Another EEOC Embarassment

We last told you about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's amateurish handling of an antidiscrimination claim against a North Carolina law firm back in February, after a U.S. Magistrate sanctioned the agency for its failure to preserve evidence and ordered taxpayers to pay the law firm's legal fees. Now the EEOC has suffered the added indignity of having the case thrown out of court by an Obama appointee to the bench.

District Judge Catherine C. Eagles concluded that the EEOC didn't muster enough prima facie evidence to even warrant a case against Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice. In January 2013, the agency accused the employer of discriminating against Charlesetta Jennings, an office assistant, under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, after she contracted breast cancer and developed a condition that prevented her from lifting heavy boxes.

Unfortunately, lifting such objects was an "essential function" of Ms. Jennings's job, and her condition prevented her from doing a variety of tasks, including mail runs, supply replenishment, courier runs or trial support. In January 2011, two Womble Carlyle human resources managers met with Ms. Jennings and showed her the job description for a Special Services Assistant (SSA), her formal title. In February, the firm placed her on medical leave. Womble terminated her employment that August.

The EEOC argued that the only essential functions of Ms. Jennings's job were "copying, scanning, and printing," but as Judge Eagles notes, Ms. Jennings's testimony—and that of others—undermined that contention. The agency also argued that Ms. Jennings herself wasn't required to do much heavy lifting. Judge Eagles dryly notes that "while Ms. Jennings's personal experience is informative, the focus is on the SSA position generally." In other words, the EEOC can't unilaterally determine what's an essential function of a job, and what isn't. What's more, the agency can't "force Womble Carlyle to create a modified light-duty position, which the ADA does not require."

The EEOC likes to issue splashy press releases when it accuses employers of wrongdoing, but when it loses in court the agency rarely acknowledges the loss or removes the original charge from its website. Last week, North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson introduced a bill that would force the EEOC to be more transparent about its operations and "notify Congress within 14 days when a court has ordered sanctions against EEOC." Womble Carlyle's experience shows why that's an excellent idea.

Wall Street Journal, By: Mary Kissel