judgment. Id. at 1183. It also reversed this court's award of fees for the EEOC's 2012 appeal of the merits of the summary judgments orders and dismissal for failure to comply with presuit requirements because the court failed to specifically find whether the appeal was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. Id. at 1183–84. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit reversed this court's fee award as it pertained to fees associated with defense of a purported pattern-or-practice claim because "the EEOC did not allege that CRST was engaged in 'a pattern or practice' of illegal sex-based discrimination or otherwise plead a violation of Section 707 of Title VII" in its complaint. Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting E.E.O.C. v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. , 679 F.3d at 676 n.13 ). Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings and barred this court from awarding fees based on the sixty-seven claims dismissed for failure to comply with presuit requirements and the pattern-or-practice claim. Id. at 1185. On remand, this court was directed to make individualized findings as to the frivolousness, unreasonableness or groundlessness of the claims dismissed on summary judgment, and as to whether the EEOC's initial appeal fulfilled the Christiansburg standard. Id.
CRST sought certiorari on the Eighth Circuit's ruling with respect to the sixty-seven claims dismissed for the EEOC's failure to comply with presuit obligations and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 4, 2015. See Writ of Certiorari (docket no. 438). On December 11, 2015, CRST filed a brief with this court outlining the issues that the Supreme Court would face on appeal from the Eighth Circuit. See CRST Supplemental Brief (docket no. 440) at 1. CRST clarified that the Supreme Court had granted certiorari on the issue of whether the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that CRST is not entitled to an award of attorneys' fees with respect to the claims dismissed for failure to satisfy presuit requirements. Id. On December 16, 2015, the EEOC filed a supplemental brief further clarifying the issues faced by the Supreme Court on appeal. See EEOC Supplemental Brief (docket no. 444). The EEOC noted that, even if the Supreme Court found that the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that dismissal for failure to satisfy presuit requirements could support an award of attorneys' fees, the Eighth Circuit had not reached the issue of whether Christiansburg had been satisfied for those claims and, thus, CRST was not automatically entitled to attorney's fees on any claim. Id. at 2.
On remand from the Eighth Circuit and prior to the grant of certiorari, this court directed the parties to submit briefs providing: "(1) a detailed breakdown of each individual claims for which CRST requests attorneys' fees and costs; (2) an analysis of how each individual claim constitutes a 'frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless' claim; (3) an analysis of whether the requested attorneys' fees and costs were expended solely due to the alleged frivolous claims; and (4) any additional argument related to attorneys' fees and costs for each claim." May 19, 2015 Order (docket no. 410) at 1–2. The court also directed CRST to brief why the EEOC's merits appeal satisfied Christiansburg and reiterated that fees were not available for claims "based on the EEOC's failure to satisfy its presuit obligations," nor could "it recover on the pattern-or-practice claim." Id. at 2. On July 31, 2015 CRST filed its "Brief Supporting Its Request for an Award of Attorneys' Fees Out-of-Pocket Expenses, and Taxable Costs" ("CRST Remand Brief") (docket no. 416) in compliance with the May 19, 2015 Order. On September 15, 2015, the EEOC filed a "Memorandum in Resistance to Defendant CRST Van Expedited, Inc.'s Request for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Out-of-Pocket Expenses, and Taxable Costs" ("EEOC Remand Brief") (docket no. 423). On September 29, 2015, CRST filed a "Reply Brief Supporting its Request for an Award of Attorneys' Fees Out-of-Pocket Expenses, and Taxable Costs" ("CRST Remand Reply") (docket no. 428). On December 11, 2015, CRST filed a supplemental brief ("CRST Supplemental Brief") (docket no. 440), addressing the impact it predicted a favorable outcome at the Supreme Court would have on the instant action. On December 16, 2015, the EEOC filed a supplemental brief in response ("EEOC Supplemental Brief") (docket no. 444).
Before the Supreme Court, the EEOC "abandoned its defense of the [Eighth Circuit's] reasoning" and instead urged the Supreme Court to adopt a rule "that a defendant must obtain a preclusive judgment in order to prevail" for purposes of attorneys' fees. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. E.E.O.C. , 136 S.Ct. at 1653. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's holding that a party must obtain a favorable judicial determination on the merits to be a "prevailing party" under Title VII. Id. at 1646. The Supreme Court reasoned that "[t]here is no indication that Congress intended that defendants should be eligible to recover attorney's fees only when courts dispose of claims on the merits." Id. at 1651–52. Instead, the Supreme Court relied on its own precedent to elucidate the standard, stating that "the 'touchstone of the prevailing party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.
...in the instant action to be frivolous, unreasonable and/or groundless under Christiansburg ." E.E.O.C. v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. (CRST IV ), 277 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1017 (N.D. Iowa 2017) (citing Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C. , 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978) ). Th......
-
Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp. v. Ingram Barge Co.
...these issues, I find that it would be inappropriate to reconsider them now on remand. See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. , 277 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1009 (N.D. Iowa 2017). Even if I was inclined to revisit these issues, I would reach the same outcome. There is s......