## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

Nos . 09 -3 76 4/ 09 -3 76 5/ 10 -1 68 2

__ __ __ __ __ _
Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty *
Co m m is si on , *

*
Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt

, *

*

Ja ne t Bo ot

, *

*

In te rv en or Pla in ti ff, *

*

Rem cey Jeu ne nn e Pee pl es ; *

Mo ni ka Sta rk e, *

*

In te rv en or Pla in ti ffs * - App el la nt s, *

* App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. CRST Van Exp ed it ed , Inc

., *

*
Defen da nt - App el le e. *

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Equ al Em pl oym en t Ad vi so ry

Co un ci l; *
Ch am be r of Co m m erce of t he Uni te d *
St at es ; So ci et y

for Hum an Res ou rce *

Man ag em en t; Nati on al Fed erat io n o f *

In de pe nd en t Bu si ne ss Sm al l Bu si ne ss * Leg al Cen te r, *

*

Am ic i o n B eh al f of

App el le e. *__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: May 7, 20 12
Fi le d: May 8, 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re MUR PHY, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

The Equ al Em

pl oym en t Opp or tu ni ty Co m m is si on (EEOC) fil ed su it in it s own

na m e ag ai ns t CRST Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. (CRS T), al le gi ng th at CRST su bjec te d

Mo ni ka St ark e "an d ap pr ox im at el y 27 0 si mi la rly si tu at ed fem al e em pl oyees" to a
ho st il e wo r k e nv iro nm en t, in vi ol at io n of Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 64
("Ti tl e VII")

, 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e et se q

. St ark e an d R e m cey Je un en ne Peep le s

in te rv en ed in th e EEOC-in st it ut ed act io n an d in di vi du al ly pu rs ue d th ei r res pe ct iv e
ho st il e wor k- en vi ro nm en t cl ai m s ag ai ns t CRS T, as well as cl ai m s fo r un la wfu l

ret al ia ti on un de r Tit le VII an d Io wa st at e la w.

The di st ric t co ur t ru le d in CRST's fav or on a se rie s of di sp os it iv e m ot io ns th at

co ll ect iv el y di sp os ed of th e en ti re act io n. The d i s t r i ct co ur t al so award ed CRST

$9 2,8 42 .21 in co st s an d $4 ,46 7,4 42 .90 in at to rn ey s' fees an d ex pe ns es , pu rs ua nt to

42 U.S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e-5 (k ) an d 28 U.S.C. § 19 20 , a s a sa nc ti on fo r th e EEOC's fai lu re

to reas on ab ly inv es ti ga te an d c on ci li at e in go od fai th it s cl ai m s ag ai ns t CR ST.

As se t ou t be lo w, we affi rm in pa rt, rev ers e in pa rt, an d rem a n d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

I. Bac kg ro un d

T his co nsoli da te d ap pe al co nc ern s a swe ep in g em pl oym en t-d is cri m in at ion sui t

th at th e EEOC in st it ut ed ag ai ns t CRST, on e of th e co un try's la rg es t in te rs ta te tru ck in g

-2

-co m

pa ni es

. The EEOC al le ge d th at CRST was res po ns ib le fo r se ve re an d per va si ve

s e x u a l ha ras sm en t in it s New-Dri ve r Trai ni ng Pro gr am ("Tra in in g Pro gr am ").

Bec au se "we are rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t o f s u mm a ry jud gm en t ag ai ns t
[EEOC, St ark e, an d Peep le s], we reci te th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [th em ]. " Bon n v . Cit

y o f Oma ha , 62 3 F .3d 58 7, 5 89 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

A. CRS T's Bus in es s Mo de l a nd Tra in in g Pr og ra m

CRST is an in te rs ta te lo gi st ic s an d tra ns it co m pa ny th at em

pl oys m or e th an 2,5 00 lo ng -h au l dr iv ers

. C R S T' s bu si ne ss m od el rel ie s on an effi ci en cy m eas ur e

kn own a s "Tea m Driv in g." CRST op erat es th e tru ck in g in du st ry 's la rg es t fle et of

te am -d riv en tra ct or tra il ers

. Sp e c i f i cal ly, CRST as si gn s two dr iv ers to a tru ck who

al te rn at e be twee n dr iv in g an d sl eep in g on -b oa rd in th e tru ck 's sl eep er cab fo r as m uc h

as 21 da y s i n o rd er t o m ax im iz e m il eag e an d m in im iz e st op s.

Newly hi red dr iv ers m

us t su cces sf

ul ly co m pl et e CRST's Trai ni ng P r o g r am
be fo re CRST pe rm it s t he m to dri ve ful l t im e fo r fu ll pa y as cert ifi ed CRST dr iv ers

. The Trai ni ng Pro gr am co m m en ces wit h a th ree- an d- a-h al f da y cl as sr oo m co m po ne nt ("Ne w-Driv er Orie nt at io n" ) to or ie nt t h e n e w dr iv ers wit h CRST's m et ho ds an d

po li ci es

.

Dur in g ne w-d riv er or ie nt at io n, CRST di st rib ut es to each tra in ee it s

"Pr of es si on al Driv er's Han db oo k" ("Dri ve r Han db oo k" ), whi ch co nt a i n s an en ti re

se ct io n de vo te d to it s an ti -h aras sm en t po li cy , as well as th e pr oc ed ur es fo r rep or ti ng

su ch ha ras sm en t. Add it io na ll y , CRST or ie nt at io n le ad ers or al ly rei te rat e CRST's

wr i t te n an ti -h aras sm en t po li cy , ex pl ai n to tra in ees ho w th ey can rep or t ha ras sm en t

co m pl ai nt s, an d pr es en t a vi de o st res s in g th at CRST wil l no t to le rat e se xu al

ha ras sm en t. The Driv er Han db oo k ex pr es sl y fo rb id s se xu al ha ras sm en t, a s well as

an y fo rm of ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t co m pl ai na nt s of se xu al ha ras sm en t. It al so in st ru ct s

em pl oyees who en du re or wit ne ss ha ras sm en t or di sc riminat io n to im m ed ia te ly rep or t

th e co nd uc t t o e it he r an im m ed ia te su pe rv is or or th e Dire ct or of Hu m an Res ou rces

.

-3

-Th e D r iv er Han db oo k st at es th at "[a ]ll rep or ts of ha ras sm en t an d/ or di sc riminat i o n

wil l be ha nd le d in a co nf id en ti al m an ne r." CRST's ch arg es it s Hum an Res ou rces Dep art m en t (H.R.) wit h en fo rci ng th is an ti -h aras sm en t po li cy

. At New-Dri ve r
Orie nt at io n's co nc lus ion

, CR ST ha s ea ch tr ai ne e sig n a writ te n "Ack no wled gm en t an d

Pl ed ge Co nc ern in g Haras sm en t an d Dis cri m in at io n," a t t e s t i n g to th e fact s th at th e

tra in ee "re cei ve d a nd read [CRS T's] Po li cy Aga in st Unl awfu l Haras sm en t an d

Dis cri m in at io n."

Fo llo w ing or ie nta

tio n, ea ch tr ai ne e em

ba rk s on a 28 -d ay , ov er-t he -ro ad tr ai nin g

tri p wit h an e x p e rie nc ed

, "Lea d Driv er," who fam il ia riz es th e tra in ee wit h CRST's

Team Driv in g m od el an d ev al ua te s th e tra in ee's pe rfo rm an ce on th is m ai de n ha ul

. At

th e co nc lu si on of th e tra in ee's 28 -d ay tra in in g tri p, th e tra in ee's Lead Driv er gi ve s th e

tra in ee "a pa ss /fa il dr iv in g ev al ua ti on " th at su pe rio rs co ns id er whe n de te rm in in g
whe th er to cert ify th e tra in ee as a fu ll -fl ed ge d CRST dr i v e r

. B u t

, un de r CRST's

or ga ni zat io na l st ru ct ur e, Lead Driv ers la ck th e au th or it y to hi re, fir e, pr om ot e,
de m o t e , or reas si gn tra in ees ; CRST's Safe ty an d Ope rat io ns Dep art m en ts m ak e al l

fin al de ci si on s co nc ern in g th e tra in ees ' em pl oym en t. St il l, in a res po ns iv e le tt er to th e

EEOC co rres po nd en ce, H.R. Dire ct or Ja m es Barn es la te r de sc rib ed th e Lead Driv ertra in ee rel at io ns hi p as "re al ly no di ffer e nt th an th e ro le of su pe rv is or s in ot he r

in du st rie s an d o rg an iz at io ns ."

B. CRS T's Ch an ne ls fo r Rep or ti ng Se xu al Har as sme nt

CRST acco rd ed it s tra in ees an d te am dr iv ers m ul ti pl e ch an ne ls fo r rep or ti ng

se xu al ha ras sm en t. Thos e ch an ne ls in cl ud ed (1 ) CRST's "o pe n- do or po li cy ," w hi ch

en c o u r a g e d al l of it s em

pl oyees to ap pr oa ch th ei r su pe rv is or s, an y em pl oyee in th e Ope rat io ns or Safe ty Dep art m en ts

, or an y m an ag er ab ou t a n y is su e; (2 ) to ll -fre e ph on e nu m

be rs fo r fle et m an ag ers who were av ai la bl e aro un d th e c l o ck ; (3 )
Qua lc om m , a de vi ce pl aced in ev ery tru ck th at tra ns m it s m es sa ge s, si m il ar to em ai ls

, di rect ly to fle et m an ag ers ; (4 ) H.R.'s na ti on wid e to ll -fre e nu m be r an d lo cal to ll ph on e

nu m be r, bo th of whi ch CRST pro vi de d in th e Driv er Hand bo ok 's sect io n on ho w to

pr op erl y rep or t se xu al ha ras sm en t; an d (5 ) ev al ua ti on fo r ms g i v en to al l tra in ees at

-4

-th e tra in in g tri p's co nc lu si on so li ci ti ng each tra in ee's feed ba ck co nc ern in g hi s or he r

le ad dri ve r. 1

C. St ar ke's Ini ti at in g C ha rg e

On Decem

be r 1, 20 05

, St ark e fil ed a ch arg e of di sc riminat io n wit h th e EEOC.

The rei n, St ark e al le ge d th at CRST "d is cri m in at ed ag ai ns t [h er] on th e ba si s of [h er]

se x (fem al e) in th at [s he ] was su bjec te d to se xu al ha ras sm en t, in vi ol at io n of Tit le VII

o f t he Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 64

, as am en de d." In th e "Pa rti cu la rs " se ct io n of t h e
ch arg e fo rm , Sta rk e st at ed :

I was hi red by th e [CRS T] on Ju ne 22

, 20 05 [,] in th e p os it io n o f

Truc k Driv er. Si nc e m

y em pl oym en t be ga n wit h th e Res po nd en t I ha ve be e n s u b jecte d to se xu al ha ras sm en t on two oc cas io ns by m y Lead
Trai ne rs

. On Ju ly 7, 20 05

, Bo b Sm it h, Lead Tra in er[,] be ga n to m ak e

se xu al rem ark s to m e whe ne ve r he ga ve m e in st ru ct io ns

. He to ld m e th at th e ge ar st ic k is no t th e pe ni s of m y hu sb an d

, I do n't ha ve to to uc h th e
ge ar st ic k so of

te n. "Yo u go t bi g ti ts fo r y ou r si ze, et c.

. . [.]" I in fo rm ed

Bo b Sm it h th at I was no t in te res te d in a se xu al rel at io ns hi p wit h hi m

. On

Ju ly 14

, 20 05

, I c o n ta ct ed th e di sp at ch er an d was to ld th at I co ul d no t

ge t of f th e tru ck un ti l th e ne xt da y

. On Ju ly 18

, 20 05 [,] th ro ug h Aug us t 3, 20 05

, Dav id Goo dm an , Lead Trai ne r, fo rced m e to ha ve un wan te d se x wit h hi m on se ve ral oc cas io ns whi le we were tra ve li ng in or de r to ge t a
pa ss in g g rad e.

Upo n rece iv in g St ark e's Ch arg e, th e EEO C n o ti fie d CRST of th e fil in g an d

in st ru ct ed CRST to res po nd

, on or be fo re Decem be r 30

, 20 05

, wit h "a writ te n

po si ti on st at em en t on e a c h o f th e al le ga ti on s of th e ch arg e, acco m pa ni ed by

do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce an d/ or writ te n st at em en ts

, whe re ap pr op ria te ." The EEOC

In Apr il 20 07

, CRST ad de d "R ep or tL ine

, " an ind ep en de ntl y ad m ini stered, to ll

1

free ho tl in e th at em

pl oyees m ay cal l to rep or t, op en ly or an on y m ou sl y , an y il le ga l or im pr op er co nd uc t; Rep or tLi ne fo rward s al l pe rs on ne l-r el at ed co m pl ai nt s to H.R. fo r fu rth er rev ie w. Bec au se th e m ajor it y of th e al le ge d ha ras sm en t pr ed at es Rep or tLi ne 's
in cep ti on , it is of l im it ed rel ev an ce.
-5

-ad vi se d CRST to "i nc lu de an y ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n an d ex pl an at io n [it ] de em [ed ]

rel ev an t to th e [Ch arg e]." The EEOC se nt CRST a co rres po nd in g, in it ia l "re qu es t fo r

in fo rm at io n " a s k i n g th at CRST "s ub m it in fo rm at io n an d reco rd s rel ev an t to th e [ch arg e]." The EEOC as su red CRST th at "[t ]he fo ll owi ng da te s are co ns id ered to be

th e 'rel ev an t pe rio d' fo r th e at ta ch ed [r]eq ue st fo r [i]nf or m at io n: Ja nu ary 2,

20 05 –No ve m

be r 2, 20 05 ." The EEOC's in i t ia l req ue st fo r in fo rm at io n pr im ari ly

co nc ern ed St ark e's al le ge d ha ras sm en t an d di d no t se ek in fo rm at io n rel at in g to ot he r

po te nt ia l v ic ti m s.

On Decem

be r 21

, 20 05

, CRST su bm it te d it s "p os it io n st at em en t" to th e EEOC

an d fu rn is he d th e EEOC wit h al l of th e in fo rm at io n th at th e EEOC de m an de d in th e

req ue st fo r inf

or m at ion

. In its po si ti on st at em en t, CRST de ni ed di sc riminat in g ag ai ns t

or ha ras si ng St ark e. The co m pa ny ba se d th is de ni al on it s own in te rn al in ve st ig at io n

in to St ark e's cl ai m s ag ai ns t Lead Driv ers Sm it h an d Goo dm an

. CRST al so di sc lo se d 2

th e id en ti ty of two ot he r f e mal e dr iv ers , Lori Ess ig an d Tam ara Thi el

, who

, li ke

St ark e, ha d fi le d fo rm al ch arg es of d is cri m in at io n wi th th e EEOC ag ai ns t CR ST.

Sp eci fic al ly, CRST co nt en de d th at it int er vie w ed ey ew itn es se s an d th e al le ge d 2

wro ng do ers th em se lv es ab ou t th e m at te r. W it h res pe ct to Sm it h, CRST in te rv ie wed

Fran k Tay lo r, an ey ewit ne ss to so m e of th e al le ge d ha ras sm en t, who co nf irmed th at
Sm it h m ad e in ap pr op ria te rem ark s to St ark e. Tay lo r st at ed th at he ad m on is he d St ark e
to ab st ai n fro m dr iv in g wit h Sm it h on he r tra in in g tri p if sh e fel t un co m fo rta bl e, bu t th at St ark e co nt in ue d dr iv in g wit h Sm it h a nyway

. Fo r hi s pa rt, Sm it h ad m it te d to

ut te rin g in ap pr opr ia te co m m en ts, but he m ai nta ine d that "n ot hi ng ph y si cal " tra ns pi red
be twee n S ta rk e an d h im se lf. R eg ard in g Go od m an , H.R. di sc ov ered th at

, on Aug us t 3, 20 05

, St ark e rep or te d on he r ev al ua ti on fo rm th at Goo dm an ha d tre at ed he r "v ery well ." W he n CRST co nf ro nt ed Goo dm an ab ou t St ark e's al le ga ti on s, Goo dm an ack n o w le dg ed ha vi ng a se xu al rel at io ns hi p wit h St ark e bu t av erre d th at it was

co nse nsual

. Goo dm an 's co -d riv er, Tim ot hy W al ke r, co rro bo rat ed G oodm an ' s ac co unt tha t th e rel at io ns hi p was co ns en su al

, as se rti ng th at he ov erh eard fo ur "l ov e m es sa ge s"
th at Sta rk e h ad lef

t o n Go od m an 's v oi cem ai l.

-6

-D. Th e EEOC's In ves ti ga ti on an d Rea so na bl e Ca us e Det er min at io n

In th e m on th s th at fo ll owe d, th e EEOC se nt m ul ti pl e su pp le m en ta l req ue st s fo r

in fo rm at io n to CRST. Ove r th e co ur se of t h e i n v es ti ga ti on , t he EEOC l earn ed th at

, in ad di ti on to St ark e, Ess ig , a nd Thi el , f em al e dr iv ers Rh on da Mo rg an an d P eep le s

ha d al so fil ed di sc riminat io n ch arg es ag ai ns t CRST fo r al le ge d sexua l ha ras sm en t. On

Ju ly 28

, 20 06

, th e EEOC su bm it te d a th ird su pp le m en ta l Req ue st fo r In fo rm at io n to

CRST. Thi s th ird req ue st fo r in fo rm at io n as ke d th at CRST fu rn is h "a co py of al l ot he r [c]har ge s of [d ]iscr im in at io n th at CRST ha s rece iv ed in th e pa st fiv e y ears fro m an y

go ve rn m en t ag en cy th at al le ge s se xu al ha ras sm en t." Add it io na ll y , th e EEOC

de m an de d "t he na m e, ge nd er, ho m e ad dr es s, an d ho m e te le ph on e nu m be r of al l

em pl oyees th at were tra in ed by e i t h e r [Sm it h] an d/ or [Go od m an ], " in cl ud in g "t he

da te s of th e tra in in g an d do cu m en ta ti on of an y co m pl ai nt s m ad e ag ai ns t th es e two

tra in ers by any

of t he se tra in ees ."

On Mar ch 22

, 2 0 0 7

, t he EEOC pr es en te d CRST wit h a fo ur th su pp le m en ta l

req ue st fo r in fo rm at io n se ek in g de ta il ed co nt act in fo rm at io n fo r al l of it s di sp at ch ers
who wor ke d du rin g a co m pl ai nt -rel ev an t ti m e an d fo r fem al e d r i v e r s t ha t be ga n

wor ki ng aft er J an ua ry

1, 2 00 5.

On Ju ly 12

, 20 07

, th e EEOC pr es en t e d C R S T wit h it s "Let te r of

Dete rm in at io n," whi ch (1 ) no ti fie d CRST th at th e EEOC ha d fo un d reas on ab le cau se

to be li ev e th at CRST su bjec te d St ark e an d " a c l a s s of em pl oyees" to se xu al

ha ras sm en t o n t he ba si s o f ge nd er an d (2 ) of fere d t o c on ci li at e th e cl ai m

.

E. Th e EEOC's a nd

CRST 's C

on ci li at io n

On Aug us t 6 an d Aug us t 7, 20 07

, CRST co un se l Tho m as D. W ol le co nt act ed

EEOC In ve st ig at or Pam el a Bl oo m er to co nf irm CRST's de si re to co nc il ia te wit h th e

EEOC. On Aug us t 8, 2 00 7, Bl oo m er le ft W ol le a vo ic em ai l m es sa ge as ki ng W ol le

to sen d C RST's co nc il ia ti on pro po sa l by Aug us t 16

, 20 07 . W ol le res po nd ed th at he

pr efer red th at th e EEOC in it ia te th e p ro po sa l p ro ces s.

-7

-On Aug us t 17

, 20 07

, W ol le an d Bl oo m er he ld a te le ph on e co nv ers at io n du rin g

whi ch Bl oo m er to ld W ol le th at th e EEOC wou ld req ui re CRST to se nd a le tt er to pa st

an d p r e s en t em

pl oyees to he lp id en ti fy cl as s m em be rs who m ig ht be pa rt of a

se tt le m en t. On Aug us t 24

, 20 07

, W ol le te le ph on ed Bl oo m er to in fo rm he r th at he ha d

sp ok en wit h St ark e's co un se l an d th at

, fro m th at co nv ers at io n, CRST ha d de te rm in ed

th at co nc il ia ti on ap pe ared fu ti le

. W ol le pr om is ed to se nd an em ail conf irming CRST's

po si ti on reg ard in g th e fu ti li ty of co nc il ia ti on

. Bl oo m er res po nd ed th at "t he ne xt st ep

aft er co nc il ia ti on wou ld be [th e] EEOC's in te rn al de ci si on whe th er to li ti ga te on
be ha lf o f [St ark e] and th e cl as s o r pr ov id e [St ark e] with a [ri gh t-t o- su e] let te r."

The pa rti es co ul d reac h no ag reem en t on co nc il ia ti on an d, on Aug us t 28

, 20 07

, th e EEOC no ti fie d CRST th at th e EEOC ha d "d et erm in ed th at it s effo rts to co nc il ia te [th e Ch arg e] as req ui red by [Tit le VII] ha ve b e e n u n s u cces sf ul ." The EEOC ad de d

th at be cau se "fu rth er co nc il ia ti on effo rts wou ld be fu ti le or no n- pr od uc ti ve ," it wou ld

"n ot m ak e fu rth er effo rts to co nc il ia te [th e Ch arg e]" an d was "fo rward in g th e cas e to [it s] leg al un it for po ss ib le li ti ga ti on ."

F. Th e In st an t La ws ui t

On Sep te m

be r 27

, 20 07

, th e EEOC fil ed th e in st an t la wsu it se ek in g red res s fo r

th e di sc riminat io n th at St ark e "an d a cl as s of si m il arl y si tu at ed fem al e em pl oyees of
[CRS T] " al le ge dl y en du red

. The EEOC br ou gh t th e su it in it s own na m e, pu rs ua nt to
§ 70 6 of Tit le VII, 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5

, "t o co rrec t [CRS T's] un la wfu l em pl oym en t

pr act ic es on th e ba si s of se x, an d to pr ov id e ap pr op ria te rel ie f to [St ark e] an d a cl as s
of si m il arl y si tu at ed fem al e e m pl oyees of [CRS T] who were ad ve rs el y affe ct ed by

su ch pra ct ic es ." The am en de d c om pl ai nt all eg ed , in pe rti ne nt pa rt, a s fo ll ows :

7. . . . t wo of [CRS T's] [L]ead [D]riv ers su bjec te d St ark e to sex ua l
ha ras sm en t du rin g th ei r su pe rv is io n of St ark e (in cl ud in g, bu t no t li m it ed

to

, un welc om e se xu al co nd uc t, ot he r un welc om e ph y si cal to u ch in g,
p ro po si ti on s of se x, an d se xu al co m m en ts ), whi ch fu rth er crea te d a

se xu al ly ho st il e an d of

fen si ve wor k en vi ro nm en t. CRST is li ab le fo r th e ha rm cau se d by th e ha r a s s ment an d th e ho st il e an d of fen si ve wor k

-8

-en vi ro nm en t be cau se of th e act io ns of it s [L]ead [D]riv ers an d be cau se

of it s f a i l u r e an d refu sa l to ta ke pr om pt an d ap pr op ria te act io n to

pr ev en t, co rrec t, an d pr ot ect St ark e fro m th e ha ras sm en t an d th e ho st il e

wor k en vi ro nm en t, cu lm in at in g in he r di sc ha rg e fro m em pl oym en t wit h
CRST.

8. Oth er si m il arl y si tu at ed fem al e em pl oyees of CRST were al so

su bjec te d to se xu al ha r a s s m en t an d a se xu al ly ho st il e an d of fen si ve

wor k e nv iro nm en t wh il e wor ki ng for CRST . . . .

9. The effe ct of th e pr act ic es co m pl a i n ed of in Para gr ap hs 7 an d 8
ha s be en to de pr iv e St ark e an d a cl as s of si m il arl y si tu at ed fem al e

em pl oyees of eq ua l emp l o ym en t op po rtu ni ti es , an d to ot he rwis e ad ve rs el y affe ct th ei r st at us as e m

pl oyees, b ecau se of s ex

.

The EEOC al le ge d th at CRST pe rp et ra te d the se ac tio ns in te nt io na ll y an d "wi th m al ic e

or wit h reck le ss in di ffer en ce to th e fed eral ly pr ot ect ed rig ht s of St ark e an d th e cl as s
of si m il arl y si tu at ed fem al e em

pl oyees."

In it s pr ay er fo r rel ie f, th e EEOC so ug ht (1 ) "a pe rm an en t in jun ct io n en

joi ni ng

CRST a n d it s of

fic ers , su cces so rs , an d as si gn s, an d al l pe rs on s in act iv e co nc ert or

pa rti ci pa ti on wit h th em , fro m en ga gi ng in se xu al ha r a s s men t

, [an d] an y ot he r

em pl oym en t pr act ic e whi ch di sc riminat es on t h e b a s i s of se x" ; (2 ) an or de r

co m pe ll in g "CR ST to in st it ut e an d carr y ou t po li ci es , pr act ic es , an d pr og ram s whi ch

pr ov id e eq ua l em

pl oym en t op po rtu ni ti es fo r wom en , an d whi ch erad ic at e th e effe ct s
of it s pas t and pr es en t un la wfu l em pl oym en t pr act ic es "; (3 ) a "m ak e[-]who le " ord er
award in g St ark e an d th e cl as s ba ck pa y an d be ne fit s wit h pr ejud gm en t in te res t; (4 ) an

or de r award in g St ark e an d t h e c l as s co m pe ns at or y da m ag es an d pu ni ti ve da m ag es ;

an d (5 ) an ord er awar di ng th e EEOC th e co st s o f th is act io n.

Fro m Sep te m be r 27 , 20 07 , th e da te th at th e EEOC fil ed su it

, un ti l n earl y two

y ears th erea fte r, th e EEOC di d no t id en ti fy th e wom en co m pr is in g th e pu ta ti ve cl as s
de sp it e th e di st ric t co ur t's an d CRST's r e p e a te d req ue st s to do so . Ac co rd in g to th e

-9

-di st ric t cou rt, "i t was un cl ear whet he r th e in st an t Sect io n 70 6 laws ui t in vo lv ed two

,

twen ty or two th ou sa nd 'al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s.'" EEOC v

. CRS T Van
Exp ed it ed

, In c. , No. 07 -CV-9 5- LRR, 20 09 W L 25 24 40 2, at *8 (N.D. Io wa Aug

. 13

, 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (f)(1 ))

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at "t he

EEOC di d no t kn ow ho w m an y al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s on who se be ha lf it was

se ek in g re li ef," b ut "[i ]nst ead

. . . was us in g d is co ve ry to fin d t he m ." Id

. at * 9. 3

The di st ric t co ur t su pp or te d th is co nc lu si on wit h th e fo ll owi ng ch ro no lo gy of 3

di sc ov ery in th e cas e:

On May 2 9, 20 08 , f

or ex am pl e, th e EEOC s en t 2,0 00 le tt e r s t o f o r m er CRST fem al e em

pl oyees to so li ci t th ei r pa rti ci pa ti on in th is la wsu it

. On Sep te m be r 28

, 20 08

, th e EEOC se nt an ot he r 73 0 so li ci ta ti on l e t t e rs to fo rm er CRST fem al e em

pl oyees. There was a clea r an d pre se nt da ng er th at th is cas e wou ld d r a g on fo r y ears as th e EEOC co nd uc te d wid eran gi ng di sc ov ery an d co nt in ue d to ide nti fy al le ge dly ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s. Th e EEOC's li ti ga ti on st rat eg y was un te na bl e: CRST face d a

co nt in uo us ly m ov in g ta rg et of al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d p ers on s, t he ris k o f

ne ve r-en di ng di sc ov ery an d i nd efi ni te co nt in ua nc e o f tr ia l.

On Aug us t 8, 20 08

, CRST as ke d th e co ur t to es ta bl is h a da te "b y whi ch th e EEOC co m

pl et es it s id e n t i f

i cat io n of cl as s m em

be rs ."

Res po ns e (d oc ke t no

. 38 ), at 4. The EEOC res p on de d th at it ha d
id en ti fie d "a to ta l of 49 cl as s m em be rs so far," pr ed ic te d th e "t ot al cl as s wil l reac h be twee n 10 0 an d 15 0 in di vi du al s," in d i c at ed it be li ev ed it

co ul d id en ti fy "t he bu lk of th e cl as s m em be rs " by Octo be r 15

, 20 08

, an d

su gg es te d a Decem

be r 7, 20 08 de ad li ne fo r id en ti fy in g th e "cl as s

m em be rs ." Rep ly (do ck et no . 42 ), at 1– 3.

On Aug us t 20

, 20 08

, th e co ur t se t a[n ] Octo be r 15

, 20 08 de ad li ne fo r th e EEOC "t o di sc lo se th e id en ti t[i es ] of cl as s m em be rs ." The co ur t al so co nt in ue d th e pa rti es ' pr ev io us ly ag r e ed -u po n di sc ov ery de ad li ne
to Jan ua ry

15 , 20 09

.

By Octo be r 15

, 20 0 8

, th e EEOC id en ti fie d ap pr ox im at el y 27 0
al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s to CRST. The nu m be r of "cl as s m em

be rs "

gr eat ly in crea se d in th e te n da y s immed ia te ly pr eced in g th e de ad li ne

. -1 0-Pri or to Octo be r 7, 20 08

, th e EEOC ha d id en ti fie d o n ly se ve nt y -n in e

"cl as s m em

be rs " to CRST. On Octo be r 7, 20 08

, th e EEOC id en ti fie d 40

ne w "cl as s m em

be rs " an d ad vi se d CRST th at th e "[i ]n ve st ig at io n is

co nt in ui ng ." Sev en th Su pp le m en t to In it ia l Dis cl os ur es (d oc ke t no

. 24 3- 5)

, at 1. On Octo be r 15

, 20 08

, t h e EEOC id en ti fie d 11 9 m or e "cl as s

m em be rs " an d ag a i n a d vi se d CRST th at th e "[i ]nve st ig at io n is

co nt in ui ng ." Eig ht h Su pp le m en t to In it ia l Dis cl os ur es (d oc ke t no

. 24 3- 6)

, at 1; Nin th Su pp le m en t t o In it ia l Di sc lo su res (do ck et no . 24 3- 7)

, at 1; Ten th Su pp le m en t to In it ia l Dis cl os ur es (d oc ke t no

. 24 3- 8)

, at 1. Als o

on Octo be r 15

, 2 0 0 8

, t he EEOC pa rti al ly id en ti fie d 66 ad di ti on al

pe rs on s an d st at ed [th at ] "t he EEOC ex pe c t s [th at ] al l [o f] th es e in di vi du al s are cl as s m em be rs

. . . ." Elev en th Su pp le men t t o I n it ia l
Dis cl os ur es (d oc ke t no

. 24 3- 9)

, at 1. Aga in

, th e EEOC st at ed th at th e "[i ]nve st ig at io n i s co nt in ui ng ." Id

. at 1

.

The to ta l n u m

be r of al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s id en ti fie d or
pa rti al ly id en t i f

i e d b y th e EEOC by Octo be r 15

, 20 08 [,] was m uc h

gr eat er th an CRST ha d an ti ci pa te d b a se d up on th e EEOC's pr io r
rep res en ta ti on s to th e co ur t. Se e, e.g

. , Res po ns e (d oc ke t no

. 42 ), at 1– 2 (EEOC es ti m at es "t he to ta l cl as s wil l reac h be t w e e n 1 0 0 an d 15 0
in di vi du al s" ); Sch ed ul in g Ord er at 2 (EEOC es ti m at es a twen ty-day
tri al ). The refo re, on Nov em be r 6, 20 08

, CRST fil e d a "M ot io n un de r Ru le 16 (f) fo r an Ord er to Sh ow Cau se Co nc ern in g th e EEOC's
Id en ti fic at io n of Cl as s Mem be rs ." Mo ti on to Sh ow Cau se (d o c k e t no

. 56 ). CRST al le ge d th at th e EEOC di d no t ha ve a go od -fa i t h b a s i s fo r

na m in g so m an y al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s; CRST accu se d th e EEOC
of ad op ti ng a po li cy of "n am in g ev eryone an d as ki n g q u e st io ns la te r" jus t be fo re th e Octo be r 15

, 20 08 de ad li n e

. Bri ef in Su pp or t of Mo ti on
to Sh ow Cau se (d o c k e t n o

. 56 -2 ), at 10

. CRST al le ge d th at th e EEOC
h a d s i m pl y ad de d a la rg e nu m

be r of na m es fo un d in CRST's hu man

res ou rces fil es wit ho ut ev er s pe ak in g t o th os e in di vi du al s. Furt he r, th e EEOC ha d in di cat ed to CRST th at it res erv ed un to it se lf th e op ti on in
th e fu tu re "t o rem ov e so m e wom en fro m th is li st at a la t e r da te ." Id

. at
11

.

. . . The co ur t t oo k t he EEOC at i ts word th at it ha d a go od -fai th be li ef
th at each an d e v e r y on e of th e ap pr ox im at el y 27 0 wom en it ha d

-1 1-The di st ric t co ur t is su ed two or de rs to th e EEOC, co m pe ll in g th e ag en cy to (1 )

im m ed ia te ly am en d it s li st of 27 0 wom en as so on as it le arn ed of an y wom en who se
cl ai m s it no l o n ge r wis he d to pu rs ue an d (2 ) m ak e al l wom en on who se be ha lf it

so ug ht rel ie f av ai la bl e to CRST fo r de po si ti on

. Id

. at *1 0. The di st ric t cou rt warne d

th e EEOC th at it s fai lu re to pr es en t an y wom an fo r de po si ti on be fo re di sc o v e r y's

co nc lu si on on Ja nu ary 15

, 20 09

, wou ld res ul t in a "d is co ve ry sa nc ti on " fo rb id di ng

th at wom an fro m te st ifyin g at tri al an d ba rri ng th e EEOC fro m se ek in g rel ie f on he r
be ha lf in th e cas e. Id

. As au th or it y fo r th is or de r, th e di st ric t co ur t " in vo ke d it s

in he ren t cas e[-]m an ag em en t au th or it y " un de r, in te r al ia

, Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l

P r o c e d u r e 26 (f) an d 16 (b ). Id

. The reaf te r, th e EEOC m ad e 15 0 of th e 27 0 wom en

av ai la bl e fo r de po si ti on , pr om pt in g th e di st ric t co ur t to ho no r it s p rio r or de r by

pr ecl ud in g th e EEOC fro m pu rs ui ng rel ie f fo r th e rem ai ni ng 12 0 wom en

. Id

. at *1 1.

The di st r i c t co ur t, in a se rie s of fiv e or de rs , di sm is se d th e EEOC's cl ai m s
rel at in g to ov er ha lf of th es e 15 0 wom en

. W e reci te on ly th e di sm is sa ls th at th e EEOC

cu rren tl y ap pe al s. In al l, th e EEOC ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's di sm is sa l of it s cl ai m s

as to 10 7 wom en

. Fi rs t, on May 13

, 20 09

, th e di st ric t cou rt gra nt ed CRST su m m ary jud gme n t a g a in st th ree wom en , in cl ud in g St ark e, reas on in g th at th e wom en were 4
jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed f

r o m pr os ecu ti ng th ei r cl ai m s. EEOC v. CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 61 4 F. Su pp

. 2d 96 8 (N.D. Io wa 20 09 ). The co ur t ap p li ed jud ic ia l es to pp el

be cau se ea c h w o m an fai le d to di sc lo se on he r ba nk ru pt cy pe ti ti on he r in vo lv em en t

di sc lo se d t o C RST b efo re t he de ad li ne ha d an ac ti on ab le cla im for sex di sc riminat io n.

. . . The co ur t ex pr es se d co nc ern , ho wev er, th at "CR ST [s ti ll ] m ig ht un fai rly face a 'm ov in g ta rg et ' of pr os pe ct iv e pl ai nt iff s as di sc ov ery win ds do wn an d t ria l ap pr oa ch es ." Ord er (d oc ke t no . 6 6) , at
8.

Id

. at * 9– 10 (fo ot no te om it te d a nd alt erat io ns ad de d, i n p art ).

St ark e, Ch ris ti na Pay ne , and Ro bi n Ti m m on s. 4

-1 2-or po te nt ia l in vo lv em en t in th e in s t a n t l a w s u it

. Id

. at 97 3– 76

. As pa rt of th is fir st

or de r, th e d is tri ct co ur t al so jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed th e EEOC f ro m see ki ng red res s fo r

th e th ree wom en 's al le ge d ha ras s men t

. I d

. at 97 6– 77

. Seco nd

, on Ju ne 2, 20 09

, th e
di st ric t co ur t gr an te d CRST su m m ary jud gm en t, on th e m eri ts

, as to Peep le s be cau se
sh e (1 ) fai le d to rep or t h er al le ge d ha ras sm en t to CRST in a ti m el y m an ne r an d (2 )

fai le d t o c reat e a g en ui ne is su e of m at eri al fact as to al l of th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of

he r ret al ia to ry -d is ch arg e cl ai m

. EEOC v. CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c., No. 07 -CV-9 5-

LRR, 20 09 W L 15 86 19 3 (N.D. Io wa J u n e 2

, 2 00 9)

. Thi rd

, on Ju ne 18

, 20 09

, th e
di st ric t co ur t gr an te d CRS T g l ob al su m m ary jud gm en t as to th e EEOC's cl ai m s on
b e h a l f of 11 wom en an d pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t as to th e EEOC's cl ai m s o n 5

be ha lf o f 8 o th ers ; th e di st ric t cou rt pre m is ed th es e ru li ng s o n e it he r th e in di vi du al 6

cl ai m an ts ' fai lu re t o t im el y rep or t al le ge d s ex ua l h aras sm en t o r CRS T's p ro m pt an d

effe ct iv e res po ns e to th e rep or ts th at it act ua ll y r ecei ve d. EEOC v. CRS T Van
Exp ed it ed

, In c. , No. 07 -CV-9 5- LRR, 20 09 W L 17 83 49 5 (N.D. Io wa Ju ne 18

, 20 09 ).

Fo ur th

, on Ju ly 6, 20 09

, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d CRST su m m ary jud gm en t as to th e

EEOC's cl ai m s on be ha lf of th ree wom en be cau se th e a ll eg ed ha ras sm en t was no t 7

su ffi ci en tl y s e v e re or pe rv as iv e. Fi fth

, on Ju ly 9, 20 09

, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d

CRST su m

m ary jud gm en t as to th e EEOC's cl ai m s on be ha lf of

, in te r al ia

, 25 wom en 8

Bo nn ie Bat y ik

, Bet ha ny Bro ek er, Kim Ch is ho lm

, Sam an th a Cu nn i n g h a m , 5

Den is e Des on ie r, Ma

y bi Fern an de z-Fa br e, Gin ge r Lau de rm il k, Vero na McI ve r, Fai th
Sh ad de n, Ra ch el Tuck er, an d Di an a Van ce.

Pam el a Barl ow, Peg gy Bl ak e, Don na Dick so n, Nico le Edwar ds

, Zele st in e 6

Gran t, Ma rth a Gri ffi n, Ca ro le Pet ti t, an d R ho nd a Wellm an

.

Vict or ia Hol m es , Jan ua ry Jac ks on , and Til li e Jo ne s. 7

A nt oi ne tt e Bal dwi n, Mar y Bea to n, Cat he rin e Co ro na do

, Dor ot hy Doc ke r y, 8

Cat he rin e (Gran of

sk y )-F l et ch er, Deb ra Hin de s, Tracy Hug he s, Ja nu ary Ja ck so n, Pat ric ia Mar zet t, Virg in ia Mas on , Lu c i n d a McB la ir, Bo nn ie Mo es ch

, Sh erry O'Don ne ll

, Ch ris ti na Payne, Tam m i Pi le

, Sh aro n Pi nc he m , Peg gy Prat t, D an et te Qui nt an il la

, Kath le en Seym ou r, Jo nn e Sh ep le r, Lin da Sk ag gs , Mar y "Em il y " Sm it h,

Je nn ife r Su ss on , Rob in Tim m on s, an d B et sy Ybarra

.

-1 3-fo r th ei r fai lu re to ti m el y rep or t al le ge d ha ras smen t an d/ or th e la ck of se ve rit y or

pe rv as iv en es s of th e al le ge d ha ras sm en t. EEOC v. CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , No. 07

- CV-9 5- LRR, 2 00 9 WL 20 68 38 6 (N.D. Io wa Ju ly 9, 20 09 ).

Fi na ll y , on Aug us t 13

, 20 09

, th e di st ric t co ur t ba rred th e EEOC fro m se ek in g
rel ie f fo r th e rem ai ni ng 67 wom en aft er co nc lu di ng th at th e EE O C h ad fai le d to

co nd uc t a reas on ab le in ve st ig at io n an d bo na fi de co nc il ia ti on of th es e
cl ai m s— st at ut or y co nd it io ns pr ec e d e nt to in st it ut in g su it

. EEOC v. CRS T Van
Exp ed it ed

, In c. , No. 07 -CV-9 5- LRR, 20 09 W L 25 24 40 2 (N.D. Io wa Aug

. 13

, 20 09 ).

Hav in g di sp os ed of al l th e al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d wom en in th e EEOC's pu ta ti ve "clas s,"

th e d is tri ct co ur t d is m is se d t he EEOC's co m pl ai nt

.

W e no w c on si de r th r e e co ns ol id at ed ap pe al s: (1 ) St ark e's an d Peep le s's joi nt

ap pe al

, in whi ch St ark e ap pe al s th e su m m ary jud gm en t of he r cas e on ju d i c ia l 9

es to pp el gr ou nd s an d ad di ti on al ly joi ns Peep le s in ap pe al in g su m m ary jud gm en t on

th e m eri ts ; (2 ) th e EE O C ' s f i r st nu m be red ap pe al

, co ns ol id at ed wit h St ark e's an d

1 0

Peep le s's

, in whi ch th e EEOC ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's m ul ti pl e di sp os it iv e ru li ng s

th at we reco un te d ab ov e; an d (3 ) th e EEOC's se co nd nu m be red ap pe al

, in whi ch it

1 1

ch al le ng es th e d is tri ct co ur t's award of a tt or ne y s' fe es

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

A. EEOC's In ves ti

ga ti on an d C

on ci li at io n

In it s fir st po in t on ap pe al

, th e EEOC ur ge s th at we rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t's

de ci si on to ba r th e EEOC fro m pu rs ui ng cl ai m s as to 67 wom en ba se d on it s fail ur e

to reas on ab ly in ve st ig at e or go od -fai th co nc il ia te

. W e ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d

App eal No. 0 9- 37 64 9

App eal No. 0 9- 37 65 1 0

App eal No. 1 0- 16 82 1 1

-1 4-no t err in di sm is si ng th e EEOC's cl ai m s as to 67 wom en fo r it s fai lu re to in ve st ig at e

an d c on ci li at e th em

.

1. Over vi ew o

f Ti tl e VII's Pre- su it

Requ ir emen ts

Sect io n 70 6 of Tit le VII, th e pr ov is io n un de r whi ch th e EEOC su ed

, au th or iz es

th e EEOC to br in g su it in it s own na m e, on be ha lf of a "p ers on or pe rs on s ag gr ie ve d"
by th e em pl oyer's un la wfu l em

pl oym en t pr act ic e. 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (f)(1 ); ac co rd

Gen . Tel . C o. of Nw. v. EEOC , 44 6 U.S. 3 18 , 32 4 (1 98 0) ("Gi ve n t he cle ar p ur po se
of Tit le VII, th e EEOC's juri sd ic ti on ov er en fo rcem en t, an d th e rem ed ie s av ai la bl e,

th e EEOC ne ed lo ok no fu rth e r t h a n § 70 6 fo r it s au th or it y to br in g su it in it s own

na m e fo r th e pu rp os e, am on g ot he rs , of se cu rin g rel ie f fo r a gr ou p of ag gr ie ve d

in di vi du al s." ). Howev er, "[a ]s or ig in al ly en act ed [,] Tit le VII di d no t em po w e r th e [EEOC] to su e em

pl oyers to en fo rce th e Act." EEOC v. Hick ey-Mi tc he ll Co

. , 50 7 F.2 d

94 4, 94 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 74 ) (ci ti ng Act of Ju ly 2, 19 64

, Pu b. L. 88 -3 52

, ti t. VII, 78 St at

. 25 3)

.

Rat he r, "[c ]oop erat io n an d vo lu nt a r y c om pl ia nc e were se le ct ed as th e
pr efer red m ean s fo r ach ie vi ng " eq ua li ty of em pl oym en t op po rtu ni t ie s. Vol un ta ry co m

pl ia nc e pr ov ed el us iv e, ho wev er, as m or e th an ha lf of th e EEOC's con ci li at io n effo rts were d eem ed un su cces sf ul

. Co ns eq ue nt ly,
Co ng res s en act e d t h e Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp or tu ni ty Act of 19 72
whi ch am en de d Tit le VII to pe rm it th e EEOC su it s. The s t at ut or y

m an da te th at th e EEOC at te m pt co nc il ia ti on w a s no t ab an do ne d,
ho wev er, an d th e Act ex pr es sl y co nd it io ns th e EEOC's po wer of su it on it s in ab il it y to "s ecu re fro m th e res po nd en t a co nc il ia ti on a g r eem en t

acce pt ab le to th e EEOC."

Id

. (in te rn al fo ot no te s om it te d) ; ac co rd Occi de nt al Li fe In s. Co

. of Ca l. v. EEOC

, 43 2

U.S. 35 5, 3 68 (19 77 ).

Th u s, "[i ]n th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp or tu ni ty Act of 19 72

, Co ng r e s s

es ta bl is he d an in te gr at ed

, m ul ti st ep en fo rcem en t pr oc ed ur e cu lm in at i n g in th e

-1 5-EEOC's au th or it y to br in g a ci vi l act io n in a fed eral co ur t." Occi de nt al Li fe In s. Co

. , 43 2 U.S. at 35 9 (in te rn al fo ot no te om it te d)

. Fi rs t, an em pl oyee fil es wit h th e EEOC

a ch arg e "al le gi ng th at an em pl oyer ha s en ga ge d in an un la wfu l em pl oym en t

pr act ic e." Id

. Seco nd

, "[t ]he EEOC is th e n r eq ui red to in ve st ig at e th e ch arg e an d

de te rm in e whe th er th ere is reas on ab le cau se to be li ev e th at it is tru e." Id

. If reas on ab le

cau se d o e s e x i st

, th e EEOC m ov es to th e th ird st ep , whi ch at te m pt s to rem ed y th e

o b jecti on ab le em

pl oym en t pr act ic e th ro ug h th e in fo rm al

, no nju di ci al m ean s " ' o f

co nf eren ce, co nc il ia ti on , an d pe rs ua si on .'" Id

. (q uo ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 ( b )).

Howev er, if un su cces sf

ul

, th e EEOC m ay m ov e to th e fo ur th an d fin al st ep an d br in g

a ci vi l act io n to red res s th e ch arg e. Id

. at 35 9– 60 (q uo ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (f)(1 )).

As we ha ve reco gn iz ed

, th e EEOC's "'p owe r of su it an d ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s [are no t] un rel at ed act iv it ie s, [b ut ] se qu en ti al st ep s in a un if ie d sc he me fo r se cu rin g

co m pl ia nc e wit h Tit le VII.'" Hick ey-Mi tc he ll Co

. , 5 0 7 F.2 d at 94 8 (al te rat io ns in

or ig in al ) (em

ph as is ad de d) (q uo ti ng EEOC v. E.I. DuPo nt de Nemo ur s & Co

. , 37 3 F.

Su pp

. 13 21

, 13 33 (D. Del. 19 74 )); ac co rd EEOC v. Am. Na t'l Ban k

, 65 2 F.2 d 11 76

, 11 85 (4t h C ir. 1 98 1)

.

2. Ade qu ac

y o f t he EEOC's In ves ti

ga ti on an d C

on ci li at io n
The di st ric t co ur t ba rred th e EEOC fro m pu rs ui ng cl ai m s as to 67 wom en ba se d

on it s co nc lu si on th at "t he EEOC di d no t in ve st ig a t e , is su e a reas on ab le cau se
de te rm in at io n or co nc il ia te th e cl ai m s." CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 20 09 W L

25 24 40 2, at *1 9. On ap pe al

, th e EEOC av ers th at th e di st ric t co ur t wro ng ly co nc lu de d

t h a t th e EEOC's in ve st ig at io n, res ul ti ng reas on ab le -cau se de te rm in at io n, an d

co nc il ia ti on were in su ffi ci en t to sa ti sf y § 70 6. It arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t (1 )

m isc onst ru ed the EEOC's effo rts th ro ug h se ria l req ue st s fo r in fo rm at io n to in ve stiga te

di sc riminat io n su ffer ed by pe rs on s ot he r th an St ark e; an d (2 ) in co rrec tl y as su m ed th at

th e "EEOC ha d to in ve st ig at e, is su e a cau se fin di ng [reg ard in g], an d co nc il ia te each

in di vi du al in s t a n c e o f CRST's fai lu re to res po nd ap pr op ria te ly to a ha ras sm en t

-1 6-co m

pl ai nt ." The EEOC co nt en ds t h a t it "n eed ed on ly to in ve st ig at e, is su e a cau se

fin di ng as t o, an d c on ci li at e eac h ty pe of d is cri m in at io n a ll eg ed ."

In it s an al y si s, th e di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at "t he EEOC was en ti tl ed to

ex pa nd it s in ve st ig at io n of St ark e's Ch arg e an d co ns id er whe th er CRST ha d to le rat ed

th e se xu al ha ras sm en t of ot he r fem al e dr i v e r s

. " Id

. at *1 5. It no te d th at

, du rin g th e

co ur se of it s in ve st ig at io n, th e EEOC di d d i s c o v er "t he al le ga ti on s of a nu m be r of

ot he r fem al e dr iv ers , in cl ud in g Ess ig

, Mo rg an , Peep le s an d Thi el ." Id

. (co nc lu di ng

th at th es e fem al e dr iv ers ' al le ga ti on s of se xu al ha ras s men t g r ew ou t of th e EEOC's

in ve st ig at io n of St ark e's Ch arg e). The co ur t al so reco gn iz ed th at it co ul d "n ot se co nd

gu es s th e EEOC's fin di ng in th e Lett er of Dete rm in at io n th at ," in te r al ia

, reas on ab le

cau se ex is te d "'t o be li ev e th at [ CRST] ha [d ] su bjec te d a cl as s of em pl oyees an d

pr os pe ct iv e em

pl oyees t o s ex ua l h aras sm en t, i n v io la ti on of Ti tl e VII.'" Id

.

Nev ert he le ss , the co ur t de te rm in ed th at

, ba se d on th e fact ua l reco rd in th is cas e,

"t he EEOC di d no t co nd uc t an y in ve st ig at io n of th e sp eci fic al le ga ti on s of th e

al le ge dl y ag gr ie v e d pe rs on s fo r who m it se ek s rel ie f at tri al be fo re fil in g th e

Co m pl ai nt —l et al on e is su e a reas on ab le cau se de te rm in at io n as to th os e al le ga ti on s

or co nc il ia te th em ." Id . at * 16 . The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e EEOC "wh ol ly

ab an do ne d it s st at ut or y du ti es as to th e rem ai ni ng 67 al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s fo r
who m th e EE O C

. . . in te nd [ed ] to se ek rel ie f at tri al ." Id

. The co ur t ba se d it s

co nc lu si on up on th e fo ll owi ng , un di sp ut ed fact s:

• The EEOC di d no t in ve st ig at e th e sp eci fic al le ga ti on s of a n y o f
th e 67 al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s un ti l aft er th e Co m pl ai nt was fil ed

. Fo r ex am

pl e, th e EEOC di d no t in te rv ie w an y wit ne ss es or

su bp oe na an y do cu m en ts to de te rm in e wh e t he r an y of th ei r al le ga ti on s wer e tr

ue

.

• The EE O C di d no t id en ti fy an y of th e 67 al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d

pe rs on s as m em

be rs of th e Lett er of Dete rm in at io n's "cl as s" un ti l
aft er it fil ed th e Co m

pl ai nt

. In de ed

, pr io r to fil in g th e Co m pl ai nt

,

-1 7-CRST en qu ire d as to th e s iz e of th e "cl as s[ ,] " an d th e EEOC

res po nd ed th at it di d n ot kn ow.

• The EEOC di d no t m ak e a reas on ab le [-]cau se de te rm in at io n as to th e sp eci fic al le ga ti on s of an y of th e 67 al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d

pe rs on s pr io r to fil in g th e Co m pl ai nt

. In de ed

, at th e t i me th e EEOC is su ed th e Lett er of Dete rm in at io n on Ju ly 12

, 20 07

, 27 of
th e r e mai ni ng 67 al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s ha d no t yet be en

se xu al ly ha ra ss ed

. In de ed

, m os t of th es e 27 wom en al le ge th ey

were se xu al ly ha r a s s ed af te r th e in st an t la ws ui t wa s fi le d

. Alt ho ug h 38 of th e rem ai ni ng 40 al l e g e dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s al le ge [th at ] th ey were se xu al ly ha ras se d be fo re th e EEOC is su ed
th e Lett er of De t e r mi na ti on on Ju ly 12

, 20 07

, th e EEOC ad m it s th at it was no t ev en aware of th ei r al le ga ti on s un ti l aft er th e fil in g of th e Co m

pl ai nt

. The EEOC us ed di sc ov ery in th e in st an t la wsu it

to fin d t he m

.

• The EEOC di d no t at te m pt to co nc il ia te th e sp eci fic al le ga ti on s of
th e 67 al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s pr io r to fil in g th e Co m pl ai nt

.

Id . (in te rn al foo tn ot e o m it te d)

.

The EEOC's su it al le g i n g mu lt ip le act s of di sc riminat io n by CR ST aro se ou t

of St ark e's si ng le in it ia ti ng ch arg e. Rel ev an t pr eced en ts pe rm it su ch an ex pa ns io n by

th e EEOC, so lo ng as th e EEOC sa ti sf ie s al l of it s pr e-s ui t ob li ga ti on s fo r each

ad di ti on al cl ai m

. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ob se rv ed th at whe n th e EEOC br in gs su it s

un de r § 70 6 on be ha lf of a gr ou p of ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s, th e EEOC is "m as te r of it s

own cas e." EEOC v. W

af fl e Hou se
, In c. , 53 4 U.S. 27 9, 29 1 (2 00 2)

. And

, as a ge ne ral

ru le

, "t he na tu re and ex te nt of an EEOC in ve st ig at io n i nt o a di sc riminat io n c la im is

a m at te r wit hi n th e di sc ret io n of th at ag en cy ." EEOC v. KECO In du s., In c. , 74 8 F.2 d

10 97 , 11 00 (6t h C ir. 1 98 4)

.

Alt ho ug h "t he EEOC en

joy s wid e la ti tu de in in ve st ig at in g an d fil in g la wsu it s
rel at ed to ch arg es of d is cri m in at io n, Ti tl e VII l im it s t ha t l at it ud e to so m e de gr ee b y

-1 8-'pl ac[i ng ] a st ro ng em ph as is on ad m in is tra ti ve , rat he r th an jud ic i a l

, res ol ut io n of

di sp ut es .'" U.S. Equ al Opp or tu ni ty Co mm'n v. Dil la rd 's In c. , No. 08 –C V–1 78 0– IEG
(PCL), 20 11 W L 27 84 51 6, at *5 (S.D. Cal

. Ju ly 14

, 20 11 ) (s li p op .) (q uo ti ng EEOC

v. Ji ll ia n's of

In di an ap ol is

, In d., In c. , 27 9 F. Su pp

. 2d 97 4, 97 9 (S.D. In d. 20 03 )). Fo r

ou r pa rt, we h av e rec og ni zed th at

[t]he pe rm is si bl e sc op e of an EEOC la wsu it is no t co nf in ed to th e
sp eci fic al le ga ti on s in th e ch arg e; rat he r, it m ay ex te nd to an y di sc riminat io n li ke or rel at ed to th e su bs ta nc e of th e al le ga ti o ns in th e ch arg e an d w h i c h r eas on ab ly can be ex pe ct ed to gr ow ou t of th e in ve st ig at io n tr i g g e r e d by t he ch arg e. The or ig in al ch arg e is su ffi ci en t

to su pp or t EEOC act io n, in cl ud i ng a ci vi l su it

, fo r an y di sc riminat io n
st at ed in th e ch arg e or de ve lo pe d du ri ng a re as on ab le in ves ti ga ti on of
th e ch ar ge , so lo ng

as th e ad di ti on al al le ga ti on s o f d is cr imi na ti on ar e in cl ud ed in th e r ea so na bl e ca us e de te rmi na ti on an d su bj ect to a

co nc il ia ti on pr oc eed in g

.

EEOC v. Deli

gh t W ho le sa le Co

. , 97 3 F.2 d 66 4, 66 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Thu s, whi le "[t ]he EEOC m ay se ek rel ie f o n b e h a l f of in di vi du al s be y on d th e
ch arg in g pa rti es an d fo r a ll eg ed wro ng do in g be y on d th os e or ig in al ly ch arg ed ," it

"m us t di sc ov er su ch in di v i d u a l s a nd wro ng do in g du ri ng th e co ur se of it s

in ves ti ga ti on ." Dil la rd 's In c. , 20 11 W L 27 84 51 6, at *6 (ci ti ng Ji ll ia n's

, 27 9 F. Su pp

. 2d at 98 0; EEOC v. H

a r v e y L

. Wa ln er & Ass oc ., 91 F.3 d 96 3, 96 8 (7 th Ci r. 19 96 )
("[ The ] EEOC m ay al le ge in a co m pl ai nt wha te ve r un la wfu l co nd uc t it ha s un co ve red

du rin g th e co ur se of it s in ve st ig at io n, pr ov id ed th at th ere is a reas on ab le ne xu s
be twee n th e in it ia l ch arg e an d th e su bs eq ue nt al le ga ti on s in th e co m pl ai nt ."); EEOC

v. Uni te d Par cel Se rv

. , 94 F.3 d 31 4, 31 8 (7 th Ci r.19 96 ) ("[ The EEOC] m ay , to th e

ex te nt warra nt ed by an in ve st ig at io n reas on ab ly rel at ed in sc op e to th e al le ga ti on s of

th e un de rlyin g ch arg e, se ek rel ie f on be ha lf of in di vi du al s be y on d the ch ar gi ng pa rti es
who are id en ti f

i e d d ur in g th e in ve st ig at io n." ); W ei ge l v. Bap ti st Hos

p. of E. Ten n. , 30 2 F.3 d 36 7, 38 0 (6 th Ci r. 20 02 ) ("[ W ]here fact s rel at ed wit h res pe ct to th e ch arg ed

cl ai m wou ld pr om

pt th e EEOC to in ve st ig at e a di ffer en t, un ch arg ed cl ai m , th e pl ai nt iff is no t pr ecl ud ed fro m br in gi ng su it on th at cl ai m ." (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

-1 9-o mi t t e d) ); EEOC v. Far mer Bro s. Co

. , 31 F.3 d 89 1, 89 9 (9 th Ci r. 19 94 ) ("[ T] he

juri sd ic ti on al sc op e of [an in di vi du al ] Tit le VII cl ai m an t's co ur t act io n de pe nd s up on

th e sc op e of bo th th e EEOC ch arg e an d th e EEOC in ve st ig at io n.” ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d) ). "Th e rel at ed ne ss of th e in it ia l ch arg e, th e EEOC's in ve st ig at io n an d

co nc il ia ti on effo rts

, an d t he all eg at io ns in th e co m pl ai nt is ne ces sa ry

to pro vi de th e
de fen da nt -em

pl oyer a d e q ua te no ti ce of th e ch arg es ag ai ns t it an d a ge nu in e

op po rtu ni ty to res ol ve al l ch arg es th ro ug h co nc il ia ti on ." Id

. (ci ti ng EEOC v. Out ba ck

St ea k Hou se of Fla

. , In c. , 52 0 F. Su pp

. 2d 12 50

, 12 63 (D. Co lo

. 20 07 ) (ci ti ng EEOC

v. Am. Nat 'l Ba nk , 65 2 F .2d 11 78 , 11 85 (4t h C ir. 1 98 1) )).

In su m m ary, whi le we reco gn iz e th at "[t ]he EEOC en joy s s ig ni fic an t lat it ud e

to in ve st ig at e cl ai m s of di sc riminat io n, an d to al le ge cl ai m s in fed eral co ur t ba se d on

th e res ul ts of it s in ve st ig at io ns ," w e fin d "a clear an d im po rta nt di st in ct io n bet ween
'fact s g a t h e r e d du rin g th e sc op e of an in ve st ig at io n an d fact s ga th ered du rin g th e
di sc ov ery ph as e of an al read y -fi le d la wsu it .'" Id

. at *7 (q uo ti ng Ji ll ia n's

, 27 9 F. Su pp

. 2d at 98 2)

. " Wh e re th e sc op e of it s pr e-l it ig at io n effo rts are li m it ed —i n te rm s of 1 2

In Ji ll ia n's , th e d is tri ct co ur t ex pl ai ne d t ha t 1 2

[i]t was on ly aft er c o n d u c t i ng di sc ov ery wit h res pe ct to it s or ig in al

co m pl ai nt th at th e EEOC de ci de d to ex pa nd it s la wsu it to i n c lu de a

na ti on wid e cl as s. The Sev en th Ci rcu it ap pr oa ch ed th is is su e in W al ne r , whe re it im

pl ie dl y di st in gu is he d be twee n fact s ga th ered du rin g th e

sc op e of an in ve st ig at io n an d fact s ga th ered du rin g th e di sc ov ery ph as e of an al read y -fi le d la wsu it

. " We w ho le he art ed ly ag ree wit h EEOC's

po in t th at it m ay ob ta in rel ie f fo r in st an ces of di sc riminat io n th at it
di sc ov ers du rin g an in ve st ig at io n of a ti m el y ch arg e

. . . . Howev er, th es e in ve st ig at io ns m ay no t be acco m pl is he d th ro ug h a pr oc es s of di sc ov ery
t ha t fo ll ows a co m

pl ai nt ba se d up on an in su ffi ci en t ch arg e o f
di sc riminat io n." Id

. at 97 1– 97 2 (em ph as is ad de d)

. W e co nc lu de th at th e

sa m e st an da rd m

us t be ap pl ie d to t h e r e l a ti on sh ip be twee n th e la wsu it

an d it s un de rlyin g in ve st ig at io n as is ap pl ie d to th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e la wsu it an d i ts un de rlyin g c ha rg e.

-2 0-g e og rap hy, nu m be r of cl ai m an ts

, or na tu re of cl ai m s— th e EEOC 'm ay no t u s e
di sc ov ery in th e res ul ti ng la wsu it 'a s a fis hi ng ex pe di ti on ' to un co ve r m or e
vi ol at io ns .'" Id

. (q uo ti ng EEOC v. Ta rg et Co rp

. , No. 02 –C –1 46

, 20 07 W L 14 61 29 8
(E.D. W is . May 16 , 20 07 ) (ci ti ng W al ne r , 91 F.3d at 9 71 )).

Here, aft er Bl oo m er d i s c ov ered du rin g th e co ur se of he r in ve st ig at io n th at

Ess ig

, Mo rg an , Peep le s, an d Thi el "h ad fil ed fo rm al ch arg es of di sc riminat io n ag ai ns t

CRST fo r al le ge d se xu al ha ras sm en t," th e EEO C req ue st ed th at "CR ST pr ov id e 'a

co py o f al l ot he r [c]har ge s of [d ]iscr im in at io n th at [CRS T] ha s rece iv ed i n t h e p as t

fiv e y ears fro m an y go ve rn m en t ag en cy th at al le ge s se xu al ha ras sm en t.'" CRS T Van
Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 20 09 W L 25 24 40 2, at *3

. It ad di ti on al ly r e q u e s t e d th at CRST

pr ov id e " ' th e na m e, ge nd er, ho m e ad dr es s, an d ho m e te le ph on e nu m be r of al l

em pl oyees th at were tra in ed by ei th er [Sm it h] an d/ or [Go od m an ], ' in cl ud in g 'th e da te s
of th e tra in in g an d do cu m en ta ti on of an y co m pl ai nt s m ad e ag ai ns t th es e two tra in ers by an y of th es e tra in ees

. ' " Id

. The EEOC la te r req ue st ed in fo rm at io n fo r "fe m al e
dr iv er[s ] th at be ga n [th ei r] em pl oyme n t o n o r aft er Ja nu ary 1, 20 05 ." Id

. at *4

. A l t h o u gh CRST fel t th at th e EEOC's req ue st fo r su ch in fo rm at io n was "o v e r l y
br oa d," it ul ti m at el y "m ai le d t h e rem ai nd er of th e in fo rm at io n to th e EEOC on a

co m pu te r di sc ." Id . at * 5. Th erea fte r, th e EEOC is su ed a Lett er o f Det erm in at io n t o CRST, st at in g, in te r al ia

, th at "'t he re is reas on ab le cau se to be li ev e th at [CRS T] ha s

su bjec te d a cl as s of em

pl oyees an d p ro sp ect iv e em pl oyees t o s ex ua l h aras sm en t, in

vi ol at io n o f Tit le VII.'" Id . at * 6.

"Th e Lett er of D et erm in at io n di d no t pro vi de CRST with an y no ti ce as to th e
si ze of th e 'cl as s of em

pl oyees an d pr os pe c t i v e em pl oyees [s ub

jecte d] to se xu al

ha ras sm en t.'" Id

. at *8

. And

, du rin g co nc il ia ti on , th e EEOC was un ab le "t o pr ov id e [CRS T] na m es of al l cl as s m em be rs

. . . , or an in di cat io n of th e si ze of th e cl as s." Id

.
at *7

. Lik ewis e , "t he EEOC's Co m pl ai nt pr ov id es no in di cat io n of ho w m an y

Id . at 9 81 –8 2.

-2 1-'si m il arl y si tu at ed fem al e em pl oyees' th e EEOC al le ge d to ex is t." Id

. at *8

. It was no t

un ti l a f t e r t h e co m

m en cem en t of th e in st an t su it th at th e EEOC s ou gh t to as cert ai n

th e si ze of t h e cl as s. Se e id

. at *9 ("On May 29

, 20 08

, fo r ex am pl e, th e EEOC se nt
2,0 00 le tt ers to fo rm er CRST fem al e em pl oyees to so li ci t th e ir pa rti ci pa ti on in th is

la wsu it

. On Sep te m

be r 28

, 20 08

, th e EEOC se nt an ot h e r 7 3 0 so li ci ta ti on le tt ers to

fo rm er CRST fem al e em

pl oyees. The re was a cl ear an d pr es en t da ng er th at th is cas e

wou ld dr ag on fo r y ears as th e EE O C c o n du ct ed wid e-ra ng in g di sc ov ery an d

co nt in ue d to id en ti fy al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs ons. The EEOC's li ti ga ti on st rat eg y was

un te na bl e: CRST face d a co nt in uo us ly m ov in g ta rg et of al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s,

th e ris k of ne ve r-en di ng di sc ov ery an d in de fin it e co nt in ua nc e of tri al ."). The nu m be r
of pu rp or te d cl as s m em

be rs co nt in uo us ly ch an ge d th ro ug ho ut th e di sc ov ery pr oc es s.

Se e id . a t *9 –1 0. Ult im at el y , t he EEOC i d e n ti fie d 67 m em be rs of th e "cl as s." Id . a t

*1 0.

The EEOC's afo rem en ti on ed co nd uc t d em on st rat es th at it di d no t reas on ab ly

in ve st ig at e th e cl as s al le ga ti on s of se xu al ha ras s ment "d ur in g a reas on ab le

in ve st ig at io n of th e ch arg e." Deli gh t W ho le sa le Co

. , 97 3 F.2 d at 66 8. In st ead

, it

en ga ge d in fact -g at he rin g as to th e "cl as s" "d ur in g th e di sc ov ery ph as e of an al read y

fil ed la wsu it ." Dil l a r d '

s I n c

. , 20 11 W L 27 84 51 6, at *7 (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. Our rev ie w of th e un di sp ut ed fact s de m on st rat es t h a t th e EEOC was

" u s [in g] di sc ov ery in th e res ul ti ng la wsu it as a fis hi ng ex pe di ti on to un co ve r m or e
vi ol at io ns ." Id

. (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. "[T]he EEOC di d no t in ve st ig at e th e

sp eci fic al le ga ti on s of an y of t h e 6 7 a ll eg ed ly ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s [, i.e., th e cl as s

m em be rs ,] un ti l af

te r th e Co m

pl ai nt was fil ed ." CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 20 09 W L

25 24 40 2, at *1 6 (e m

ph as is ad de d) . Tell in gl y ,

at th e ti m e th e EEOC is su ed th e Lett er of Dete rm in at io n on Ju l y 1 2

, 20 07

, 27 of th e rem ai ni ng 67 al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s ha d no t y et be en se xu al ly ha ras se d. In de ed

, m os t of th es e 27 wom en al le g e t he y

were se xu al ly ha ras se d aft er the in st an t laws ui t was fil ed

. Alt ho ug h 38
of th e rem ai n i n g 4 0 al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s al le ge th ey were

-2 2-se xu al ly haras se d b efo re t he EEOC is su ed th e Let te r of Dete rm in at io n

on Ju ly 1 2, 20 07 , t he EE O C ad m it s th at it was no t ev en aware of th ei r al le ga ti on s u nt il aft er t he fil in g o f th e Co m pl ai nt

.

Id

.

Ab se nt an in ve st ig at io n an d reas on ab le cau se de te rm in at io n ap pr is in g th e

em pl oyer of th e ch arg es lo dg ed ag ai ns t it

, th e em pl oyer ha s no m ean in gf ul

op po rtu ni ty to co nc il ia te

. Se e EEOC v. Gen . Elec. Co

. , 53 2 F .2d 35 9, 3 66 n.1 4 (4t h

Ci r. 19 76 ) ("S in ce the de te rm in at io n of reas on ab le cau se de fin es th e fram ewo rk fo r

co nc il ia ti on , it fo ll ows th a t th e is su es to be li ti ga te d he re m us t be th os e whi ch can

fai rly be sa id to be en co m pa ss ed wit hi n th e de te rm in at io n res ul ti ng fro m th e [in it ia ti ng ] ch arg e.") ( qu ot at io ns an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 1 3

Mo reo ve r, co nt rary to th e EEOC's co nt en ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e

it s di sc ret io n in op ti ng to di sm is s, rat he r th an st ay , th e EEOC's co m pl ai nt as to th es e

67 wom en

. Und er § 70 6( f) ( 1 ) o f Ti t l e VII, "[u ]pon req ue st

, th e co ur t may
, in it s
di sc re ti on , st ay fu rth er pr oc eed in gs fo r no t m or e th an si xt y da y s pe nd in g

. . . fu rth er
effo rts of th e EEOC to ob ta in vo lu nt ary co m pl ia nc e." 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (f)(1 )

"No ta bl y , th e EEOC di d no t al le ge th at CR S T w a s e ng ag ed in 'a pa tt ern or 1 3

pr act ic e' of il le ga l se x- ba se d di sc riminat io n or ot he rwis e pl ead a vi ol at io n of Sect io n 70 7 of Tit le VII

, 4 2 U

. S

. C. § 20 00 e-6 ." CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 20 09 W L
25 24 40 2, at *7 n.1 4. Th e d is tri ct co ur t h ad "as su m ed [th at ] th e EEOC had th e ri gh t

to m ai nt ai n a pa tt ern -o r-p ract ic e cl ai m in th is cas e bu t d i s mi s s ed it wit h pr ejud ic e. The co ur t h el d a s a m at te r of la w t ha t th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fr om whi ch a

r eas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at it was CRST's 'st an da rd op erat in g pr oc e d u r e ' t o
to le rat e se xu al ha ras sm en t." Id . We, l ik e th e di st ric t co ur t, "ex pr es s[ ] no vi ew as to whe th er th e EEOC's in ve st ig at io n, de te rm in at io n an d co nc il ia ti on of St ark e's Ch arg e

wou ld be su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a pa tt er n[ -] or -p ra ct ic e la wsu it ." Id

. at *1 6 n.2 1 (ci ti ng EEOC v. Dia l Co rp

. , 15 6 F. Su pp

. 2d 92 6, 93 4– 44 (N.D. Ill

. 20 01 ) (p er mi t t i ng th e EEOC to us e di sc ov ery to fin d m or e vi ct im s of s e x u a l h a ras sm en t in a pa tt ern -o rpr act ic e cas e)).

-2 3-(em

ph as is ad de d)

. The EEOC co n c e de s in it s br ie f th at ou r rev ie w of th e di st ric t

co ur t's de ci si on to st ay or di sm is s an EEOC su it fo r fai lu re to sa ti sf y Tit le VII's pr esu it req ui rem en ts is fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. In it s or d e r b e l ow, th e di st ric t co ur t

co nc lu de d th at "[h ]ere, di sm is sa l is a se ve re bu t ap pr op ria te rem ed y ," fo ot no ti ng th at

it "m ig ht ha ve st ay ed th e in st an t act io n fo r fu rth er co nc il ia ti on in li eu of d is m is sa l"
"[h ]ad th e EEOC no t who ll y ab di cat ed it s ro le in th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s." CRS T

Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 20 09 W L 25 24 40 2, at *1 9 & n.2 4. The pr es en t reco rd co nf irms

th at th e EEOC who ll y fai le d to sa ti sf y it s st at ut or y pr e-s ui t ob li ga ti on s as to th es e 67

wom en , th us we can no t co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc r e t i o n in

di sm is si ng th e EEOC's s ui t.

B. Ju di ci al Est op pe l

1. Ju di ci al

Est op pe l a s Ap pl ie d t o S ta rk

e, Pay ne , an d T

immo ns
The di st ric t co ur t al so gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t on th e in di vi du al cl ai m s of

St ark e, Payne, an d Tim

m on s, an d al so on th e EEOC's cl ai m s o n t he ir be ha lf. CRS T

Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 61 4 F. Su pp

. 2 d a t 9 7 3 –7 7. Sp eci fic al ly, th e di st ric t co ur t

co nc lu de d th at

, be cau se each of th e th ree wom en fai le d to di sc lo se he r in vo lv em en t

in th e in st an t la wsu it as a po te nt ia l so ur ce of in co m e on he r ba nk ru pt cy pe ti ti on , sh e
is jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed fro m se ek in g rel ie f. Id

. Lik ewis e, th e di st ric t co ur t al so ap pl ie d
jud ic ia l es to pp el to th e EEOC, pr ecl ud in g th e EEOC fro m se ek in g red res s in it s own § 7 0 6 su it fo r ha ras sm en t th at St ark e, Payne, or Tim m on s al le ge dl y su ffer ed

. Id

. a t

97 3.

In Octo be r 20 05

, St ark e an d he r hu sb an d fil ed

, in th e fed eral ba nk ru pt cy co ur t

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Tex as , a vo lu nt ary pe ti ti on as joi nt de bt or s pr ay in g fo r

pr ot ect io n un de r Ch ap te r 7 of th e Ban kr up tc y Co de

. The y di d no t in cl ud e a cl ai m fo r

se xu al ha ras sm en t am on g th ei r co nt in ge nt as se ts in th ei r pe ti ti on , no r di d th ey am en d

th ei r pe ti ti on a t an y ti m e be twee n Decem be r 20 05

, whe n In te rv en er St ark e in it ia ll y

fil ed he r ad m in i s t r a t i v e ch arg e of di sc riminat io n wit h th e EEOC, or Mar ch 20 06

, whe n th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t fu ll y di sc ha rg ed th ei r de bt s. In Decem be r 20 08

, th ree

-2 4-m on th s aft er in te rv en in g in th e in st an t la wsu it an d ov er on e y ear aft er th e EEOC fil ed

it

, St ark e m ov ed to reo pe n he r an d he r hu sb an d's joi nt ba nk ru pt cy to ad d th e cl ai m as

a p ot en ti al ass et

.

Si m il arl y , in Octo b e r 2 0 05

, Payne fil ed

, in fed eral ba nk ru pt cy co ur t fo r th e

So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Ohi o, a vo lu nt ary pe ti ti on un de r th e na m e of "Ch ris ti na Sp rin kl e"

fo r pr ot ect io n un de r Ch ap te r 13 of th e Ban kr up tc y Co de

. Payne om it te d fro m he r li st

of as se ts an y po te nt ia l cl ai m ag ai ns t CRST fo r se xu al ha ras sm en t. Afte r th e EEOC

fil ed th e in st an t la wsu it in Sep te m be r 20 07

, Payne di d no t am en d he r pe ti ti on 's as se t

sc he du le s t o i nc lu de th e cl ai m . On Ma y 24 , 20 10 , Pay ne rece iv ed a fu ll di sc ha rg e.

In Mar ch 20 08 , Ti m

m on s an d he r hu sb an d fil ed , i n fed e r a l b a n kr up tc y co ur t

fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, a vo l un ta ry pe ti ti on as joi nt de bt or s se ek in g

pr ot ect io n un de r Ch ap te r 7 of th e Ban kr up tc y Co de . Ti m m on s di d no t di sc lo se an y

po te nt ia l cau se of act io n ag ai ns t CRST an d, in Ju ne 20 08

, sh e an d he r hu sb an d

rece iv ed a fu ll di sc ha rg e.

W e rev ie w fo r ab u s e o f d is cret io n a di st ric t co ur t's in vo cat io n of jud ic ia l

es to pp el

. Tr ip le H Deb ri s Remov al

, In c. v. Co mpa ni on Pro

p. & Ca s. In s. Co

. , 64 7

F.3 d 78 0, 78 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ti ng Ca pe ll a Uni v., In c. v. Exec. Ris k Sp eci al ty In s.

Co

. , 61 7 F

. 3 d 10 40

, 10 51 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). W e ap pl y th is de fere nt ia l st an da rd of

rev ie w ba se d on ou r ack no wled gm en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t is be st eq ui pp ed to de ci de
j udi ci al es top pe l' s ap pli cab il it y "b ecau se de te rm in in g whe th er a li ti ga nt is pl ay in g fast

an d lo os e wit h th e co ur ts ha s a su bjec ti ve el em en t an d it s res ol ut io n dr aws up on th e

tri er's in ti m at e kn owl ed ge of th e cas e at ba r an d hi s or he r fir st -h an d ob se rv at io ns of

th e la wy e r s a n d th ei r li ti ga ti on st rat eg ie s." St al li ng s v. Hus sma n Co rp

. , 44 7 F.3 d

10 41

, 10 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ta ti on , al te rat io n, an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. W e wil l

up ho ld th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on to ap pl y jud ic ia l es to pp el "u nl es s it pl ai nl y ap pe ars

th at th e co ur t co m

m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in th e co nc lu si on it reac he d up on
a wei gh in g o f th e p ro pe r fac to rs ." Id

. at 1 04 6– 47 (qu ot at io ns an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

-2 5-As an in it ia l m at te r, we ne ed no t ad dr es s St ar k e ' s c o nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t

co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in jud ic ia ll y es to pp in g he r fro m pr os ecu ti ng he r in te rv en er
cl ai m s ag ai ns t CRST. St ark e al le ge s in he r br ie f th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to

co ns id er cert ai n m it ig at in g fact or s co un se li ng ag ai ns t jud ic ia l es to pp el 's ap pl ic at io n. Sp eci fic al ly, St ark e m ai nt ai ns th at sh e in ad ve rte nt ly fai le d to in cl ud e he r in te rv en er
cl ai m in he r ba nk ru pt cy pe ti ti on

. Sh e cl ai m s th at th e la ng ua ge ba rri er crea te d by he r

Germ an bi rth an d c on se qu en t l ack of f lu en cy in Eng li sh li m it ed he r ab il it y to ass is t

he r ba nk ru pt cy co un se l. St ark e al so no te s th at

, "as so on as [s he ] le arn ed th at he r cl ai m

a ga in st CRST sh ou ld ha ve be en di sc lo se d, [s he ] to ok im m ed ia te st ep s to h a v e t h e
ba nk ru pt cy reo pe ne d an d he r fil in gs am en de d to co nt ai n th e cl ai m ag ai ns t CRST."

Howev er, St ark e's co un se l co nc ed ed at or al arg um en t th at St ark e la ck ed st an di ng to

as se rt he r Tit le VII cl ai m

. In li gh t of th is co nc es si on , we ne ed no t ad dr es s St ark e's 1 4

ap p e a l of th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on to jud ic ia ll y es to p St ark e fro m pu rs ui ng he r

in te rv en er cl ai m s ag ai ns t CRST, an d we in st ead co n s i de r on ly whe th er th e di st ric t

co ur t ab us ed it s d is cret io n i n ju di ci al ly esto pp in g P ay ne an d Ti m m on s.

At or al arg um en t, th e co ur t in qu ire d as to whe th er, "i n li gh t of th e ba nk ru pt cy 1 4

pr oc eed in g" an d Uni te d St at es ex re l. Geb er t v. Tr an sp or t Admi ni st ra ti ve Se rv ic es , 26 0 F .3d 90 9 (8 th Cir . 2 00 1) , S ta rk e h ad st an di ng to pu rs ue he r cl ai m . In re sp on se , St ark e's co un se l s ta te d:

It so un ds to m e li ke

, in al l ho ne st y , sh e pr ob ab ly ne ve r sh ou ld
ha ve be en in th e d is tri ct co ur t. There pro ba bl y ne ve r sh ou ld ha ve be en

m eri ts of de te rm in at io n aga in st he r. The re was no t on ly no juri sd ic ti on he re, th ere was no juri sd ic ti on th ere. Lo ok in g a t i t n ow, I t hi nk we di d
th e be st we co ul d. The re sh ou ld n't ha ve be en m eri ts of de te rm in at io n. It
sh ou ld ha ve be en a di sm is sa l wit ho ut pr ejud ic e in th e d is tri ct co ur t. In
al l ho ne st y, th er e is no st an di ng , no ju ri sd ic ti on ever

. Tha t is ho w I se e th at . Than k you

.

(Em ph as is ad de d.)

-2 6-A s t he Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d, th e do ct rin e of jud ic ia l es to pp e l

"'g en e r a l l y p r e v e nt s a pa rty fro m pr ev ai li ng in on e ph as e of a cas e on an arg um en t

an d th en rel y in g on a co nt rad ic to ry arg um en t to pr ev ai l in an ot he r ph as e

. ' " New
Hamp sh ir e v. Mai ne , 53 2 U.S. 74 2, 74 9 (2 00 1) (q uo ti n g Peg ra m v. Her dr ic h

, 53 0

U.S. 21 1, 22 7 n.8 (2 00 0) ). By lo gi cal ex te ns io n, "[j] ud ic ia l est op pe l [als o] pr ev en ts

a p ers on who st at es fact s un de r oa th du rin g th e co ur se of a tri al fro m de nyin g t ho se
fact s in a se co nd su it

, ev en th ou gh th e pa rti es in th e se co nd su it m ay no t be th e sa m e

as th os e in th e fir st ." St al li ng s , 44 7 F.3 d at 10 47 (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thi s do ct rin e "p ro te ct s t h e in te gr it y of th e jud ic ia l pr oc es s." Id

. (q uo ta ti on s an d

ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h "[t ]he ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi ch jud ic ia l es to pp el m ay

ap pr op ria te ly be in vo ke d are pr ob ab ly no t red uc ib le to an y ge ne ral fo rm ul at io n of

pr in ci pl e," id

. (ci ti ng New Hamp sh ir e , 53 2 U.S. at 75 0)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t, in New
Hamp sh ir e v. Mai ne , art ic ul at ed a no n- ex ha us ti ve li st of "[t ]hree fact or s

. . . [to ] ai d

a co ur t in de te rm in in g whe th er to ap pl y th e do ct rin e," id

. (ci ti ng New Hamp sh ir e , 53 2

U.S. at 7 51 ).

"Fi rs t, a pa rty's la te r po si ti on m us t be cl earl y in co ns is te nt wit h it s earl ie r
po s i t i o n

. Seco nd

, co ur ts reg ul arl y in qu ire whe th er th e pa rty ha s

su ccee de d in pe rs ua di ng a co ur t to acce pt th at pa rty's earl ie r po si ti on , so th at jud ic ia l acce pt an ce of an in co ns is te nt po si ti on in a la te r pr oc eed in g

wou ld crea te th e pe rcep ti on th at ei th er th e fir st or th e se co nd co ur t was

m is le d. Abs en t su cces s in a pr io r pr oc eed in g, a pa rty's la te r in co ns is te nt posi tio n in tro du ces no ris k of in co ns is te nt co ur t de te rm in at ions, an d thu s
po se s lit tl e th reat to jud ic ia l in te gr it y

. A th ird co ns id erat io n is whe th er th e pa rty se ek in g to as se rt an in co ns is te nt po si ti on wou ld de riv e an

un fai r ad va nt ag e or im

po se an un fai r de tri m en t on th e op po si ng pa rty if

no t es to pp ed ."

Id

. (qu ot in g New Hamp sh ir e , 53 2 U.S. at 75 0– 51 ).

Tak in g each fact or in tu rn , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s
di sc ret io n by jud ic ia ll y es to pp in g Payne an d Tim m on s fro m pu rs ui ng th ei r res pe ct iv e

-2 7-cl ai m s in so far as th ey may s e e k to su bs eq ue nt ly in te rv en e in th e EEOC's act io n or

ot he rwis e se ek rel ie f in di vi du al ly. Not ab ly, wit h res pe ct to th e fir st fact or co nc ern in g

a cl ea r i n c o n s is te nc y be twee n fo rm er an d su bs eq ue nt po si ti on s, we ha ve ob se rv ed

th at

, "[i ]n th e ba nk ru pt cy co nt ex t, a pa rty m ay be jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed fro m as se rti ng

a cau se o f a c t io n no t rai se d in a reo rg an iz at io n pl an or ot he rwis e m en ti on ed in th e
de bt or 's sc he du le s or di sc lo su re st at em en ts ." I d

. Es to pp el m ay ap pl y be cau se "a

de bt or 's fai lu re to li st a cl ai m in th e m an da to ry ba nk ru pt cy fil in gs is ta nt am ou nt to a

rep res en ta ti on th at no su ch cla im ex is te d." Id

. (q uo ta ti on s and ci ta ti on om it te d) . As

r e c o u n t e d ab ov e, no ne of th e wom en di sc lo se d th ei r in vo lv em en t or po te nt ia l

in vo lv em en t i n t hi s ac ti on

.

"Th e se co nd New Hamp sh ir e fact or req ui res th at th e b a n k r up tc y co ur t ha ve
ad op te d th e de bt or 's po si ti on ." Id

. at 10 48

. Thi s fact or m ig ht be sa ti sf ie d "wh ere th e
ba nk ru pt c y co ur t is su es a 'no as se t' di sc ha rg e," th ereb y ev id en ci ng th at "t he

ba nk ru pt cy co ur t ha s effe ct iv el y ad op te d th e de bt or 's po si ti on ." Id

. Aga in

, as al read y

no te d, Payne, an d Ti mm on s each pr oc ur ed a fu ll di sc ha rg e wit ho ut di sc lo si ng he r

po te n t i al cl ai m ag ai ns t CRST. In co nt ras t, in St al li ng s , we fo un d "n o jud ic ia l

acce pt an ce of St al li ng s's in co ns is te nt po si ti on " be cau se "t he ba nk ru pt cy co ur t ne ve r
di sc ha rg ed St al li ng s's d e b t s b as ed on th e in fo rm at io n th at St al li ng s pr ov id ed in hi s

sc he du le s." Id

. at 11 49

. Payne fil ed he r ba nk ru pt cy pe ti t i o n in 20 05

, pr io r to th e

in st it ut io n of su it

, bu t th at do es no t sp are he r fro m po ss ib le jud ic ia l es to pp el

. Und er

th e pr in c i p l e s o f jud ic ia l es to pp el

, sh e was st il l ob li ge d to am en d he r pe ti ti on to

di sc lo se he r in vo lv em en t or po te nt ia l in vo lv em en t in th e po st -p et it io n la wsu it

. Id

. at

11 48

. As we s ta te d i n St al li ng s ,

a de bt or who fil es h[ er] ba nk r u p tc y pe ti ti on , su bs eq ue nt ly rece iv es a rig ht -to -s ue le tt er fro m th e EEOC, an d th en fai ls t o a men d h[ er]
ba nk ru pt cy pe ti ti on to ad d h[ er] la wsu it ag ai ns t h[ er] em pl oyer as a
po te nt ia l as se t is es to pp ed fro m br in gi ng th e la wsu it be cau se th e de bt or "k ne w a bo ut th e u nd is cl os ed cl ai m s an d ha d a m ot iv e to co nc eal th em

-2 8-fr o m t h e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t." DeLeo n v. Co mca r In du s., In c. , 32 1 F.3 d

12 89 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).

Id

.

"Un de r th e fin a l N e w Hamp sh ir e fact or , th e de bt or 's no n- di sc lo su re of th e
cl ai m m us t no t be in ad ve rte nt an d m us t res ul t in th e de bt or ga in in g a n u nf ai r
ad va nt ag e." Id

. W e ha ve st res se d th at

, pu rs ua nt to th is th ird fac t o r , a d i s tri ct co ur t

sh ou ld no t jud ic ia ll y es to p a de bt or who se pr io r in co ns is te nt po si ti on was at tri bu ta bl e

t o "a go od -fai th m is ta ke rat he r th an as pa rt of a sc he m e to m is le ad th e co ur t

. " I d

. (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it te d) ; ac co rd New Hamp sh ir e , 53 2 U.S. at 75 3 ("We do

no t qu es ti on th at it m ay be ap pr op ria te to res is t ap pl ic at io n of jud ic ia l es to pp el whe n

a pa rty's p r i o r po si ti on was ba se d on in ad ve rte nc e or m is ta ke ." (q uo ta ti on s an d

ci ta ti on om it te d) ). Tha t sa id

, no ev id en ce of an y su ch go od -fai th erro r or om is si on is

pr es en t in th is cas e. In fact

, so m e ev id en ce su gg es ts ot he rwis e

. As al read y no te d,

St ark e he rs el f co nc ed es th at th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed he r. Als o,

Tim m on s an d h e r h u s b an d fil ed th ei r joi nt pe ti ti on an en ti re y ear aft er th e EEOC

in st it ut ed su it in th is m at te r, in di cat in g, at th e ve ry l e a s t

, th at th ey ha d no ti ce of

Tim m on s's po te nt ia l cl ai m

.

F i n a l ly, as th e di st ric t co ur t no te d, "[t ]he act io ns of

. . . Ms

. Tim m on s ar e

es pe ci al ly ga ll in g" be cau se sh e "u se d th e ba nk ru pt cy pr oc es s to di sc ha rg e or red uc e
de bt s ow ed

to CRST an d n ow s eek [s ] to reco ve r fu nd s fr om CRST fre e an d clea r of

th e ba nk ru pt cy pr oc es s." C RS T Va n Exp ed it ed

, I nc

. , 6 14 F. Su pp . 2 d at 97 5 (ci ti ng

New Hamp sh ir e , 53 2 U

. S

. a t 75 0)

. "'Where a pa rty as su m es a cert ai n po si ti on in a
le ga l pr oc eed in g, an d su ccee ds in m ai nt ai ni ng th at po si ti on , he m ay no t th erea fte r,
si m pl y be cau se hi s in te res ts ha ve ch an ge d, ass um e a co nt rary po si ti on , es pe ci al ly if

it be to th e pr ej ud ic e of th e pa rt y wh o ha s ac qu ie sc ed in th e po si ti on fo rme rl y ta ken
by hi m .'" New Hamp sh ir e , 53 2 U.S. at 74 9 (em ph as is ad de d) (q uo ti n g D a v i s v.

W ak el ee , 15 6 U.S. 6 80 , 68 9 (1 89 5) ).

-2 9-A c c or di ng ly, b as ed on th is reco rd , we can no t co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in jud ic ia ll y es to p p i n g P a y ne or Tim m on s fro m in di vi du al ly

pu rs ui ng th ei r res pe ct iv e cl ai m s ag ai ns t CR ST fo r se xu al ha ras sm en t.

2. Ju di ci al

Est op pe l a s Ap pl ie d t o EEOC

The di st ric t co ur t al so in vo ke d jud ic ia l es to pp el to ba r th e EEOC fro m se ek in g

an y rem ed y on St ark e's

, Payne's

, an d Tim m on s's be ha lf. Sp eci fic al ly, th e dis tr ic t co ur t

as se rte d th at "[t ]he jud ic ia l es to pp el do ct rin e ap pl ie s pa rt- an d- pa rcel to th e EEOC,

no twi th st an di ng th e fac t t ha t i t i s t he "m as te r of it s own cas e" and "d oe s no t m erel y

st an d in th e sh oe s of th e al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d pe rs on s fo r who m it se ek s rel ie f in th is

act io n u nd er [§ 70 6 o f Tit le VII]." Id

. at 9 76

.

On ap pe al

, th e EEOC arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s d i s c r e t i o n in

ap pl y in g jud ic ia l es to pp el to t h e EEOC be cau se th e EEOC di d no t as se rt an

in co ns is te nt po si ti on in a pr io r pr oc eed in g. Rat he r, th e EEO C m ai nt ai ns , th e pa st

rep res en ta ti on s of In te rv en er St ark e, Payne, an d Tim mo n s , do no t bi nd th e EEOC

be cau se , in it s pr es en t po st ur e as a pl ai nt iff su in g in it s own na m e un de r § 70 6, "[t he ]

EEOC do es no t m erel y st an d in th ei r sh oe s, an d [th e] EEOC's li ti ga ti on do es no t ex is t

si m pl y to se ek rel ie f on th ei r be ha lf." (C it in g W af fl e Hou se , 53 4 U.S. at 29 6– 98 .)

Acco rd in g to th e EEOC, i t " f i le d th is li ti ga ti on no t fo r th e pe rs on al be ne fit of an y

p a r t i c ul ar cl ai m an t, bu t fo r th e br oa de r pu bl ic in te res t in en fo rci ng Tit le VII an d

en su rin g C RST m ai nt ai ns a wor kp la ce fre e fro m di sc riminat io n."

In res po ns e, CRST co nc ed es th at "[n ]o fed eral ap pe ll at e co ur t ha s y et ru le d on

th is is su e" of whe th er a co ur t can jud ic ia ll y es to p th e EEOC fro m br in gi ng su it in it s

own na m e to rem ed y al le ge dl y un la wfu l em p l o ym e nt pr act ic es be cau se th os e

pr act ic es were p e r p e t rat ed ag ai ns t an em pl oyee who he rs el f is jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed

. CRST ur ge s, ne v e r t h e le ss , th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in
jud ic ia ll y es to pp in g th e EEOC. Not in g t h a t jud ic ia l es to pp el 's ch ie f pu rp os e "i s to

pr ot ect th e in te gr it y of th e jud ic ia l pr oc es s," CRST av ers th at

, "[w]hi le th e in di vi du al

-3 0-cl ai m an ts in an EEOC en fo rcem en t act io n m ay no t te ch ni cal ly be pa rti es to th e cas e,

th ei r pr io r in co ns is te nt rep res en ta ti on s to an ot he r co ur t po se no le ss of a th reat to th e

in te gr it y of t he jud ic ia l p ro ces s."

Upo n r e v i e w , we co nc ur wit h th e EEOC th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s
di sc ret io n in jud ic ia ll y es to pp in g th e EEOC fro m su in g in it s ow n na me to co rrec t an y
di sc riminat or y em

pl oym en t pr act ic es th at CRST a l l e g ed ly pe rp et rat ed ag ai ns t th e

th ree wom en . The d is tri ct co ur t's an d C RST's co nt rary pos it io n i s in co ns is te nt wit h

th e real it ie s of th e EEOC's ro le as a pl ai nt iff in it s own na m e un de r § 70 6 a n d wit h

th e b as ic pri nc ip le s o f th e jud ic ia l es to pp el do ct rin e.

As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s em ph as iz ed

, "[g ]ive n th e cl ear pu rp os e of Tit le VII,

th e EEOC' s ju r is di ct io n ov er en fo rcem en t, an d th e rem ed ie s av ai la bl e, th e EEOC

ne ed lo ok no fu rth er th an § 70 6 fo r it s au th or i t y t o br in g su it in it s na m e fo r th e

pu rp os e, am on g ot he rs , of se cu rin g rel ie f fo r a gr ou p of ag gr ie ve d in di vi du al s." Gen

. Tel

. Co

. , 44 6 U.S. at 32 4; se e al so Occi de nt al Li

fe In s. C o

. , 43 2 U.S. at 36 8 ("Th e

EEOC do es no t fu nc ti on si m pl y as a ve hi cl e fo r co nd uc ti ng li ti ga ti on on be ha l f of

pr iv at e pa rti es

. . . ." ). In W af fl e Hou se
, th e Su pr em e Co ur t co ns id ered "wh et he r an

a g r e e m en t be twee n an em pl oyer an d an em

pl oyee to arb it rat e em

pl oym en t-r el at e d

di sp ut es ba rs th e EEOC fro m pu rs ui ng vi ct im -s pe ci fic jud ic ia l rel ie f, su ch as
ba ck pa y , rei ns ta te m en t, an d da m ag es , in an en fo rcem en t act io n al le gi n g t h at th e

em pl oyer ha s vi ol at ed Tit le I of th e

. . . ADA." 53 4 U.S. at 28 2. The Fo ur th Ci rcu it 1 5

ha d he ld th at

, i n s o f

a r a s th e EEOC was su in g in it s own cap aci ty un de r § 70 6 to

vi nd ic at e th e pu bl ic in te res t in di sc riminat io n- free wor kplac es , th e EEOC was li m it ed

Alt ho ug h W

af fl e Hou se is te ch ni cal ly an ADA cas e, th e Co ur t ob se rv ed at th e 1 5

ou ts et of it s op in io n th at "Co ng res s ha s di rect ed t h e EE OC to ex erci se th e sa m e

en fo rcem en t po wers , rem ed ie s, an d pr oc ed ur es th at are se t fo rth in Tit le VII

. . . whe n it is en fo rci ng th e ADA's pr oh ib it io ns ag ai ns t em pl oym en t di scr im ina

tio n on th e ba si s of di sa bi li ty." 53 4 U.S. at 28 5 (ci ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 7( a) (1 99 4) ). Thu s, th e Co ur t de te rm in ed th at "t he pr ov is io ns of Tit le VII de fin in g th e EEOC's au th or it y pr ov id e[d ]
th e st art in g p oi nt for [it s] ana lysis ." Id

. at 2 85 –8 6.

-3 1-to se ek in g ge ne ral in jun ct iv e rel ie f an d co ul d no t als o see k vi ct im -s pe ci fic rel ie f on
be ha lf of a vi ct im who hi m se lf was su bjec t to a bi nd in g arb it rat io n ag reem en t. Id

. at

29 0. The Su pr e me C o ur t rev ers ed

, co nc lu di ng th at su ch an arb it rat io n ag reem en t

be twee n th e em

pl oyer an d em

pl oyee di d no t pr ecl ud e th e EEOC fro m su in g in fed eral

co u r t t o s e e k vi ct im -s pe ci fic rel ie f rel at in g to th e em pl oyee's in

jury. Id

. at 29 8.
Sp eci fic al ly, th e Su pr em e Co ur t reas on ed th at "[t ]here is no la ng ua ge in th e st at ut es

or in ei th er of th es e cas es su gg es ti ng th at th e ex is te nc e of an arb it rat io n ag reem en t

be twee n pr iv at e pa rti es m at eri al ly ch an ge s th e EEOC's st at u t o r y fu nc ti on or th e

rem ed ie s th at are ot he rwis e av ai la bl e." Id

. at 28 8. Mo reo ve r, in reject in g th e Fo ur th

Ci rcu it 's con cl us io n th at th e EEOC co ul d no t reco ve r vi ct im -s pe ci fic rel ie f be cau se

th e em pl oyee hi m se lf wou ld be in el ig ib le fo r su ch reco ve ry by vi rtu e of th e bi nd in g
arb it rat io n a gr eem en t, t he Su pr em e Co ur t s ta te d a s fo ll ows :

If it were tru e th at th e EEOC co ul d pr os ecu te it s cl ai m on ly wit h [th e em pl oyee]'s co ns en t, o r if

it s p rayer for re li ef co ul d be di ct at ed by [th e em pl oyee], th e co ur t's an al y si s m ig ht be pe rs ua si ve

. Bu t on ce a ch arg e is fil ed , th e ex act op po si te is tru e u nd er th e st at ut e—t he EEOC
is in co m m an d of th e pr oc es s.

. . . If

. . . th e EEOC fil es su it on it s own , th e em pl oyee ha s no in de pe nd en t cau se of ac ti on , al th ou gh th e em pl oyee

m ay in te rv en e in th e EEOC's su it

. . . . The st at ut e cl earl y m ak es th e EEOC th e m as te r of it s own cas e an d co nf ers on th e ag en cy th e au th or it y
to ev al ua te th e st ren gt h o f th e p ub li c in te res t at st ak e.

Id

. at 2 91

.

Und er W af fl e Hou se a co ur t can no t jud ic ia ll y es to p t he EEOC from br in gi ng

su it in i t s o w n n am e to rem ed y em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n si m pl y be cau se th e
de fen da nt -em

pl oyer ha pp en ed to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an em pl oyee who

, he rs el f, was

pr op erl y jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed

. In de ed

, un de r Tit le VII, "wh en ev er th e EEOC ch oo se s
fro m am on g th e m an y ch arg es fil ed each y ear to br in g an en fo rcem en t act i o n i n a

pa rti cu la r cas e, th e ag en cy m ay be se ek in g to vi nd ic at e a pu bl ic in te res t, no t sim pl y

-3 2-pr ov id e m ak e-w ho le rel ie f fo r th e em pl oyee, ev en whe n it pu rs ue s en ti rel y vi ct im

sp eci fic rel ie f." Id

. at 2 96

.

Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in jud ic ia ll y es to pp in g th e

EEOC fro m su in g in i ts own na m e un de r § 70 6 to rem ed y se xu al ha ras sm en t th at

CRST al le ge dl y pe rp et rat ed ag ai ns t St ark e, Payne, an d Tim m on s, an d we rev ers e th e
di st ric t co ur t's gra nt of s um m ary jud gm en t o n t ha t g ro un d a cco rd in gl y

. 1 6

C. Mer it s o f EEOC's Hos ti le W

or k-En vi ro nme nt

Cla ims

1. Gov er ni ng

Leg al St an da rd

The EEOC al so ap pe al s se ve r a l o f t h e di st ric t co ur t's di sp os it iv e ru li ng s

co nc ern in g th e m eri ts of it s ho s t i le wor k- en vi ro nm en t cl ai m s ag ai ns t CRST. "Ti tl e

VII

. . . m ak es it ' a n un la wfu l em pl oym en t pr act ic e fo r an em pl oyer

. . . to

di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an y in di vi du al w i t h res pe ct to hi s co m pe ns at io n, te rm s,

co nd it io ns , or p r i vi le ge s of em pl oym en t, be cau se of su ch in di vi du al 's

. . . se x.'"

Har ri s v. For kl if

t Sy s., In c. , 51 0 U.S. 17

, 21 (1 99 3) (q uo ti ng 42 U.S

. C

. § 2 00 0e

2( a)(1 )). Im

po rta nt ly, "t hi s la ng ua ge is no t li m it ed to 'eco no m ic ' or 'ta ng ib le '

di sc riminat io n." Id

. (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Rat he r, as th e Su pr em e

Co ur t ha s ob se rv ed

, "[t ]he ph ras e 'te rm s, co nd it io ns , or pr iv il eg es of em pl oym en t'

ev in ces a co ng res si on al in te nt to st rik e at th e en ti re spe ct ru m of di sp arat e tre at m en t

of m en an d wom en i n em pl oym en t, whi ch in cl ud es req ui rin g pe op le to wor k in a
di sc riminat or il y ho st il e or ab us iv e en vi ro nm en t." Id

. (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io ns

om it te d) ; ac co rd Ca rt er v. Ch ry sl er Co rp

. , 17 3 F.3 d 69 3, 70 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Thu s,

Alt ho ug h th e d i s t r i ct co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in jud ic ia ll y es to pp in g th e 1 6

EEOC fro m su in g in it s own na m e un de r § 70 6 to rem ed y s ex ua l ha ras sm en t th at
CRST al le ge dl y pe rp et rat ed ag ai ns t, in te r al ia

, Payne an d Tim m on s, we ne ve rth el es s affi rm (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud g men t, in CRST's fav or , on th e EEOC's ho st il e wor k- en vi ro nm en t cl ai m on Payne's be ha lf, se e in fr a Part II.C.2

., an d (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, in CRST's fav or , ba se d o n i t s

co nc lu si on th at

, as a m at te r of la w, CRST pr o m pt ly an d effe ct iv el y rem ed ie d th e

se xu al ha ras sm en t on ce it be cam e aware of it , a s to Tim m on s, se e in fr a Part II.C.3

.

-3 3-"[w]hen th e wor kp la ce i s p erm eat ed wit h di sc riminat or y in ti m id at io n, rid ic ul e, an d

in s u l t t h a t is su ffi ci en tl y se ve re or pe rv as iv e to al te r th e co nd it io ns of th e vi ct im 's

em pl oym en t an d crea te an ab us iv e w o r k in g en vi ro nm en t, Tit le VII is vi ol at ed ." Id

. (in te rn al cit at io ns an d q uo ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

As we h av e ex pl ai ne d,

[h ]ost il e wor k e nv iro nm en ts crea te d by su pe rv is or s or cowo rk ers ha ve
t h e f o l lo win g el em en ts in co m m on : (1 ) th e pl ai nt iff be lo ng s to a
pr ot ect ed gr ou p; (2 ) th e pl ai nt iff was su bjec t to un welc om e ha ras sm en t; (3 ) a cau sa l ne xu s ex is ts be twee n th e ha ras sm en t an d th e pl ai nt iff 's

pr ot ect ed gr ou p s t a t us ; an d (4 ) th e ha ras sm en t affe ct ed a te rm ,
co nd it io n, or pr iv il eg e of em pl oym en t. Al-Z

ub ai dy v. TEK Ind

us
., In c. , 40 6 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). I n ad di ti on , fo r cl ai m s of
ha ras sm en t by no n- su pe rv is or y pe rs on ne l, [th e pl ai nt iff ] m us t sh ow th at [h er] em pl oyer kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own of th e ha ras sm en t an d fai le d

to tak e p ro pe r act io n.

Gor do n v. Sh af

er Co nt ra ct in g Co

. , 46 9 F.3 d 11 91

, 11 94 –9 5 (8 th Ci r. 2 00 6)

. Cri ti cal ly, "[C RST] can no t be vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r se xu al ha ras sm en t [p erp et rat ed ]
by no n- su pe rv is or y co wor k ers ." Alva re z v. Des Moi ne s Bol t Su

pp ly

, In c. , 62 6 F.3 d

41 0, 4 19 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

On th e ot he r ha nd

, if th e ha ras sm en t was co m m it te d by an em

pl o yee who su pe rv is ed [th e pl ai nt iff ], [CRS T] as he r em

pl oyer is vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th e ha ras sm en t un le ss it can es ta bl is h th e affi rm at iv e de fen se de fin ed in Bur li ng to n In du s., In c. v. Ell er th

, 52 4 U.S. 74 2

, 7 6 5

, 11 8
S.Ct

. 22 57

, 14 1 L.Ed.2 d 6 33 (1 99 8)

, an d Far ag he r v. Ci ty of Boc a Rat on , 52 4 U.S. 77 5, 80 7– 08

, 11 8 S.Ct

. 22 75

, 14 1 L.Ed.2 d 66 2 (1 99 8) [(h erei na fte r, th e " Ell er th

- Far ag he r Defen se ")].

Jo en s v. Jo hn Mor re ll & Co

. , 35 4 F .3d 93 8, 9 40 (8t h C ir. 20 04 ). Und er the Ell er th

Far ag he r Defen se , CRST m ay av oi d vi cari ou s li ab il it y fo r a su pe rv is or y em pl oyee's

-3 4-ha ras sm en t if it sat is fie s "'two ne ces sa ry el em en ts : (a) th at [it ] ex erci se d re as on ab le

care to pr ev en t an d cor rect pr om pt ly an y se xu al ly ha ras si ng be ha vi or [ ] an d (b ) th at

th e p la in ti ff em

pl oyee un reas on ab ly fail ed to tak e ad va nt ag e o f an y pre ve nt at iv e o r

co rrec t iv e op po rtu ni ti es pr ov id ed by th e em pl oyer or to av oi d ha rm ot he rwis e.'"

W eg er v. Ci ty of La du e , 50 0 F.3 d 71 0, 71 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng W il li ams v. Mo.
Dep 't o f Men ta l Hea lt h , 40 7 F .3d 97 2, 9 76 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) ).

Thu s, we m

us t de te rm in e, as a th res ho ld m at te r, whe th er CRST's Lead Driv ers

se rv ed as su pe rv is or s fo r CRST's tra in ees or were m erel y th e tra in ees ' co wor ke rs

. Se e
Alva re z , 62 6 F

. 3 d a t 41 9. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Lead Driv ers di d no t

se rv e as th e tra in ees ' su pe rv is or s. In co nt ras t, th e EEOC m ai nt ai ne d be fo re th e di st ric t

co ur t, as it do es he re o n a pp eal

, th at a CRS T Lead Dri ve r is a "s up erv is or " i n e ve ry

pr a c t i c a l se ns e of th e wor d. Sp eci fic al ly, th e EEOC av ers th at "CR ST gi ve s [Lead

Driv ers ] vi rtu al ly un ch eck ed au th or it y an d co nt ro l ov er al l as pe ct s of a tra in ee's da il y

act iv it ie s, as well as au th or it y to reco m m en d whe th er a tra in ee is read y fo r fu ll -d riv er

st at us , an d the ir re co m

m en da ti on s are vi rtu al ly al way s fo ll owe d." CRST co un te rs th at

"t he fu nc ti on s an d p o w e r s th at [th e] EEOC at tri bu te s to [L]ead [D]riv ers are no

gr eat er th an th os e of th e te am le ad ers an d fo rem an th at th is co ur t h a s h e l d are no t

su pe rv is or s."

App lying ou r pr eced en t, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t t h at CRST's Lead

Driv er i s n ot a su pe rv is or y em pl oyee. Ther efo re, CRS T is no t v ic ari ou sl y li ab le for

an y ha ras s men t th at it s Lead Driv ers al le ge dl y pe rp et rat ed ag ai ns t fem al e tra in ees

. "[T]o be co ns id ered a su pe rv is or , 'th e al le ge d ha ras se r m us t ha ve ha d th e po wer (n ot

ne ces sa ril y ex erci se d) to ta ke ta ng ib le em pl oym en t act io n ag ai ns t th e vi ct im

, su ch as

t he au th or it y to hi re, fir e, pr om ot e, or reas si gn to si gn ifi can tl y di ffer en t du ti e s

. ' "

W eyer s v. Lea r Ope ra ti on s Co rp

. , 35 9 F.3 d 10 49

, 10 57 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 4) (q uo ti ng

Jo en s , 35 4 F.3d at 9 40 ). It is un di sp ut ed th at no ne of CRST's Lead Driv ers wiel de d

an y su ch po wer. O n t h e c on tra ry , th e reco rd refl ect s th at

, at be st

, CRST's Lead

Driv ers co ul d on ly (1 ) di ct at e m in or as pe ct s of th e tra in ees ' wor k ex pe rie nc e, su ch as

-3 5-sc he du li ng res t st op s du rin g th e te am dr iv e an d (2 ) is su in g a no n- bi n d i n g

re co m m en da tio n to supe ri or s at th e tra in in g pr og ram 's co nc lu si on co nc er nin g w he the r

CRST sh ou ld up gr ad e th e tra in ee to fu ll -d riv er st at us

. Und er ou r cas e la w, ne it he r of

th es e p rero ga ti ve s m ak es a Lead Driv er t he tra in ee's "s up erv is or ."

Fi rs t, ou r ci rcu it ha s he ld th at "[t ]he fact th at an al le ge d ha ras se r m ay ha ve be en

a 'te am lea de r' wit h t he au th or it y to ass ig n e m

pl oyees t o p art ic ul ar t as ks wil l n ot be

en ou gh to m ak e th at pe rs on a su pe rv is or ." Mer ri tt v. Alb ema rl e Co rp

. , 49 6 F.3 d 88 0,

88 3 (8t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ta ti on s and ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thu s, in W eyer s , we de cl in ed

to de si gn at e a "t eam le ad er" a su pe rv is or be cau se , "[a ]lth ou gh [th e al le ge d ha ras se r]

ha d th e au th or it y as te am le ad er to as si gn em pl oyees to pa rti cu la r ta sk s, he co ul d no t

reas si gn th em to si gn ifi can tl y di ffer en t du ti es ." W eyer s , 35 9 F.3 d at 10 57

. Si m il arl y , in Mer it t

, we refu se d to reco gn iz e th e al le ge dl y ha ras si ng "re li ab il it y te ch ni ci an ," 49 6

F.3 d at 88 1, as a su pe rv is or be cau se "[h ]is aut ho rit y was res tri ct ed to as si gn in g [th e pl ai nt iff ] to wor k on va rio us ta sk s th at were pa rt of he r wor k du ti es ," id

. at 88 4. The

sa m e ho ld s tru e he re. The EE OC ha s ad du ced no ev id en ce su gg es ti ng th at a CRST

Lead Driv er po ss es se d th e po wer to do an y th in g m or e th an as si gn a tra in ee to sp eci fic

ta sk s al read y

wit hi n t ha t t rai ne e's no rm al , day-to -d ay du ti es

.

Seco nd , C RST's rel ia nc e, in pa rt, on a Lead Driv er's ev al ua ti on of a tra in ee's

pe rfo rm an ce to de ci de whe th er to pr om ot e th at tra i n ee to fu ll -d riv er st at us is

in su ffi ci en t to ren de r a Lead Driv er a su pe rv is or

. A l t h o ug h th e Su pr em e Co ur t

de cl in ed , i n Ell er th an d Far ag he r , t o "an swe r th e qu es ti on , 'wh o is a su pe rv is or ? ,'"

Jo en s , 35 4 F.3 d at 94 0, it di d ob se rv e th at a "t an gi bl e em pl oym en t de ci si on

. . . m ay
be su bjec t to rev ie w by hi gh er le ve l s u pe rv is or s," Ell er th

, 52 4 U.S. at 76 2. In de ed

, th e EEOC rel ie s on th is ve ry ob se rv at io n in Ell er th to su pp or t it s own as se rti on th at "[i ]t is im m at er i a l t h at CRST m ay , on oc cas io n, no t fo ll ow a tra in er's

reco m m e n d at io n." Howev er, th e EEOC's arg um en t in th is reg ard fai ls fo r two

reas on s. Fi rs t, as id e fro m it s ba re as se rti on , th e EEOC of fers no ev id en ce th at CRST

si m pl y "ru bb er st am

pe d" it s Lead Driv ers ' reco m m en da ti on s. Se e St au b v. Pro ct or

-3 6-Hos

p. ,

__ U.S.__

, 13 1 S. Ct

. 11 86

, 11 94 (2 01 1) (h ol di ng th at if a no n- de ci si on m ak er

pe rfo rm s an act m ot iv at ed by a di sc riminat or y bi as th at is in te nd ed to cau se , an d th at

do es pr ox im at el y cau se , an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n, th en th e em pl oyer ha s "ca t's

pa w" li ab il it y ). Seco nd

, we ha ve co nc lu de d, un de r al m os t id en ti cal ci rcu m st an ces , th at a co wor ke r's a u t h o r it y to m ak e m ere re co mmend at io ns or ev al ua ti on s to a

su pe rio r ab ou t ta ng ib le em pl oym en t de ci si on s pe rta in in g to a fel lo w em pl oyee do es

no t co ns tru ct iv el y pr om ot e th at co wor ke r to a su pe rv is or fo r pu rp os es of vi cari ou s

Tit le VII li ab il it y

. Se e, e.g

. , Ch es he wa ll a v. Ran d & So n Con st r. Co.

, 41 5 F.3d 84 7,

85 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th at a ha ras si ng fo rem an was m e r e l y h i s vi ct im 's

co wor k er, an d no t th e vi ct im 's su pe rv is or , be cau se th e fo rem an 's own su pe rv is or

po ss es se d th e au th or it y to hi re, fir e, an d pr om ot e th e la bo rers , an d "al th ou gh [th e
fo rem an 's su pe rv is or ] m ay ha ve co n s u l t ed wit h [th e ha ras si ng fo rem an ] on su ch

m at te rs , th e reco r d [was ] cl ear th at [th e ha ras si ng fo rem an ] la ck ed an y su ch

au th o r i t y" ) ; W

eyer s , 35 9 F.3 d at 10 57 ("Whi le it is tru e th at [th e al le ge d ha ras se r]

si gn ed at le as t th ree o f [t he pl ai nt iff 's] in it ia l pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on s an d th at [th e

su pe rv is or ] ack no wled ge d th at he ha d ba se d hi s de ci si on to te rm in at e [th e pl ai nt iff ]

at le as t in pa rt on [th e pl ai nt iff 's] job [-]eva lu at i o n s co res , [th e al le ge d ha ras se r]

hi m se lf di d no t ha ve th e au th or it y t o t a ke ta ng ib le em pl oym en t act io n ag ai ns t [th e pl ai nt iff ]. ").

Fi na ll y , we reject th e EEOC's su gg es ti on th at

, "[a ]t a m in im um , th e au th or it y

CRST ve st s in it s tra in ers crea te s a ba si s fo r li ab il it y un de r th e ap pa ren t au th or it y
do ct rin e." Thi s co ur t ha s co ns is te nt ly affi rm ed th at a ha ras si ng co wor ke r's "ap pa ren t

au th or it y wou ld be an in su ffi ci en t b a s i s to su pp or t a fin di ng of su pe rv is or st at us ."

W eyer s , 35 9 F.3 d at 10 57 n.7 ; ac co rd Ch es he wa ll a , 41 5 F.3 d at 85 1 (rea ffi rm in g th at
"[a n em pl o ye e 's] be li ef th at [h er ha ras si ng co wor ke r] po ss es se d th e au th or it y of a

su pe rv is or do es no t al te r ou r co nc lu si on " th at th e ha ras se r is a co wor ke r no ne th el es s (ci ti ng W eyer s , 35 9 F .3d at 1 05 7 n .7))

.

-3 7-Thu s, we co nc ur wit h th e di st ric t c o u r t t h at CRST's Lead Driv ers were th ei r

tra in ees ' co wor ke rs , no t th ei r su pe rv is or s. Co ns eq ue ntl y , CRST can no t be vi cari ou sl y

li ab le fo r an y se xu al ha ras sm en t in whi ch it s Lead Driv ers en ga ge d, an d th e Ell er th

Fa r a gh er Defen se is in ap pl ic ab le to th e in st an t cas e. Se e Alva re z , 6 26 F.3 d at 4 1 9

.

I n or de r to wit hs ta nd su m m ary jud gm en t on it s ho st il e wor k- en vi ro n men t

cl ai m s ag ai ns t CRST, th e EEOC m us t crea te ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact as to th e
fo ll owi ng ele m en ts reg ard in g e ach all eg ed ly agg rie ve d fe m al e tr uc ke r:

"(1 ) [th at sh e be lo n g s t o ] a pr ot ect ed gr ou p; (2 ) [th at sh e su ffer ed ]

un welc om e ha ras sm en t; (3 ) [th at th ere was ] a cau sa l ne xu s be twee n th e ha ras sm en t an d he r m em be rs hi p in th e pr ot ect ed gr ou p; (4 ) t h a t th e ha ras sm en t affe ct ed a te rm , co nd it io n, or pr iv il eg e of [h er] em pl oym en t;

an d (5 ) th at th e em

pl oyer kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own of th e ha ras sm en t

an d fa il ed to tak e p ro m

pt an d e ffec ti ve rem ed ia l ac ti on ."

Sh er if f v. Mid wes t Hea lt h Par tn er

s, P.C.

, 61 9 F.3 d 9 2 3

, 9 2 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Ca rt er , 17 3 F.3 d at 70 0)

. Giv en th es e el em en ts

, we

ne xt ad dr es s t he di st ric t co ur t's su m m ary-j ud gm en t rul in gs ag ai ns t th e EEOC on it s
ho st il e wor k e nv iro nm en t cl ai m s.

2. Th e S ever it y o r Per va si ven es s o

f Ce rt ai n Ha ra ss men t

Th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d CRST su m m ary jud gm en t on th e EEOC's ho st il e

wor k- en vi ro nm en t cl ai m s on be ha lf of th ree wom en , co nc lu di ng th at

, as a m at te r of 1 7

la w, each al le ge d ha ras sm en t th at was ne it he r su ffi ci en tl y se ve re no r pe rv as iv e to

su pp or t a ho st il e wor k- en vi ro nm en t cl ai m

. The di st ric t gr an te d CRST su m m ary jud gm en t on th e EEOC's cl ai m s on be ha lf of 11 ad di ti on al w o men, ag ai n ci ti ng , 1 8

Vict or ia Hol m es , Jan ua ry Jac ks on , and Til li e Jo ne s. 1 7

Dor ot h y Doc ke ry , Deb ra Hin de s, Tracy Hug he s, Pat ric ia Mar zet t, Virg in ia 1 8

Mas on , Luc in da McB la ir, Sh erry O ' D o n n e ll

, Ch ris ti na Payne, Peg gy Prat t, Jo nn e

-3 8-in te r al ia

, in su ffi ci en t se ve rit y or pe rv as iv en es s as a m at te r of la w. The EEOC 1 9

ap pe al s the se ru lin gs, m ai nta ini ng th at th e su m m ary-j ud gm en t reco rd conta ins en ough

ev id en ce to crea te a fact qu es ti o n r e ga rd in g th e se ve rit y or pe rv as iv en es s of th e

ha ras sm en t t ha t ea ch wom an su ffer ed

.

A di st ric t co ur t "s ha ll gr an t su m m ary jud gm en t if th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere
is no ge nu in e d is pu te as t o a ny m at eri al fact an d t he m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t

as a m at te r of la w." Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). "We rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t's

gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t, vi ewin g th e ev id en ce an d th e in fere nc es th at m ay be

reas o n a b l y d rawn fro m th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g

pa rty." May er

v. Co un tr ywi de Home Lo an s , 64 7 F .3d 78 9, 7 91 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

On each fem al e tru ck er's be ha lf, th e EEOC m us t cre a t e a g en ui ne is su e of

m at eri al fact co nc ern in g whe th er "t he ha ras sm en t affe ct ed a t e rm , co nd it io n, or

pr iv il eg e of [h er] em

pl oym en t." Ca rt er , 17 3 F.3 d at 70 0. "Su ch di sc riminat io n

ex te nd s b ey on d t erm s an d co nd it io ns in th e 'n arro w con tra ct ua l s en se ' an d i nc lu de s
di sc riminat or y ha ras sm en t so se ver e or pe rv as iv e as to al te r th e co n d it io ns of

em pl oym en t an d crea te a ho st il e wor ki ng en vi ro nm en t." Id

. (em ph as is ad de d) (ci ti ng

Far ag he r , 52 4 U.S. at 78 6; Mer it or Sa v. Ban k, FSB

, 47 7 U.S. at 67 ). "Th ere can be

no do ub t fed eral ha ras sm en t st an da rd s are de m an di ng

. . . . In de ed

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

ha s 'm ad e it cl ear th at co nd uc t m us t be ex tre m e to am ou n t to a ch an ge in th e te rm s

an d co nd it io ns of em

pl oym en t.'" Al-Z

ub ai dy

, 40 6 F.3 d at 10 38 (q uo ti ng Far ag he r , 52 4 U.S. at 78 8) (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Onl y "[w]hen th e wor kp la ce is pe rm eat ed

wit h di sc riminat or y in ti m id at io n, rid ic ul e, an d in su lt th a t is su ffi ci en tl y se ve re or

Sh ep le r, an d Li nd a Sk ag gs

.

The di st ric t co ur t al te rn at iv el y co nc lu de d, as a m at te r of la w, th at ni ne of 1 9

th es e 11 ad di ti on al wom en —al l ex cep t Payne an d Sk ag gs —ei th er (a) fai le d to ti m el y

an d pr op erl y no ti fy CRST of th e ha ras sm en t th at th ey su ffer ed

, th ereb y de pr iv in g CRST of th e op po rtu ni ty to rem ed y it

, or (b ) di d ti m el y an d pr op erl y no ti fy CRST of
th e h aras sm en t, b ut th e co m pa ny pro m

pt ly and effe ct iv el y

rem ed ie d i t.

-3 9-p e r va si ve to al te r th e co nd it io ns of th e vi ct im 's em pl oym en t an d crea te an ab us i v e

w o r k i ng en vi ro nm en t [is ] Tit le VII vi ol at ed ." Har ri s , 51 0 U.S. at 21 (in te rn a l

qu ot at io ns an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Co nv ers el y , "[c ]ond uc t th at is no t se v e r e or

pe rv as iv e en ou gh to crea te an ob jecti ve ly ho st il e or ab us iv e wor k en vi ro nm en t— an

en vi ro nm en t th at a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld fin d ho st il e or ab us iv e—i s be y on d Tit le

VII's pu rv ie w." Id

.

"A nu m be r of fact or s are rel ev an t i n as se ss in g th e m ag ni tu de of ha ras sm en t,

in cl ud in g th e freq ue nc y an d se ve rit y of th e di sc riminat or y co nd uc t, whe th er it is
ph y si cal ly t hr eat en in g or h u mi l i a t i ng or on ly an of fen si ve ut te ran ce, [an d] wh et he r

it un reas on ab ly int erfe res wit h th e em pl oyee's wo rk pe rfo rm an ce . . . ." Ca rt er , 17 3

F.3 d at 70 2. W e al so co ns id er a ha ras sm en t vi ct im 's "p hysic al pr ox im it y to th e

ha r a ss er[] an d th e pr es en ce or ab se nc e of ot he r pe op le ." Id

. (in te rn al ci ta ti on s

om it te d )

. P r o x i m it y an d th e ab se nc e of ot he rs are rel ev an t he re gi ve n th e co nf in ed

qu art ers an d rem ot e se tt in g in whi ch CRST's tra in ees wor ke d wit h th ei r Lead Driv ers

. "On ce th ere is ev id en ce of im pr op er co nd u c t a n d su bjec ti ve of fen se , th e
de te rm in at io n of whe th er th e co nd uc t ro se to th e le ve l of ab us e is la rg el y in th e ha nd s
of th e jury." Sh er if

f , 61 9 F .3d at 9 31

.

App lying th es e st an da rd s we co nc lu de th at

, ex cep t as to two wom en —Sh erry

O'Don ne ll an d Til li e Jo ne s— th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng CRST su m m ary jud gm en t aft er de te rm in in g th at th e wom en co m pl ai ne d of ha ras sm en t th at was

ne it he r su ffi ci en tl y se ve re no r pe rv as iv e. The reco rd rev eal s co m pl ai nt s ab ou t t he ir

Lead Driv ers ' po or pe rs on al hygi en e, bo as ti ng ab ou t pa st se xu al ex pl oi ts

, sp or ad ic 2 0

rem ark s of se x u a l v ul ga rit y , an d hi gh ly of fen si ve bu t is ol at ed in st an ces of

pr op os it io ni ng fo r se x. Non e of th e rel ev an t fact or s li st ed ab ov e , i n c l u d in g th e

wom en ' s " p h ysi cal pr ox im it y to [th ei r] ha ras se r[s ] an d th e pr es en ce or ab se nc e of

By way of ex am

pl e, se ve ral wom en co m

pl ai ne d th at

, to m in im iz e st op s whi le 2 0

in tra ns it

, th ei r m al e Lead Driv ers ha bi tu al ly ur in at ed in pl as ti c bo tt le s wit h no reg ard
fo r th ei r fem al e tr ai ne e, who oft en he ard or e ve n s m el le d t he fou l ac ti vi ty.

-4 0-ot he r pe op le ," Ca rt er , 17 3 F.3 d at 70 2, m eet th e ap pl ic ab le st an da rd th at th e al le ge d

h a r a s s men t was so se ve re or pe rv as iv e th at it "al te r[ed ] th e co nd it io ns of th e [wo m en 's] em

pl oym en t." Har ri s , 51 0 U.S. at 21 (in te r n a l qu ot at io ns an d ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

. Reg ard in g th e Lead Driv ers ' po o r h yg ie ni c pr act ic es , we ha ve no te d th at

"Ti tl e VII

. . . i s n o t a g e n e ral ci vi li ty co de fo r th e Am eri can wor kp la ce." W il ki e v. Dep 't of Hea lt h & Huma n Se rv s. , 63 8 F.3 d 94 4, 95 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ta ti on s an d

ci ta ti on om it te d) ; ac co rd Far ag he r , 52 4 U.S. at 78 8. Alt ho ug h a Lead Driv er's po or hygi en e un do ub te dl y m ad e fo r an un pl eas an t wor k en vi ro nm en t, th is "[m ]erely ru de

or un pl eas an t c o n d u c t is in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a cl ai m " fo r ho st il e wor k

en vi ro nm en t. Id

. (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. As fo r th e bo as ti ng ab ou t pa st

se xu al ex pl oi ts an d sp or ad ic

, se xu al ly vu lg ar rem ark s, a de no vo rev ie w rev eal s th at

th ey m os tl y co ns ti tu te d "m ere of fen si ve ut te ran ce[s ], " Cl ea rw at er v. In de p. Sc h. Dis t.

No

. 16 6

, 23 1 F.3 d 11 22

, 11 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

, an d

we ha ve cau ti on ed th at "[s ]por ad ic or cas ua l co m m en ts are u n l i ke ly to su pp or t a
ho st il e en vi ro nm en t cl ai m ," Ca rt er , 17 3 F.3 d at 70 2. W it h r e s p e c t to th e is ol at ed

pr op os it io ni ng , th is co ur t an d th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha ve st at ed th at "'[m ]ore th an a few

is ol at ed in ci de nt s are req ui red '" to su pp or t a ho st il e wor k- en vi ro nme n t c l ai m

. Cl ea rw at er , 23 1 F.3 d at 11 27 (q uo ti ng Mer it or Sa v. Ban k

, 4 77 U.S. at 67 ).

Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in co nc lu di ng , as a m at te r of la w, th at 12

wom en di d no t su ffer su ffi ci en tl y se ve re or pe rv as iv e ha ras sm en t to su rv iv e su m m ary jud gm en t.

The EEOC di d, ho wev er, es ta bl is h mat eri al is su es of fact reg ard in g th e

ha ras sm en t th at O'Don ne ll an d Jo ne s al le ge dl y su ffer ed

. W e h o l d t h a t th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d i n c on cl ud in g, as a m at te r of law, t ha t th e ha ras sm en t th ey su ffer ed was

in su ffi ci en tl y se ve re or perv as iv e. O'Don ne ll te st ifi ed in he r de po si ti on th at

, am on g

ot he rs , co -d riv er Ant ho ny Sear s su bjec te d he r to pe rs is te nt se xu al ha ras sm en t du rin g

th e se ve n da y s th at sh e sp en t wit h hi m ov er th e ro ad

. Sp eci fic al ly, O'Don ne ll te st ifi ed

th at

, ov er th e co ur se of th at se ve n- da y tri p, Sear s (1 ) as ke d h e r , on "t hr ee to fiv e"

oc cas io ns , to dr iv e na ke d; (2 ) refu se d O'Don ne ll 's rep eat ed req ue st s to ex it at a tru ck

-4 1-st op so sh e co ul d go to th e ba th ro om , or de rin g he r to ur in at e in a pa rk in g lo t in st ead ;

an d (3 ) in a cu lm in at in g in ci de nt

, gr ab be d O'Don ne ll 's face whi le sh e was dr iv in g an d

be ga n sc ream in g th at "al l he wan te d was a gi rlf rie nd ." Reg ard in g th is th ird in ci de nt

, O'Don ne ll te st ifi ed th at Sear s gr ab be d he r face so vi go ro us ly th at it cau se d on e of he r

te et h to la cera te he r li p. Viewi ng al l fact s an d dr awin g al l in fere nc es th eref ro m in th e

li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e EEOC, as we m us t, May er , 64 7 F.3 d at 79 1, th is te st im on y

crea te s a ge nu in e f

act is su e as to th e se ve rit y of th e ha ras sm en t th at O'Don ne ll

al le ge dl y su ffer ed

. Giv en th at Sear s al le ge dl y pe rp et rat ed al l of th es e act s in a week 's

ti m e, th e co nd uc t was f

r e q u en t. Se e Ca rt er , 17 3 F.3 d at 70 2. Sear s's di rect iv e th at

O'Don ne ll pu bl ic ly ur in at e in a pa rk in g lo t is a pa te nt at te m pt at hu m il ia ti on

. Se e id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Mo reo ve r, Se a r s 's act of gr ab bi ng O'Don ne ll 's face

, was , by it s

ve ry na tu re, "p hysic al ly th reat en in g." Id

. Fi na ll y , up on as se ss in g th es e ch arac te ris ti cs
of Sear s's al le ge d co nd uc t in li gh t of O'Don ne ll 's ph y si cal pr ox im it y to Sear s an d th e
ab se nc e o f o t h e r pe op le

, we m us t co nc lu de th at th e EEOC ha s pr od uc ed en ou gh

ev id en ce of se ve rit y of O'Don ne ll 's al le ge d ha ras sm en t to m ak e it a qu es ti on fo r th e jury. Se e Sh er if

f

, 61 9 F.3d at 93 1 ("On ce the re is evi de nc e of im pr op er con du ct an d

su bjec ti ve of

fen se , th e de te rm in at io n of whe th er th e co nd uc t ro se to th e le ve l of ab us e
is lar ge ly in t he ha nd s o f th e jury."). 2 1

The di st ric t co u r t erre d in co nc lu di ng , as a m at te r of la w, th at Til li e Jo ne s

su ffer ed ha ras sm en t th at was ne it he r su ffi ci en tl y se ve re no r pe rv as iv e. Jo ne s te st ifi ed

th at

, on th ree or fo ur oc cas io ns ov er th e co ur se of a two -week tra in in g tri p, he r Lead

Driv er, Ja m es Si m

m on s, en te red th e cab weari ng on ly hi s un de rwear an d ru bb ed th e
ba ck of he r he ad

, de sp it e rep eat ed req ue st s by Jo ne s th at he st op

. Jo ne s al so te st ifi ed

th at , "ev eryday ," Si m

m on s en te red th e cab in hi s u nd erwea r whi le sh e was dri vi ng

. Add it io na ll y , acco rd in g t o Jo ne s, Si m m on s cal le d he r "h is bi tc h" fiv e or si x ti m es ,

St il l, as we ex pl ai n in Part II.C.3 in fr a , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in 2 1

g r a n t i ng su m

m ary jud gm en t on th e EEOC's cl ai m on O'Don ne ll 's be ha lf be cau s e CRST to ok pr om

pt an d effe ct iv e rem ed ia l act io n whe n O'Don ne ll co m pl ai ne d ab ou t
Sear s's co nd uc t.

-4 2-in cl ud in g on on e oc cas io n whe n, in res po ns e to Jo ne s's co m pl ai nt s ab ou t hi s sl ov en ly

ha bi ts

, he or de red Jo ne s to cl ean up th e tru ck

, de cl a rin g "t ha t's wha t y ou 're on th e

tru ck fo r, y ou 're m

y bi tc h. I ai n't y ou r bi tc h. Sh ut up an d clea n it up ." Fina ll y , Jo ne s

te st if i e d th at

, li ke m an y of CRST's Lead Driv ers , Si m m on s ro ut in el y ur in at ed in

p la st ic bo tt le s an d zi pl oc k ba gs whi le in tra ns it

. Howev er, Jo ne s te st ifi e d t h a t

Si m m on s wou ld le av e hi s ur in e rece pt acl es ab ou t th e tru ck 's cab an d th at whe n Jo ne s

im pl or ed Si m

m on s to ga th er th em , Si m m on s or de red he r to "s hu t up an d cl ean it up ."

No ov ert ph y si cal th reat or co nt act was pr es en t, bu t th e ev id en ce su ffi ces to crea te a

ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al f a c t c o nc ern in g th e se ve rit y or pe rv as iv en es s of th e

ha ras sm en t wh ic h t he EEOC all eg es th at Jo ne s s uf fere d.

In su m , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's su m m ary jud gm en t, in CRST's fav or , on

th e EEOC' s ho st il e wor k- en vi ro nm en t cl ai m s on be ha lf of 12 wom en , co nc ur rin g 2 2

in th e di st ric t co ur t's co nc lu si on th at

, as a m at te r of la w, th e al le ge d ha ras sm en t was

ne it he r su ffi ci en tl y se ve re no r pe rv as iv e. Howev er, w e r e v ers e th e di st ric t co ur t's

gr an t o f s u mm a r y jud gm en t as to th e EEOC's cl ai m s on be ha lf of Til li e Jo ne s. W e

co nc lu de th at th e EEOC crea te d a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact as to th e se ve rit y or

pe rv as iv en es s of the ha ras sm en t t ha t J on es all eg ed ly su ffer ed

. Fi na ll y , al th ou gh we

al so co nc lu de th at th e EEOC ha s crea te d a g e n u i n e f a c t is su e as to th e se ve rit y or

pe rv as iv en es s of th e ha ras sm en t th at Sh erry O'Don ne ll al le ge dl y su ffer ed

, fo r th e

reas on s st at ed in Part II.C.3

. in fr a , we affi rm th e di s t r i c t c o ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he EEOC's cl ai m s o n h er b eh al f.

Dor ot hy Doc ke ry , Deb ra Hin de s, Vict or ia H o l mes , Tracy Hug he s, Ja nu ary 2 2

Ja ck so n, Pat ric ia Mar zet t, Virg in ia Mas on , Luc in da McB la ir, Ch ris ti na Payne, Peg gy Prat t, J on ne Sh ep le r, an d Li nd a Sk ag gs

.

-4 3-3. CRS T's No ti ce a nd /o r Remed

yi ng of th e All eg ed

Har as sme nt

The EEOC als o a pp eal s t he di st ric t co ur t's gra nt of s um m ary jud gm en t o n i ts

c la im s as to 34 wom en who

, acco rd in g to th e di st ric t co ur t, ei th er (1 ) a l l e g e 2 3

ha ras sm en t th at CRST ne i t he r kn ew no r sh ou ld ha ve kn own ab ou t or (2 ) al le ge

ha ras sm en t th at CRST, up on be in g no ti fie d of

, pr om pt ly an d effe ct iv el y rem ed ie d.
Sp eci fic al ly, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t o n th e EEOC's cl ai m s

co nc ern in g 11 wom en , se e su pr a n.5

, an d so m e da y s la te r gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t

as to 22 m or e. Add it io na ll y , in it s or de r gr an ti ng CRST su m m ary jud gm en t on th e

EEOC's cl ai m s on be ha lf of Ja nu ary Ja ck so n fo r in su f f i ci en t se ve rit y or

pe rv as iv en es s, th e di st ric t co ur t al te rn at iv el y co nc lu de d th at CRST ne it he r kn ew no r
sh ou ld ha ve kn own ab ou t h er h aras sm en t.

W e ha ve al read y affi rm ed t h e d i st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t

affe ct in g ni ne of th es e 34 wom en ba se d on it s al t e r n at iv e co nc lu si on th at th ei r

2 4

al le ge d ha ras sm en t was no t su ffi ci en tl y se ve re or pe rv as iv e. Se e su pr a Part II.C.2

. The refo re, we ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er CRST kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own ab ou t th e

ha ras sm en t th at th os e ni ne wom en su ffer ed

. Se e Alva re z , 62 6 F.3 d at 41 9 ("When an

em pl oyee co m

pl ai ns ab ou t i na pp ro pr ia te co nd uc t th at do es no t ris e to th e le ve l o f a

vi ol at io n o f la w, . . . th ere i s n o l ia bi li ty for a fa il ur e to res po nd .").

Ant oi ne tt e Bal dwi n, Bo nn ie Bat y ik

, Mar y Bea to n, B e t ha ny Bro ek er, Kim 2 3

Ch is ho lm , Cat he rin e Co ro na do , Sam an th a Cu nn in gh am , Den is e Des on ie r, Dor ot hy

Doc ke ry , Maybi Fern an de z-Fa br e, Cat he rin e (Gran of sk y )-Fl et ch er, Deb ra Hin de s, Tracy Hug he s, Ja nu ary Ja ck so n , G i ng er Lau de rm il k, Pat ric ia Mar zet t, Virg in ia

Mas on , Luc in da McB la ir

, V er ona Mc Iv er , Bo nni e Mo es ch

, Sh erry O'Don ne ll

, Tam m i
Pi le

, Sh a ro n Pi nc he m , Peg gy Prat t, Dan et te Qui nt an il la

, Kath le en Seym ou r, Fai th
Sh ad de n, Jo nn e Sh ep le r, Mar y "Em il y " Sm it h, Je nn ife r Su ss on , R o b i n Ti m m on s, Rac he l Tu ck er, Dia na Vanc e, an d B et sy Ybarra

.

Dor ot hy Doc ke ry , Deb r a H in de s, Tracy Hug he s, Ja nu ary Ja ck so n, Pat ric ia 2 4

Mar zet t, Vi rg in ia Mas on , Luci nd a Mc Bl ai r, Peg gy Pratt , and Jo nn e Sh ep le r.

-4 4-As to th e rem ai ni ng 25 wom en , we co nd uc te d a de no vo rev ie w of al l reco rd 2 5

ev id en ce. Based on th at rev ie w we ho ld th at th e EEOC fai le d, as a m at te r of la w, to

in ve st ig at e an d/ or co nc il ia te it s c la im s on be ha lf of fo ur of th em —Bo nn ie Bat y ik

, Bet ha ny Bro ek er, Vero na McI ve r, an d Dian a Van ce. Sp eci fic al ly, each wom an

co m pl ai ns of ha ras s ment th at CRST al le ge dl y pe rp et rat ed aft er th e fil in g of th e

in st an t la wsu it on Sep te m be r 27

, 2 0 0 7

. W e res erv e th e rig ht to affi rm a di st ric t

2 6

co ur t's gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t on an y gr ou nd th at th e su m m ary-j ud gm en t reco rd

su pp or ts

. W

3i Mob il e, LLC v. W

es tc he st er Fir e In s. Co

. , 63 2 F.3 d 43 2, 43 6 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ). Acco rd in gl y , as to th es e fo ur wom en , we wil l affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t

of su m m ary jud gm en t on th e al te rn at iv e gr ou nd th at th e EEOC fai le d to di sc ha rg e it s

pr e-s ui t du ti es un de r Tit le VII to in ve st ig at e an d co nc il ia te th es e cl ai m s, as th ey di d

no t ev en accr ue un ti l aft er th e EEOC ha d in st it ut ed th e act io n. Se e su pr a Part II.A.2.

Re ga rd in g th e rem ai ni ng 21 wom en , be cau se th e wom en 's L ea d D ri ve rs an d co

dr iv ers were th ei r co wor ke rs rat he r th an th ei r su pe rv is or s, se e su pr a Part II.C.1

., th e

A n to in et te Bal dwi n, Bo nn ie Bat y ik

, Mar y Bea to n, Bet ha ny Bro ek er, Kim 2 5

Ch is ho lm

, Cat he rin e Co ro na do

, Sam a n t h a Cu nn in gh am , Den is e Des on ie r, Maybi

Fern an de z-Fa br e, Cat he rin e (Gran of sk y )- F l et ch er, Gin ge r Lau de rm il k, Vero na McI ve r, Bo nn ie Mo es ch

, Sh erry O'Don ne ll

, Tam m i Pi le

, Sh aro n Pi nc he m , Dan et te Qui ntani lla

, K at

hle en Se y m our , Fa ith Sh ad de n, Ma

ry "Em il y " Sm it h, Je nn ife r Su ss on , Ro bi n Ti m

m on s, Ra ch el Tuck er, Dia na Vanc e, an d B et sy Ybarra

.

In he r de po si ti on , Bat y ik a d mi t t e d th at sh e di d no t ev en be gi n wor ki ng at 2 6

CRST un ti l Ja nu ary 24

, 20 08

, an d al le ge s th at Lead Driv er Dav id Bu ck ne r se xu al ly
ha r a s s e d he r fo r fo ur week s fro m Ja nu ary 27

, 20 08

, un ti l Feb ru ary 25

, 20 08

. Si m il arl y , Bro ek er co nc ed es sh e di d no t co m m en ce em

pl oym en t wit h C R S T un ti l Aug us t 4, 20 08

, an d th at th e EEOC's cl ai m s on he r be ha lf st em fro m ha ras sm en t th at sh e al le ge dl y su ffer ed at th e ha nd s of Lead Driv er Sean Po ur fah m , fro m Aug us t 13

, 20 08

, un ti l Aug us t 15

, 2 00 8. McI ve r be ga n he r se co nd st in t of em pl oym en t wit h
CRST in Nov em

be r 20 07 an d al le ge s th at Lead Driv er Hen ry Nei se xu al ly ha ras se d
he r fro m Feb ru ary 15

, 20 08

, un ti l Feb ru ary 22

, 20 08

. Fi na ll y , Dian a Van ce be ga n he r

em pl oym en t on Ju ne 11

, 20 08

, an d al le ge s sp or ad ic ha ras sm en t th ro ug ho ut he r

em pl oym en t u nt il he r te rm in at io n o n Au gu st 6, 2 00 8.

-4 5-EEOC m

us t, as pa rt of it s bu rd en on su m m ary ju dg m en t, crea te a ge nu in e is su e of

m at eri al fact as to whe th er CRST "[( 1) ] k ne w or sh ou ld ha ve kn own of th e

ha ras sm en t an d [(2 )] fai le d to ta ke pr om pt an d effe ct iv e rem ed ia l act io n." Ca rt er , 17 3

F.3 d at 69 3 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. St at ed an ot he r way , "[C RST] m ay be di rect ly li ab le fo r

it s em pl oyees' act io ns th at vi ol at e Tit le VII if t h e c o mp a n y kn ows or sh ou ld ha ve

kn own of th e co nd uc t

, u n l es s it can sh ow th at it to ok im m ed ia te act io n an d

ap pr op ria te co rrec ti ve act io n." Alva re z , 626 F. 3d at 41 9 (em

ph as is ad de d) (q uo ta ti on s

an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Reg ard in g th e 25 wom en in qu es ti on , ou r de no vo rev ie w of th e

EEOC's cl ai m s co nc ern in g each wom an co nf irms th e di st ric t co ur t's co nc lu si on th at

no fact is su e rem ai ne d be cau se (1 ) CRST ne it he r kn ew no r sh ou ld ha ve kn own ab ou t

th e al le ge d ha ras sm en t to rem ed y it be cau se th e wom an fa i l e d t o rep or t it so on

e n o u g h, or at al l; or (2 ) th e wom an ti m el y rep or te d th e ha ras sm en t, an d CRS T

pr om pt ly and effe ct iv el y

rem ed ie d i t.

W it h res pe ct to CRST's kn owl ed ge , we ha ve st at ed th at ei th er an em pl oyer's

a c t u al or co ns tru ct iv e no ti ce of on go in g co wor ke r-o n- co wor ke r ha ras sm en t m a y

su bjec t th e em

pl oyer to di rect li ab il it y fo r th at ha ras sm en t un le ss th e em pl oyer ta ke s

pr om pt co rrec ti ve act io n. Sa nd ov al v

. Am. Bld

g. Mai nt

. In du s., In c. , 57 8 F.3 d 78 7,

80 1 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 9 )

. " An em pl oyer ha s act ua l no ti ce of ha ras sm en t whe n su ffi ci en t

in fo rm at io n ei th er co m es to th e at te nt io n of so m eo ne who ha s th e po wer to te rm in at e

th e ha ras sm en t, or it co m es to so m eo ne who can reas on ab ly be ex pe ct ed to rep or t or
refe r a co m

pl ai nt to so m eo ne who can pu t an en d to it ." Id

. at 80 2 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Si mp l y p u t

, "[i ]n th e co nt ex t of se xu al ha ras sm en t cl ai m s, '[a]ctu al no ti ce is

es ta bl is he d by pr oo f th at m an ag em en t kn ew of th e ha ras sm ent.'" Id

. (s eco nd al te rat io n

in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng W

at so n v. Blu e Ci rc le

, In c. , 32 4 F.3 d 12 52

, 12 5 9 ( 1 1 t h C ir.

2 0 03 )). Co ns tru ct iv e no ti ce is es ta bl is he d in th e fo ll owi ng ci rcu m st an ces : "[ ( 1 ) ]

whe re an em

pl oyee pr ov id es m an ag em en t le ve l pers on ne l with en ou gh in fo rm at io n

to rai se a pr ob ab il it y

of sex ua l hara ss m en t in th e m in d of a reas on ab le em pl oyer, or [(2 )] whe re th e ha ras sm en t is so pe rv as iv e an d op en th at a reas on ab le em pl oyer wou ld

-4 6-ha ve ha d to be aware of it ." Id

. (q uo ti ng Ku ni n v. Se ar s Roe bu ck & Co

. , 17 5 F.3 d 28 9,

29 4 (3 d C ir. 1 99 9) ).

Of th e rem ai ni ng 21 wom en , we co nc lu de

, as a m at te r of la w, th at CRST la ck ed

ac tu al no ti ce as to ten of th em

. Sp eci fic al ly, each of th es e te n wom en ei th er nev er 2 7

rep or te d th e al le ge d se xu al ha ras sm en t to CRST or rep or te d it to o la te to affo rd CRST

a reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty t o pr om pt ly an d effe ct iv el y ad dr es s it . We n o t e t h a t , " [i]n

so m e cas es , . . . an em

pl oyee m ay be ex cu se d for a de la y in rep or ti ng ha ras sm en t, if

th e em pl oyee can de m on st rat e a tru ly cred ib le th reat of ret al ia ti on ." Alva re z , 62 6 F.3 d

at 42 2 (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it t e d )

. Howev er, a th or ou gh rev ie w of each

wom an 's de po si ti on te st im on y co nf irms th at th e EEOC ha s fai le d to de m on st rat e th at

an y of th es e te n wom en face d su c h a c r e d i b le th reat

. Thu s, CRST la ck ed act ua l 2 8

no ti ce b ecau se th e EEOC h as pr od uc ed no ev id en ce "t ha t m an ag em en t kn ew of th e

ha ras sm en t." Sa nd

ov al , 57 8 F .3d at 8 02 (qu ot at io ns an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

Fu rth erm or e, on th e pr es en t reco rd

, we m us t al so co nc lu de

, as a m at te r of la w,
th at CRST la ck ed c o ns tru ct iv e kn owl ed ge of an y ha ras sm en t th at th e te n wom en

al le g e d l y su ffer ed

. The EEOC's arg um en t to th e co nt rary is li nk ed to it s se pa rat e

co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g do cu m en ta ry

Ant oi ne tt e Bal dwi n, Kim Ch is ho lm

, Cat he rin e Co ro na do

, Maybi Fern an de z- 2 7

Fab re, Cat he rin e (Gran of sk y )-Fl et ch er, Bo nn ie Mo es ch

, Tamm i P il e, Sh aro n Pi nc he m , Rach el Tuck er, an d B et sy Ybarra

.

In fact

, th e on ly wom an be fo re us who se reco rd de m on st rat es su ch a cred ib le 2 8

th reat is Bo nn ie Bat y ik

, who te st ifi ed in he r de po si ti on th at he r ha ras se r, Lead Driv er Ph il li p Bu ck ne r, th reat en ed th at "i f [s he ] to ld Bi ll

, th e di sp at ch

, or an y on e, ba si cal ly,
th at [th e ha ras sm en t] wou ld go to an ot he r le ve l an d th at it wou ld n't be go od fo r [h er]

so [sh e] sho ul d k eep [he r] m ou th sh ut ." Thi s i s t he type of "cre di bl e th reat " t ha t we

reco gn i z e a s ex cu si ng an em pl oyee's fai lu re to pr om

pt ly rep or t ha ras sm en t by a

co wor ke r. Nev ert he le ss , as al read y no te d, su m m ary jud gm en t on th e EEOC's cl ai m s

co nc ern in g Bat y ik is ap pr op ria te be cau se th e EEOC fai le d to i n v e s t i g a te an d

co nc il ia te th em

as Ti tl e VII req ui res

. Se e su pr a Part II.C.3

.

-4 7-ev id en ce pe rta in in g to th e 99 wom en fo r who m th e di st ric t co ur t pr ecl ud ed th e EEOC

fro m se ek in g rel ie f. Sp eci fic al ly, as a di sc ov ery sa n c ti on fo r th e EEOC's fai lu re to

pr e se nt th es e 99 wom en to CRST fo r de po si ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t— as it ha d

fo rewar ne d in a pr io r or de r—p recl ud ed each wom an fro m t e s t ifyin g at tri al an d

ba rred th e EEOC f

ro m se ek i n g rel ie f on he r be ha lf in th e in st an t cas e. Howev er, in

op po si ng CRST's m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t co nc ern in g th e c o m pa ny's

co ns tru ct iv e n ot ic e o f ha ras sm en t, the EEOC in cl ud ed reco rd s of t he se 99 wom en 's

ha ras sm en t co m

pl ai nt s to CRST, th ei r Qua lc om m m es sa ge s, an d ot he r do cu m en ta ry

ev id en ce. CR ST m ov ed to st rik e th is ev id en ce fr om th e su m m ary-j ud gm en t re co rd

, ci ti ng th e di st ric t co ur t's di sc ov ery sa nc ti on

. The di st ric t co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly gr an te d

th e m ot io n, co nc ur rin g wi th CRST t ha t perm it ti ng th e EEOC to in tro du ce ev id en ce
of th e 99 wom en 's co m

pl ai nt s wou ld am ou nt to an "en d- ru n" aro un d it s di s co ve ry

sa n c t i o n pr ecl ud in g th e EEOC's rel ie f on th ei r be ha lf. CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 20 09 W L 25 24 40 2, at *1 6. On ap pe al

, th e EEOC m ai nt ai ns th at (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by e xc lu di ng th is ev id en ce pu rs ua nt to it s pr io r di sc ov ery

sa nc ti on , a nd (2 ) sh ou ld we rev ers e th e di st ric t c o u r t a n d or de r th e in cl us io n of th e

ev id en ce in th e su m

m ary-j ud g men t r e co rd

, th at we al so rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t's

gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t in li gh t of th e ne w e vi de nc e—e vi d e n ce th at th e EEOC

av ers is rel ev an t to whe th er CRST po ss es se d c o n s t ru ct iv e kn owl ed ge of al le ge dl y

r a mp a n t ha ras sm en t in it s tra in in g pr og ram

. Se e Sa nd ov al

, 57 8 F.3 d at 80 2– 0 3
(co nc lu di ng th at

, in li gh t of pl ai nt iff s' al le ga ti on s t h at th e em pl oyer "was aware of

ne arl y on e hu nd red si m il ar [s ex ua l-h aras sm en t] co m pl ai nt s m ad e du r i n g th e ti m e pl ai nt iff s were em

pl oyed," "t he di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sr eg ard in g," on su m m ary jud gm en t, "t he ev id en ce of wid es pr ead se xu al ha ras sm en t," as su ch ev id en ce is

"h ig hl y rel ev an t to pr ov e th e se xu al ha ras sm en t was se ve re an d pe rv a s i v e a nd th at [th e em pl oyer] ha d c on st ru ct iv e n ot ic e")

.

Alt ho ug h we rev ie w t he di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , May er , 64 7 F.3 d at 79 1, " [ w ]e r e v ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's im po si ti on of di sc ov ery

sa nc ti on s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n," Se nt is Grp

., In c. v. Sh el l O i l Co

. , 55 9 F.3 d 88 8,

-4 8-89 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The un di sp ut ed reco rd refl ect s

th at

, aft er pr ot ract ed di sc ov ery, th e di st ric t co ur t or de red th e EEOC, by a cert ai n da te

,
to pr es en t fo r de po si ti on al l al le ge dl y ag gr ie ve d wom en

. Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t

di rect ed th at "[i ]f th e EEOC fai ls to m ak e a wom an av ai la bl e, as a di sc ov ery sa nc ti on
th e co ur t wi ll no t pe rmi t he r to te st if y at tr ia l an d wil l ba r t h e EE O C f ro m se ek in g
rel ie f on he r be ha lf in th is cas e." EEOC v. CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 25 7 F.R.D. 51 3,

51 9 (N.D. Io wa 20 08 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. The EEOC co nc ed es th at it fai le d to pr es en t

fo r de po si ti on th e 99 wom en

. In res po ns e to a pa rty's fai lu re to ob ey su ch a di sc ov ery

or de r, th e Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e pl ai nl y au t h o r i z e s a di st ric t co ur t to "p ro hi bi t th e di so be di en t pa rty fro m su pp or ti ng o r op po si ng de si gn at ed cl ai m s or
de fen se s, or fr om in tr od uc in g de si gn at ed mat te rs in evi de nc e ." Fed

. R. Ci v. P.

37 (b )(2 )(A)(i i) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. Not ab ly, th e EEOC do es no t ap pe al th e pr op rie ty

of th e di sc ov ery sa nc ti on it se lf

, bu t on ly th e di st ric t co ur t's en fo rcem en t of it

. Ci ti ng

ou r de ci si on in Sa nd ov a l

, 57 8 F.3 d at 80 2– 03

, th e EEOC em ph as iz es th e ex cl ud ed

ev id en ce's pu rp or te d rel ev an ce to th e qu es ti on of whe th er CRST was on co ns tru ct iv e

no ti ce of th e al le ge d ha ras sm en t. Howev er, th e EEOC of fers no di rect su pp or t fo r it s

co nt en ti on th at

, by en fo rci ng it s own di sc ov ery sa nc ti on —wh os e pr op rie ty th e EEOC

do es no t ap pe al —t he di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n. Lik ewis e, on th is reco rd

, we

fin d no ev id en ce th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by en fo rci ng it s own va li d

di sc ov ery sa nc ti on

.

Co ns eq ue nt ly, in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on it s co nc lu si on th at

, as

a m at te r of la w, CRST la ck ed co ns tru ct iv e no ti ce a s t o t he te n wom en pr es en tl y at

is su e, th e di st ri c t c o u r t d id no t pr em is e it s ru li ng on an in co m pl et e su m

m aryjud gm en t re co rd . Mo reo ve r, ou r de no vo rev ie w o f th is reco rd rev eal s n o fa ct is su e

as to CRST's co ns tru ct iv e no ti ce. Sp eci fi c a l l y, t h e EEOC ha s fai le d to ad du ce

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to crea te a fact is su e as to whe th er "t he ha ras sm en t was so br oa d

in sc op e, an d so pe rm eat ed th e wor kp la ce, th at it mus t ha ve co me to th e at te nt io n of

so meo ne au th or iz ed to d o so meth in g ab ou t it ." Id

. at 80 2 (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on

om it te d)

.

-4 9-W it h res pe ct to th e rem ai ni ng 11 wom en , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t 2 9

of su m m ary jud gm en t ba se d on it s co nc lu si on th at

, as a m at te r of la w, CRST

pr om pt ly an d effe ct iv el y rem ed ie d th e se xu al ha ras sm en t on ce it be cam e aware of it

. "If an em pl oyer res po nd s to ha ras sm en t wit h pr om pt rem ed ia l act io n cal cu la te d to en d

it

, th en th e em

pl oyer is no t li ab le fo r t h e h a r a s sm en t." Alva re z , 62 6 F.3 d at 42 1. In

as se ss in g th e re a s o n a b le ne ss of an em pl oyer's rem ed ia l act io n, th e fact or s to be

co ns id ered "i nc lu de th e am ou nt of ti m e th at el ap se d be twee n th e no ti ce an d rem ed ia l

act io n, th e op ti on s av ai la bl e to th e em pl oyer,

. . . an d whe th er or no t th e m eas ur es

en de d th e ha ras sm en t." Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al

, qu ot at io ns an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Afte r rev ie win g th e reco rd pe rta in in g to th es e 11 wom en in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to th e EEOC, we ho ld th at CRST effe ct iv el y an d pr om pt ly rem ed ie d th e ha ras sm en t

on ce t he wom en rep or te d i t.

The reco rd refl ect s th at CRST ad dr es se d rep or te d ha ras sm en t by (1 ) rem ov in g

th e wom an fro m th e tru ck as so on as pr act ic ab le

, arra ng in g ov ern ig ht l o d g i ng at a

m ot el an d su bs eq ue nt tra ns po rta ti on to a CRS T term in al at th e co m pa ny's ex pe ns e; (2 ) req ue st in g a writ te n st at e men t fro m th e wom an ; (3 ) rel ie vi ng th e wom an fro m
fu tu re as si gn m en ts w it h th e al le ge d ha ras se r; an d (4 ) rep rimand in g th e al le ge d

ha ras se r an d ba rri ng hi m fro m te am -d riv in g wit h wom en in de fin it el y

. The se act io ns ,

no t ne ces sa ril y in co m

bi na ti on , co ns ti tu te th e type of pr om pt an d effe ct iv e rem ed ia l

act io n th at ou r pr eced en ts pr es cri be

. W he n co ns id eri ng th e "[r em e di al ] op ti on s

av ai la bl e to th e em

pl oyer," we ha ve i n c l u d ed "em pl oyee tra in in g se ss io ns ,
tr an sf er ri ng th e ha ra ss er

s , w r i tt en wa rn in gs , re

pr ima nd s in pe rs on ne l fi le s , or

te rm in at io n," as acce pt ab le op ti on s, de pe nd in g on th e pa rti cu la rs of th e cas e. Ca rt er , 17 3 F.3 d at 70 2 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. In each of th e 11 wom en 's cas es , CRST rem ov ed

th e wom an fro m th e al le ge d ha ras se r's tru ck wit hi n 24 ho ur s of th e ha ras sm en t be in g

Mar y Bea to n, Sam an th a Cu nn in gh am , Den is e Des on ie r, Gin ge r Lau de rm il k, 2 9

Sh erry O'Don ne ll

, Dan et te Qui nt an il la

, Kath le en M. Seym ou r, Fai th Sh ad de n, Mar y Sm it h, J en ni fer Su ss on , and Ro bi n Ti m m on s.

-5 0-rep or te d, an d of te n m uc h so on er. Se e Alva re

z , 6 2 6 F

. 3 d at 42 1 ("Em

pl oyees of

te n

m us t to le rat e so m e de la y

. . . so th at an em pl oyer can ga ug e th e cred i b i l i t y o f t he

co m pl ai na nt an d th e se rio us ne ss of th e si tu at io n." ) (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Mo reo ve r, each wom an co nf irmed th at th ey di d no t su ffer an y ha ras sm en t su bs eq ue nt

to th ei r rem ov al

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's su m m ary jud gm en t as to th e

rem ai ni ng 11 wom en , co nc ur rin g in it s co nc lu si on th at

, as a m at te r of la w, CRST

pr om pt ly an d effe ct iv el y rem ed ie d an y al le ge d ha ras sm en t th at th e wom en rep or te d.

D. In te rv en er

Peep le s's Cla ims
Peep le s ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to CRST on he r
ho st il e wor k- en vi ro nm en t an d ret al ia ti on cl ai m s un de r Tit le VII, as well as he r st at ela w cl ai m un de r th e Io wa Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act (ICR A). "Co ns is te nt wit h ou r pr eced en t,

th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e [ICR A] is in te rp ret ed in th e sa m e way as Tit le

VII. " Al va re

z , 62 6 F.3 d at 41 6 n.2

. The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y co nc lu de d th at
Peep le s's Tit le VII an d ICRA hos ti le wor k- en vi ro nm en t clai m s fail ed as a m at te r of

la w "b ecau se sh e di d no t rep or t th e se xu al ha ras sm en t to CRST in a ti m el y m an ne r."

CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 20 09 W L 15 86 19 3, at *1 5. Peep le s de la y ed rep or ti ng th e

a l l e g e d se xu al ha ras sm en t un ti l aft er sh e vo lu nt ari ly le ft he r ha ras se r's tru ck

. A d d i t i o n al ly, fo r th e reas on s st at ed in Part II.C.3 su pr a , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y

co nc lu de d th at th ere is in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce in th e reco rd to crea te a fact is su e

co nc ern in g C RST's co ns tru ct iv e n ot ic e.

W e al so co nc lu d e t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t on Peep le s's Tit le VII an d ICRA ret al ia ti on cl ai m s. "Th is co ur t an al yz e s

ICRA ret al ia ti on cl ai m s un de r th e sa m e m et ho d as fed eral ret al ia ti on cl ai m s." Y ou ng

Lo se e v. Gra

ph ic Pac ka gi ng In t'l

, In c. , 63 1 F.3 d 90 9, 91 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ta ti on s

an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at "[a ] reas on ab le jury co ul d no t

fin d a cau sa l co nn ect io n be t ween Ms

. Peep le s's co m pl ai nt ab ou t [h er ha ras se r's ]

-5 1-co nd uc t an d an y ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n." CRS T Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. , 20 09 W L

15 86 19 3, at *1 5. W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t's co nc lu si on

. "Ti tl e V I I mak e s it

un la wfu l fo r an em

pl oyer to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an em pl o ye e b e c a us e sh e ha s 'op po se d an y pr act ic e m ad e an un la wfu l em pl oym en t pr act ic e,' or ha s m ad e a ch arg e

or pa rti ci pa te d in an in ve st ig at io n or pr oc eed in g un de r th e st at ut e." Alva re z , 62 6 F.3 d

at 41 6 (q uo ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-3 (a))

. Sp eci fic al ly, Peep le s m us t de m on st rat e th at

th e pr ot ect ed co nd uc t in w h i c h sh e en ga ge d "was a de te rm in at iv e fact or in th e

e m pl oyer's m at eri al ly ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n." Id

. "Be cau se th e fact ua l re c o r d

was fu ll y de ve l o p e d in co nn ect io n wit h th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, we
ad dr es s di rect ly whe th er [Pee pl es ] ha s pr es en te d a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact fo r

tri al on th e ul ti m at e qu es ti on of di sc riminat io n vel no n ." Id

. Thu s, "[t ]he ke y qu es ti on
he re is whe th er [Pee pl es ] pr es en te d su ffi ci en t evi de nc e to su pp or t a co nc lu si on th at
[CRS T's] pr of

fere d reas on fo r [te rm in at in g] he r was pr et ex t fo r a ret al ia to ry m ot iv e."

Id

.

Peep le s fai le d to es ta bl i s h a fact is su e th at CRST's pr of fere d reas on fo r he r

te rm in at io n was pr et ex tu al . C RST as se rts th at it di sc ha rg ed Peep le s be cau se n e wly

di ag no se d cerv ic a l c a n cer pr ev en te d he r fro m wor ki ng

. The un di sp ut ed reco rd

refl ect s th at sh e wa s un ab le to op erat e he r tru ck un de r CRST's de m an di ng te am

dr iv in g reg im en be cau se o f h e r freq ue nt cerv ic al bl eed in g an d su bs eq ue nt

ch em ot he rap y an d rad ia ti on tre at m en ts

. As su pp or t fo r he r cl ai m th at CRST's reas on

was pr et ex tu al

, sh e rel ie s on a co m m en t by Ro bi n K ni gh t, th e rep la cem en t Lead

Driv er, th at refe rred to Peep le s as "h is pr ob le m ch il d." Add it io na ll y , Peep le s rel ie s

on th e t e mp o r a l p ro xi m it y of he r di sc ha rg e to he r co m pl ai nt

, no ti ng th at CRST

te rm in at ed he r ap pr ox im at el y on e m on th aft er he r co m pl ai nt

. Thi s ev id en ce su pp or ts

m ere sp ecu la ti on no t a reas on ab le co nc lu si on of pr et ex t. W it h res pe ct to th e te m po ral

pr ox im it y , we no t e t h a t wit hi n a few da y s of Peep le s le av in g he r ha ras se r's tru ck

, CRST gr an te d he r req ue st fo r a fem al e Lead Driv er an d im m ed ia te ly pu t he r ba ck ou t

on th e ro ad

. It is un di s p u te d th at on Sep te m be r 20

, 20 05

, a Tex as do ct or is su ed a

se co nd op in io n t ha t h er p ro pe r di ag no si s was cerv ic al can cer.

-5 2-On th es e fact s, th e d i s t r i c t co ur t pr op erl y co nc lu de d th at a reas on ab le jury

co ul d no t co nc lu de th a t CRST's pr of fere d reas on fo r te rm in at in g Peep le s's

em pl oym en t was pr et ex tu al

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's g r a nt of

su m m ary jud gm en t o n h er Tit le VII an d IC RA ret al ia ti on cla im s.

E. Att or ne

ys ' Fees

Fi na ll y , th e EEOC co nt en ds on ap pe al th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab u se d it s
di sc ret io n by awar din g CR ST $4, 467, 442.9 0 in at to rn ey s' fees an d ex pe ns es , pu rs ua nt

to 42 U.S.C. § 20 0 0 e

- 5 ( k ) a n d 28 U.S.C. § 19 20

. "A pr eva il in g de fen da nt in a
di sc riminat io n su it un de r Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 64 m ay reco ve r

at to rn ey s' fees if th e pl ai nt iff 's cas e was fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le

, or wit ho ut

f o u n d at io n." EEOC v. Ken ne th Bal k & Ass oc s., In c. , 81 3 F.2 d 19 7, 19 8 (8 t h C i r

. 19 87 ) (ci ti ng Ch ri st ia nb ur g Gar men t Co

. v. EEOC

, 43 4 U.S. 41 2, 42 1– 22 (1 97 8)

. "[W] e wil l gr an t pr ev ai li ng pa rty st at us to a Tit le VII de fen da nt on ly in ve ry na rro w
ci rcu m st an ces ." Mar qu ar t v. Lo dg e 83 7, In t'l Ass 'n of Ma c hi ni st s & Aero sp ac e

W or ker s , 26 F.3 d 84 2, 85 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). In li gh t of ou r rev ers al s of a co up le of th e
di st ric t co ur t' s sum

m ar y -j udgm en t or ders

, CRST is no lo ng er a "p rev ai li ng " de fen da nt

be cau se th e EEOC st il l as se rts li ve cl ai m s ag ai ns t it

. Se e i d

. ("Wher e th ere are
di sp ut ed is su es of fact , i t i s ne ces sa ril y im po ss ib le to pr ov e th at a pl ai nt iff 's cas e is

m eri tl es s sh y of a fu ll -b lo wn tri al on th e m eri ts whi ch m ig ht rev eal th at th e pl ai nt iff 's

cas e was 'wit ho ut fo un da ti on .'"). Acco rd in gl y , we wil l va cat e, wit ho ut pr ejud ic e, th e
di st ric t co ur t's award of at to rn ey s' fees an d ex pe ns es pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e5( k)

.

III. Co nc lu si on

Bas ed on th e fo reg oi ng , we affi rm in pa rt, rev ers e in pa rt, an d rem an d fo r
fu rth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n. Sp eci fic al ly, we rev ers e th e di st ric t

co ur t's g r a n t of su m

m ary jud gm en t on th e EEOC's cl ai m s as to Mo ni ka St ark e
be cau se th e EEO C

, s ui ng as a pl ai nt iff in it s own na m e un de r § 70 6, m ay no t be

-5 3-jud ic ia ll y es to pp ed be cau se of St ark e's in de pe n de nt co nd uc t. Add it io na ll y , we 3 0

r e v e r s e th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on th e EEOC's cl ai m s o n
be ha lf of Till ie Jo ne s b ecau se th e EEOC ha s pro du ced su ffi ci en t evi de nc e to crea te

a ge nu i n e f

a c t is su e as to th e se ve rit y or pe rv as iv en es s of ha ras sm en t th at sh e

al le ge dl y su ffer ed

. Fi na ll y , we va cat e, wit ho ut pr ejud ic e, th e di st ric t co ur t's award of

at to rn ey s' fees to CRST be cau se , i n li gh t of th es e afo rem en ti on ed ru li ng s, CRST is

no lo ng er a "p rev ai li ng " de fen da nt un de r 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (k ). W e affi rm t h e

rem ai nd er of th e di st ric t co ur t's or de rs an d rem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt

wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge , con cu rri ng in pa rt a nd di ss en ti ng in pa rt.

I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m th e m ajor it y 's co nc lu si on th at th e EEOC fai le d to

fu lfi ll it s li ti ga ti on pr ereq ui si te s in th is cas e an d th e res ul ti ng di sm is sa l of tri al wor th y

se xu al ha ras sm en t clai m s. T he m ajor it y im po se s a new requ ire m en t th at th e EEOC

m us t co m pl et e it s pr es ui t du ti es fo r each in di vi du al al le ge d vi ct im of di sc riminat io n
whe n pu rs ui ng a c la ss cl ai m

. Thi s ru le pl aces un pr eced en te d ob li ga ti on s on th e

EE O C an d in effe ct rewar ds CRST fo r wit hh ol di ng in fo rm at io n fro m th e

Co m m is si on

. In ad di ti on I di ss en t fro m th e ho ld in g th at CRST's le ad dr iv ers are no t

su pe rv is or s of th e wom en tra in ees as si gn ed to th ei r lo ng ha ul tri ps

. In ot he r res pe ct s I joi n i n t he m ajor it y

op in io n.

The EEOC was dr awn in to th is cas e by Mo ni ka St ark e's ch arg e th at sh e was

se xu al ly ha ras se d whi le em pl oyed by CRST. The Co m m is si on th e n as ke d CRST

"wh et he r an y ot he r i n di vi du al ha s co m pl ai ne d" ab ou t se xu al ha ras sm en t at th e

co m pa ny. Alt ho ug h m an y wom en ha d rep or te d har as sm en t by tra in ers or co dr iv ers
du rin g lo ng ha ul tri ps , CRST fu rn is he d to th e Co m m is si on o n ly two na m es

. The

EEOC ev en tu al ly di sc ov ered th at se ve ral hu nd red wom en em pl oyees cl ai m ed se ve re

See su pr a n.1 6 reg ard in g ou r ul ti m at e affi rm an ce of th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t 3 0

of su m m ary jud gm en t t o C RST as to Pay ne 's a nd Tim m on s's cla im s.

-5 4-se xu al ha ras sm en t by CR ST m al e tra in ers or dri vi ng pa rtn ers du rin g e xt en de d o ve r

th e ro ad tri ps

. The ir al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t th e tr uc k d riv ers in cl ud ed cla im s of se xu al

pr op os it io ni ng , sex ua l ass au lt

, an d rap e. As t he EEOC's i nv es ti ga ti on co nt in ue d, i t

le arn ed th at CRST ha d or ig in al ly ta ke n m in im al act io n in res po n s e t o th e wom en 's

rep or ts of h aras sm en t.

Dur in g th e co ur se of

th e Tit le VII pr el it ig at io n pro ces s, the EEOC pu t CRST

on no ti ce th at it was in ve s t i g a ti ng a cl as s of wom en em pl oyees an d req ue st ed th e

co m pa ny's h el p in id en ti fy in g clas s m em be rs

. See 29 C.F.R. § 16 01 .15 (ex pl ai ni ng

EEOC's in ve st ig at iv e au th or it y ). The Co m m is si on in fo rm ed CRST th at it ha d fo un d

"re as on ab le cau se to be li ev e th at [th e co m pa ny had ] su bjec te d a cl as s of em pl oyees

a nd pr os pe ct iv e em

pl oyees to se xu al ha ras sm en t." See 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-5 (b )
(d ire ct in g Co m

m is si on to is su e reas on ab le cau se de te rm in at io n aft er in ve st ig at io n)

. Su bs eq ue nt ly th e EEOC ga ve CRST an op po rtu ni ty to ach ie ve vo lu nt ary co m pl ia nc e
de sp it e th e co m

pa ny's la te res po ns e to th e Co m m is si on 's in vi ta ti on to co nc il ia te

. See

id

. (s ta ti ng th at th e Co m

m is si on "s ha ll en de av or to el im in at e an y

. . . al le ge d un la wfu l

em pl oym en t pr act ic e by in fo rm al m et ho ds of co nf eren ce, co nc il ia ti on , an d

pe rs ua si on "). Dur in g th e co nc il ia ti on pr oc es s th e EEOC in fo rm ed CRST th at it di d

no t ha ve acce ss to th e nu m be r of cl as s m em

be rs or th ei r n a mes an d ne ed ed th e

co m pa ny's he lp to id en ti fy th es e in di vi du al s. CRST reject e d th is pr op os al

,

res po nd in g th at th e da m ag e am ou nt so ug ht by Mo ni ka St ark e m ad e it "co nf id en t th at

co nc il ia ti on wil l no t res ul t i n a res ol ut io n of th is m at te r." Thu s un ab le to ob ta in

co op erat io n fr om

CRST, t he EEOC pro ceed ed wit h t hi s l aws ui t.

Neit he r Tit le VII no r ou r pr io r cas es req ui re th at th e EEOC co nd uc t it s pr es ui t

ob li ga ti on s fo r each co m

pl ai na nt in di vi du al ly whe n li ti ga ti ng a cl as s cl ai m

. Rat he r,

we ha ve req ui red th at th e EEOC pe rfo rm th es e du ti es fo r each ty pe o f Ti tl e VII

vi ol at io n al le ge d by th e co m pl ai na nt

. EEOC v. Deli gh t W ho le sa le Co

., 97 3 F.2 d 66 4,

66 8– 69 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). Oth er ci rcu it co ur ts ha ve si m il arl y he ld th at th e "n at ur e an d

ex te nt " of th e EEOC's in ve st ig at io n i s b ey on d th e sc op e of jud ic ia l rev ie w a nd th at

-5 5-th e EEOC ne ed no t se pa rat el y co nc il ia te in di vi du al cl as s m em be rs whe n pu rs ui ng a
cl as s ba se d se xu al di sc riminat io n cl ai m

. EEOC v. Keco In du s., In c., 74 8 F.2 d 10 97

, 11 00 –0 1 (6 th Ci r. 19 84 ); se e al so EEOC v. Rh on e-Po ul en c, In c., 87 6 F.2 d 16

, 17 (3 d

Ci r. 19 89 ) (n ot in g in ADEA cas e th at EEOC ne ed no t co nc il ia te in di vi du al cl as s

m em be rs ); Din ki ns v. Ch aro en Po kp ha nd USA, In c., 13 3 F. Su pp

. 2d 12 37

, 12 45 –4 6
(M.D. A la

. 20 01 ) (n ot in g th at "[w]hat m at te rs is th at EEOC se rv ed [th e em pl oyer]

no ti ce th at it was in ve st ig at in g po ss ib le di sc riminat io n ag ai ns t a cl as s of wom en " an d

th at th e EEOC ne ed no t " co nc il ia te each in di vi du al 's Ti tl e VII cl ai m sep arat el y ").

The cas es rel ie d o n b y

th e m ajor it y are no t to th e co nt rary. T he y req ui re o nl y
th at th e EEOC gi ve th e em pl oyer no ti ce du rin g th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s of th e

na tu re an d sc op e of th e cl ai m , no t of th e na m es of each po te nt ia l cl as s m em be r. Fo r

e x am pl e, in EEOC v. Ji ll ia n's of In di an ap ol is

, In c., th e co ur t al lo wed th e EEOC to

pr oc eed on be ha lf of a lo cal cl as s ev en th ou gh it ha d no t na m ed each in di vi du al in th e

reas on ab le cau se de te rm in at io n or co nc il ia te d in di vi du al cl as s m em be rs be cau se th e

em pl oyer ha d no ti ce th at th e EEOC was in ve st ig at in g a lo cal cl as s. 27 9 F. Su pp

. 2d

97 4, 98 3 (S.D. In d. 20 03 ). It di sm is se d th e na ti on wid e cl as s cl ai m s ho wev er be cau se

th e em pl oyer ha d no t ha d no ti ce th at th e EEOC's in ve st ig at io n was na ti on al in sc op e.
Id

. Si m il arl y , th e co ur t in EEOC v. Dil la rd 's In c. st at ed th at th e EE O C " i s no t

req ui red to id en ti fy ev ery po te nt ia l cl as s m em be r" be fo re fil in g su it bu t pe rm it te d th e

EEOC to li t i g a t e on ly lo cal cl as s m em be rs ' cl ai m s be cau se th e "s co pe of it s pr eli ti ga ti on effo rts [was ] li m it ed " to on e st or e lo cat io n. No. 08

- 1 7 8 0

, 20 11 W L

27 84 51 6, at *6 –8 (S.D. Cal . 20 11 ).

The m ajor it y 's ne w req ui rem en t th at th e EEOC se pa rat el y in ve st ig at e an d

co nc il ia te each al le ge d vi ct im of di sc rimina t i o n is in co ns is te nt wit h th e pu rp os e of

Tit le VII. Und er th is st an da rd em pl oyers can av oi d di sc lo su re t o t h e EE O C of

co mp l ai ni ng wor ke rs whi le th e Co m m is si on is co nd uc ti ng it s in ve st ig at io n an d

co nc ili at ion, th en rev eal th e na m es du rin g co ur t or de red di sc ov ery, an d se ek di sm iss al

of th e en ti re cas e on th e gr ou nd of i n a d e q u a t e p r es ui t effo rts by th e EEOC. Thi s

-5 6-pu ni sh es th e EEOC fo r em pl oyer reca lc it ran ce an d weak en s it s ab il it y to en fo rce Tit le

VII effe ct iv el y

. It al so fru st rat es th e un de rlyin g go al of t h e 1 9 72 am en dm en ts

in te nd ed to st ren gt he n th e EEOC's en fo rcem en t po wers

. See Gen

. Tel. Co

. of th e Nw., I n c

. v

. EEOC, 44 6 U.S. 31 8, 32 5 (1 98 0)

. The un de si rab le effe ct s of a ru le

req ui rin g th e EEOC to in ve st ig at e an d co nc il ia te each vi ct im a re il lu st rat ed in th is

cas e. The di sm is sa l of sc or es of wom en cl ai m an ts wit h ap pa ren t tri al wor th y cl ai m s
is affi rm ed by t h e m ajor it y ev en th ou gh it was CRST whi ch en de d th e co nc il ia ti on

p r oc es s an d ev en th ou gh th e EEOC m ad e su bs ta nt ia l effo rts to in ve st ig at e an d

co nc il ia te pri or to fil in g i ts laws ui t.

W hi le th e m ajor it y jus ti fie s th e di sm is sa l by ci ti ng Tit l e VII's em ph as is on
ad m in is tra ti ve res ol ut io n of di sp ut es , he re th e EEOC m ad e ge nu in e effo rts to res ol ve

th e di sp ut e ad m in is tra ti ve ly an d it was CRST th at th wart ed ad m in is tra ti ve res ol ut io n by pr ov id in g t h e EEOC wit h in co m pl et e in fo rm at io n an d reject in g it s co nc il ia ti on

pr op os al

. Giv en th e EEOC's su bs ta nt ia l pr es ui t effo rts

, th e di st ric t co ur t's di sm is sa l

of tri al wor th y cl ai m s on th e gr ou nd th at th e EEOC fai le d t o c o mp le te it s st at ut or y
du ti es sh ou ld be rev ers ed

. At m os t, th e cas e mi g h t h a v e b een st ay ed fo r fu rth er

co nc il ia ti on

. Cf. EEOC v. Kli ng le r El ec. Co rp ., 63 6 F.2 d 10 4, 10 7 (5 th Ci r. 19 81 )
(fi nd in g su m

m ary jud g men t " f

a r to o ha rs h a sa nc ti on to im po se on th e EEOC e ve n

if th e co ur t sh ou ld ul ti m at el y fin d th at co nc il ia ti on effo rts were pr em at ur el y
ab or te d" ).

Fi na ll y , I res pe ct fu ll y di sa gr ee wit h th e co nc lu si on th a t t h e co m pa ny's lo ng

ha ul tra in ers are no t su pe rv is or s of th e wom en tra in ees

. In Fara gh er v. Ci ty of Bo ca

Rat on , th e Su pr em e Co ur t as su m ed th at two em pl oyees were su pe rv is or s whe re th ey

h ad be en "g ran te d vi rtu al ly un ch eck ed au th or it y ov er th ei r su bo rd in at es , di re c t l y

co nt ro ll in g an d su pe rv is in g al l as pe ct s of [th e al le ge d vi ct im 's] da y -to -d ay act iv it ie s."

52 4 U.S. 77 5, 80 8 (1 99 8) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d pu nc tu at io n om it te d)

. It ob se rv ed

th at th e al le ge d vi ct im h a d b e en "co m pl et el y is ol at ed " fro m he r em pl oyer's hi gh er

m an ag em en t. Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Lik e th e su pe rv is or s in Fara gh er, th e CRST lo ng

-5 7-ha ul tra in ers co nt ro ll ed al m os t al l of a tra in ee's da y to da y act iv it ie s, in cl ud in g whe n

sh e was pe rm it te d to dri ve , when sh e co ul d s to p t o u se th e ba th ro om , an d when sh e

co ul d us e th e t r u c k ' s s at el li te de vi ce to co m m un ic at e wit h th e ou ts id e wor ld

. The

tra in ees were of

te n co nf in ed in a tru ck fo r 28 co ns ecu ti ve da y s wit h th ei r tra in er who

ha d a ut ho rit y

to ev al ua te th ei r pr og res s an d who se pa ss /fa il rat in g was rel ie d on by

CRST in de te rm in in g whe th er tra in ees wou ld be pr om ot ed to fu ll dr iv er st at us

. Thi s

un iq ue en vi ro nm en t faci li t a t e d th e ab il it y of cert ai n tra in ers to m ak e se xu al

pr op os it io ns an d d em an d s ex ua l fa vo rs

.

The ta ng ib le em

pl oym en t act io n cas es ci te d by th e m ajor it y in vo lv e si tu at io ns
whe re th e ha ras se r s e x e rci se d le ss co nt ro l ov er em pl oym en t de ci si on s th an th e

tra in ers di d in th is cas e. See Ch es he wall a v. Ran d & So n Co ns t. Co

., 41 5 F.3 d 84 7,

85 1 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 5) (h aras se r "m ay ha ve co ns ul te d" wit h m an ag em en t on ta ng ib le

em pl oym en t act io n) ; W ey ers v. Lear Ope rat io ns Co rp ., 35 9 F.3 d 10 49

, 10 57 (8 th Ci r.

20 04 ) (t e r mi n a t io n de ci si on ba se d "i n pa rt" on al le ge d ha ras se r's pe rfo rm an ce

ev al ua ti on ). Here, th e le ad dr iv ers ' pa ss /fa il ev al ua ti on s were rel i e d on al m os t

ex cl us iv el y in de ci di ng whe th er to pr om ot e a pa rti c ul ar tra in ee. The fact th at th ei r

pr om ot io n reco m

m en da ti on s were ne arl y al w a ys f o ll owe d weig hs in fav or of

ch arac te riz in g th em as su pe rv is or s. See Bur li ng to n In du s., Inc. v. Ell ert h, 52 4 U.S.
742, 747 (1 998 ) (as su m in g ha ras se r was su pe rv is or al th ou gh hi s hi rin g an d pr om oti on
de ci si on s were "s ub

ject to th e ap pr ov al of hi s su pe rv is or , w ho si gn ed th e

pa pe rwo rk "). The reco rd rev eal s th at ev en CRST's hu m an res ou rces di rect or
ch arac te riz ed th e tr ai ne rs as " real ly no d iff eren t t ha n . . . su pe rv is or s."

The di st ric t co ur t's an a l ys i s ov erl oo ke d th e pr act ic al real it y crea te d by th e
rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e tra in er an d th e tra in ee in li vi ng an d wor ki ng to ge th er in th e

co nf in ed sp ace o f a tru ck ov er lo ng ro ut es an d by th e un us ua l le ve l of co nt ro l th e

tra in ers ex erci se d ov er ev ery as pe ct of th e tra in ees ' ex is te nc e whi le on th e ro ad

. The

is ol at ed wor k en vi ro nm en t, tra in ees ' ex te nd ed ti m e al on e wit h th e tra in er, th e la ck of

ov ers ig ht fro m co m

pa ny m an ag em en t, th e tra in ers ' ne ar to ta l co nt ro l ov er tra in ees '

-5 8-da il y li ve s, an d th e tra in ers ' su bs ta nt ia l co nt ro l ov er tra in ees ' pr om ot io n ch an ces are

su ffi ci en t to cat eg or iz e th e tra in ers as su pe rv is or s. The cas es ci te d by th e m ajor it y on

th is su bjec t de al t wit h qu it e di ffer en t fact ua l ci rcu m st an ces no t rel ev an t to th e un iq ue

f a c t o r s pr es en t he re. I wou ld rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t's ru li ng th at no ne of t h e

tra in ers were su pe rv is or s an d th e res ul t i n g d i s m is sa l of cert ai n tra in ees ' cl ai m s an d

rem an d th os e cl ai m s f or co ns id erat io n of whe th er CRST m ad e ou t an

Ell ert h- Fara gh er af

fir m at iv e d efen se

.

I co nc ur in th e ot he r pa rts of th e m ajor it y de ci si on , in cl ud in g th e rem an d of th e

c l a i ms of St ark e an d Jo ne s an d th e rev ers al of th e un pr eced en te d $4 .5 m il li on

at to rn ey fee award ag ai ns t th e EEOC i n fav or of CRST. O n r e mand an y fee award

ag ai ns t th e EEOC sh ou ld be cl os el y co ns id ered si nc e on e sh ou ld be m ad e o n l y in

"v ery na rro w ci rcu m st an ces ." E.g. Mar qu art v. Lod ge 83 7, 26 F.3 d 84 2, 84 8 (8 th Ci r.

19 94 ); se e al so Ch ris ti an sb ur g Garm en t Co

. v. EEOC, 43 4 U.S. 41 2, 42 2 ( 1 97 8) ;

EEOC v. Tran s St at es Airl in es , In c., 46 2 F.3 d 98 7, 99 6 (8 th C i r

. 20 06 ) (aff irming

de ni al of at to rn ey fee award ag ai ns t EEOC de sp it e em pl oyer co nt en ti on th at it fai le d

to co nc il ia te ).

In su m , th e di sm is sa l ba se d on th e co nc lu si on th at th e EEOC fai le d to fu lfi ll

i t s p res ui t du ti es sh ou ld be rev ers ed , a s sh ou ld th e co nc lu si on th at no ne of C R S T' s

tra in ers were su pe rv is or s. W hi le th is is ad m it te dl y a co m pl ex cas e, th e co ur t sh ou ld

st il l gi ve effe ct to Tit le VII an d en su re th at th e EEOC c a n f ul fil l it s co ng res si on al

m an da te

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5 9-