Sterling jewelers paperless pay12/28/2023 ![]() ![]() Klein, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York, N.Y., David Bennet Ross, William F. 14 1782 Commission, Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C. Goldstein, on the brief), Equal Employment 3 No. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s summary judgment order and REMAND the case for further proceedings. The EEOC conducted an investigation in this case. Under Title VII, courts may review whether the EEOC conducted an investigation, but not the sufficiency of an investigation. On appeal, the EEOC argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the magistrate judge improperly reviewed the sufficiency of the EEOC investigation rather than whether there was an investigation. Arcara, J.) adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, and granted summary judgment to Sterling. On March 10, 2014, the district court (Richard J. McCarthy, J.) issued a Report and Recommendation finding that the EEOC failed to prove that it satisfied its statutory obligation to conduct a pre suit investigation and recommended summary judgment on that basis. After discovery, the magistrate judge (Jeremiah J. (“Sterling”) engaged in a nationwide practice of sex based pay and promotion discrimination. 14 1782 Defendant Appellee Sterling Jewelers Inc. _ This case arises from an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) enforcement action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. _ Before: WALKER, LYNCH, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. STERLING JEWELERS INC., Defendant Appellee. 14 1782 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff Appellant, v. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit _ AUGUST TERM, 2014 ARGUED: DECIDED: SEPTEMNo. Under Title VII, courts may review whether the EEOC conducted an investigation, but not the sufficiency of an investigation. Because the EEOC conducted an investigation in this case, the court vacated the summary judgment order and remanded for further proceedings.ġ4 1782 EEOC v. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the magistrate judge improperly reviewed the sufficiency of the EEOC investigation rather than whether there was an investigation. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation, granting summary judgment to Sterling. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation finding after conducting discovery and found that the EEOC failed to prove that it satisfied its statutory obligation to conduct a pre‐suit investigation and recommended summary judgment on that basis. 2000e et seq., alleging that Sterling engaged in a nationwide practice of sex‐ based pay and promotion discrimination. The EEOC filed suit against Sterling under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |