EEOC Ordered to Pay Attorneys' Fees for Filing Baseless, Unreasonable, and Frivolous Lawsuit Against Stokes Lawrence Clients
Related Practices: Agriculture, Business, Employment and Litigation
In a highly anticipated and rare decision issued yesterday in one of the EEOC's most high-profile cases, Judge Edward F. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington ordered the EEOC to pay attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs to defendants Valley Fruit Orchards, L.L.C. and Green Acre Farms, Inc. in the case of EEOC v. Global Horizons, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-11-3045-EFS. The EEOC claimed that Valley Fruit Orchards and Green Acre Farms, known as the Grower Defendants, were joint employers with defendant Global Horizons of a class of Thai workers brought to the United States under the H2-A visa program and that the Grower Defendants discriminated against these workers in their employment. Judge Shea's order was only with respect to claims brought against the Grower Defendants, not Global Horizons.
The Stokes Lawrence team defending the Grower Defendants includes Brendan Monahan, Justo Gonzalez and Olivia Gonzalez, along with former Stokes Lawrence attorney Beth Joffe. The Grower Defendants previously obtained summary judgment and dismissal of all claims brought against them by the EEOC on behalf of Thai workers employed by labor contractor Global Horizons, Inc. Global Horizons had assigned the Thai workers to work on Valley Fruit and Green Acre’s orchards in 2004 and 2005.
In yesterday's decision, the Court found that Valley Fruit Orchards and Green Acre Farms were in fact prevailing parties in a “frivolous” lawsuit filed by the EEOC, and entitled to recovery of their fees under 42 U.S.C. s2000e-5(k). In a 32-page order, Judge Shea meticulously documented the EEOC's failure to fulfill its Title VII mandate to conduct a reasonable and diligent investigation and conciliate in good faith before filing a Title VII lawsuit. Judge Shea concluded that that “the EEOC failed to conduct an adequate investigation before filing the lawsuit against the Grower Defendants and as a result its Title VII claim against the Grower Defendants were baseless, unreasonable, and frivolous.”
Judge Shea specifically focused on the Grower Defendants' pre-lawsuit communications with the EEOC where Stokes Lawrence attorneys repeatedly requested basic information regarding the allegations against their clients and advised the EEOC that the charges of discrimination failed to describe the purported discrimination with sufficient specificity so as to put the Grower Defendants on notice of their allegedly illegal conduct. Also troubling to Judge Shea were EEOC interview notes with Thai workers who had worked on the Eastern Washington farms that did not identify any unlawful discrimination, including hostile work environment, unfair treatment, or constructive discharge. The EEOC's refusal to examine work invoices and other documents the Grower Defendants repeatedly offered to share was another indication of the EEOC's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. In light of the vague and unexplained charges, the District Court determined that it was unsurprising that the Grower Defendants rejected the EEOC's pre-lawsuit demand for $30 million in monetary damages.
“This ruling represents a potent dose of accountability for the EEOC and a reminder for employers about the importance of engaging with the EEOC during the pre-lawsuit investigation and conciliation process,” noted Justo Gonzalez. “When this case started, the EEOC called it the largest human trafficking case in agriculture history, and referred to our clients as modern slave traders. The Court’s decision further validates that the accusations were false. The EEOC's sparse investigation and minimal efforts to cooperate with our clients before filing suit were fully documented, which increased the likelihood of a court agreeing with us that the EEOC's case was frivolous from the very start.”
