EEOC Settles Background Check Litigation with BMW, But Also Faces Steep Attorneys’ Fees in Freeman Case

by Littler
Contact

After several high-profile setbacks in disparate impact discrimination lawsuits challenging criminal record screening policies,1 the EEOC has entered into a settlement (consent decree) in one of its few remaining cases, a settlement that includes payouts to individual employees in an amount up to $1,600,000.  Beyond this not insubstantial settlement amount, the consent decree also reflects the EEOC’s view of a model criminal record screening policy, and is useful in that respect.2  While the EEOC has been trumpeting the settlement on its Web site, the EEOC’s bluster may have been tempered by a further and strongly worded opinion in the Freeman case in Maryland, one of the EEOC’s spectacularly unsuccessful disparate impact lawsuits challenging criminal record screening policies (affirmed by the Fourth Circuit).3  The opinion awards Freeman just under $1,000,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs from the EEOC.  Together, these two developments create some uncertainty about whether the EEOC will continue to steadily focus on criminal record screening policies.  Odds are the settlement will embolden the EEOC, notwithstanding the award in Freeman, and thus employers should continue to monitor this and related areas of the law, including fair credit reporting act class action litigation.4

EEOC v. BMW

Background of Litigation

On July 11, 2013, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against BMW’s manufacturing facility in South Carolina claiming that BMW violated Title VII by implementing and utilizing a criminal background policy that allegedly disproportionately screened out African Americans from jobs, and rejected job applicants with convictions without considering whether the conviction was job-related and consistent with business necessity.

The claimants were employees of UTi Integrated Logistics, Inc. (UTi), which provided logistic services to BMW at its South Carolina facility.  The logistics services included warehouse and distribution assistance, transportation services and manufacturing support.

BMW implemented its criminal conviction policy in 1994.  The policy understandably restricted facility-access to BMW employees and employees of contractors with certain criminal convictions.  When UTi assigned the claimants to work at the South Carolina facility, UTi ran criminal background checks on employees according to UTi’s criminal conviction policy.  UTi’s criminal background check limited review to convictions within the prior seven years.  BMW’s policy, however, had no time limit with regard to convictions and excluded job applicants with certain convictions.

In 2008, UTi ended its contract with BMW.  During a transitional period, UTi employees were informed of the need to re-apply with the new contractor to retain their positions in the South Carolina warehouse.  As part of the application process, the new contractor performed new criminal background checks on every current UTi employee applying for a position with the new contractor.  The new contractor discovered that several UTi employees had criminal convictions that purportedly disqualified them under BMW’s policy.  Those employees were not offered employment with the new contractor.

The Litigation and the Consent Decree

Both sides litigated aggressively, including filing cross motions for summary judgment, both of which were denied.  However, after two years, on September 8, 2015, a federal district court judge approved a Consent Decree, reflecting a settlement between the EEOC and BMW that requires BMW to

  • refrain from further use of the criminal record screening policy at issue in the litigation (Exhibit A to the contest decree);
  • continue to utilize its updated criminal record screening policy, which is fashioned to resemble the EEOC’s recommended best practices from April 2012;5
  • pay $1.6 million to 56 claimants in the litigation, in addition to other applicants not yet identified;
  • offer those 56 claimants, and up to 90 other applicants not yet identified, employment through a logistics labor contractor; and
  • train on the proper use of criminal background checks and maintain pertinent records.

EEOC v. Freeman

On August 9, 2013, a federal district court judge in Maryland dismissed, without a trial, the EEOC’s Title VII suit against Freeman over alleged discriminatory background checks based largely on fatal flaws in the EEOC’s expert report—described by the court as “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”  In that case, the EEOC alleged that Freeman’s criminal checks had a disparate impact on African American and male applicants, and that the credit checks had a disparate impact on African American job applicants.

On February 20, 2015, in a unanimous decision by the three-judge panel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, which stemmed from the exclusion of the EEOC’s expert reports, noting the “district court found a ‘mind-boggling’ number of errors and unexplained discrepancies.”  A separate concurring opinion was written to address what one judge referred to as “disappointing litigation conduct” by the EEOC, including continued reliance on an expert whose testimony was “fatally flawed in multiple respects,” who previously had been used by the EEOC despite a “record of slipshod work, faulty analysis, and statistical sleight of hand.”  The concurring opinion further cautioned:

“The EEOC must be constantly vigilant that it does not abuse the power conferred upon it by Congress, as its ‘significant resources, authority, and discretion’ will affect all ‘those outside parties they investigate or sue’…The Commission’s conduct in this case suggests that its exercise of vigilance has been lacking. It would serve the agency well in the future to reconsider how it might better discharge the responsibilities delegated to it or face the consequences for failing to do so.” 

On September 4, 2015, the federal district court judge ordered the EEOC to pay approximately $1 million in attorneys’ fees to Freeman, which had sought $1.7 million to defend the litigation.  Although the judge recognized the EEOC’s interest in monitoring employer background screening policies, the judge almost chastised the EEOC in the opening paragraph of his order, stating:

"World-renowned poker expert Kenny Rogers once sagely advised, “You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em.  Know when to fold ‘em.  Know when to walk away.”  In the Title VII context, the plaintiff who wishes to avoid paying a defendant’s attorneys’ fees must fold ‘em once its case becomes so groundless that continuing to litigate is unreasonable, i.e. once it is clear it cannot have a winning hand.  In this case, once Defendant Freeman revealed the inexplicably shoddy work of the EEOC’s expert witness in its motion to exclude that expert, it was obvious Freeman held a royal flush, while the EEOC held nothing.  Yet, instead of folding, the EEOC went all in and defended its expert through extensive briefing in this Court and on appeal.  Like the unwise gambler, it did so at its peril.  Because the EEOC insisted on playing a hand it could not win, it is liable for Freeman’s reasonable attorneys’ fees."

Whether the EEOC will appeal the decision remains to be seen. 

Takeaways for Employers

Odds are the settlement will embolden the EEOC, notwithstanding the award in Freeman, and thus employers, particularly multi-state employers, should continue to monitor this and related areas of the law, including the so-called “ban the box” laws.6  Employers that use criminal records (or credit checks) to screen applicants or employees should continue to consider the following:

  • Employers that want to assess potential disparate impact risks should consider conducting a privileged review of their screening policies to help identify areas of opportunity to fortify Title VII compliance.  Questions to consider include whether the policy:
    • incorporates variation for different roles within the company;
    • strategically sequences the consideration of criminal records and other types of background information;
    • accounts for the developing body of criminological literature discussing recidivism; and
    • requires confidential handling and destruction of sensitive information.

Employers also should continue to be mindful of, and comply with, the federal and state fair credit reporting laws, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (where a the storm of class actions against employers has not yet abated).7

 

2 For a comprehensive review of the EEOC’s updated guidance and related legal concerns, including applicable state law compliance issues, see Barry Hartstein, Rod Fliegel, Jennifer Mora and Marcy McGovern, Criminal Background Checks: Evolution of the EEOC’s Updated Guidance and Implications for the Employer Community, Littler Report (May 17, 2012).

3 See Barry Hartstein, Rod Fliegel, Jennifer Mora and Carly Zuba, Update on Criminal Background Checks: Impact of EEOC v. Freeman and Ongoing Challenges in a Continuously Changing Legal Environment, Littler Insight (Feb. 23, 2015).

4 See Rod Fliegel and Jennifer Mora, Weathering the Sea Change in Fair Credit Reporting Act Litigation in 2014, Littler ASAP (Jan. 6, 2014); Rod Fliegel, Jennifer Mora and William Simmons, The Swelling Tide of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Class Actions: Practical Risk-Mitigating Measures for Employers, Littler Report (Aug. 1, 2014).

5 See Rod Fliegel, Barry Hartstein, and Jennifer Mora, EEOC Issues Updated Criminal Record Guidance that Highlights Important Strategic and Practical Considerations for Employers, Littler Insight (Apr. 30, 2012).

6 See Jennifer Mora, Jennifer Warberg and Philip Gordon, Oregon to Become the Latest State to Ban the Box, Littler ASAP (Jun. 22, 2015); Jennifer Mora, David Warner, and Rod Fliegel, New York City Council Bans the Box, Littler Insight (Jun. 12, 2015).

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Littler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Littler
Contact
more
less

Littler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.