U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Robert L. Reeves & Associates

MEMORANDUM *

The EEOC brought this Title VII action against Reeves & Associates, alleging pregnancy discrimination and sexual harassment against twelve female employees. In three separate orders, the district court granted summary judgment for Defendant on both claims. It also awarded Defendant $363,075.21 in attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and, after conducting a de novo review of the record, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment, vacate its award of attorneys’ fees, and remand for further proceedings.

Because the parties are familiar with the history and facts of this case, we do not recount them here.

I.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the EEOC, we conclude that the EEOC presented sufficient evidence of Saez’s satisfactory work performance and the discriminatory circumstances surrounding her termination to establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination. See Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 659-60 (9th Cir.2002). Further, although Reeves may have articulated non-discriminatory reasons for Saez’s termination, the EEOC has presented sufficient, specific evidence to…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur with the majority’s conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of the district court. In all other regards, I respectfully dissent.

I

With regard to Saez’s pregnancy claim, the EEOC has not produced sufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that Saez performed her job satisfactorily. Saez’s supervisor, Anna Reyes, specifically declared that “Saez refused to make photocopies, send facsimiles, deliver incoming packages that appeared heavy, [and] deliver outgoing packages to Federal Express Hub.” This caused Reeves to ask Reyes why she was working overtime. Reyes told Reeves that Saez was not performing her duties. Saez was then fired by Reeves and she came out of his office and accused Reyes of getting her fired. Saez does not deny this confrontation, she just says it was not hostile. Saez does not deny that she was negligently performing her duties, she only states that “she never refused” to do them. The fact that others were willing to testify that they thought Saez was performing satisfactorily does not at all contradict Reyes’ statements regarding specific incidents where Saez was not performing…