« NLRB decides "Kentucky River" cases | Main | NLRB Case production report »
Release of EEOC claims wasn't retaliation
October 26, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
Agreements not to file EEOC charges may be unenforceable, but is offering such an agreement retaliation?
The 6th Circuit thought not in EEOC v. SunDance Rehabilitation (6th Cir 10/24/2006).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the employer, asserting retaliation claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Pay Act (EPA), and Title VII.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the EEOC, concluding that the employer's separation agreement was "facially retaliatory" under those acts (at least to the extent that it conditioned severance pay on a promise not to file an EEOC charge).
The 6th Circuit reversed.
Courts have upheld employees' waivers of claims under the ADEA, ADA, EPA, and Title VII. Whether the waiver of the right to file an EEOC charge is enforceable, however, is another matter. Purported prohibitions on filing EEOC charges have been held to be void and unenforceable as against public policy (the seminal case is EEOC v. Cosmair, Inc., L'Oreal Hair Care Div., 821 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir 1987)). The 6th Circuit itself has agreed with that approach (EEOC v. Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 177 F.3d 448 (6th Cir 1999)).
However, the court was not persuaded by the argument that the mere offer of a separation agreement containing such a prohibition amounted to actionable retaliation under the ADEA, ADA, EPA, or Title VII.
The court noted that its rejection of that argument was contrary to the EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on Non-Waivable Employee Rights, EEOC Notice 915.002.
EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court | Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101
