Supreme Court hears arguments on whether EEOC owes $4.7M in attorney fees

Dive Brief:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week over whether the EEOC should be held liable for attorney fees when the agency brings a suit but has its case dismissed. In this case, CRST Van Expedited Inc. claims they are owed $4.7M in attorney fees after a sexual harassment case against them was dismissed.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the EEOC did not owe the award, because CRST did not win "on the merits" and the case was instead dismissed because of the "EEOC's failure to carry out its obligations to investigate," SHRM reported.
If the ruling is reversed by the Supreme Court, it could be a "win for employers," SHRM reports, because they will be able to recollect legal fees if the EEOC takes them to court but it is revealed they did not "pursue meritorious claims."

Dive Insight:

Title VII allows defendants who "prevail on the merits" to obtain attorney fees if they can prove that the EEOC's position was "unreasonable or frivolous."

The EEOC's legal team now argues that because they could theoretically sue again regarding 67 sexual harassment claims against the trucking company (so long as they continue proper investigations), CRST could not be the "prevailing party" since the case was not technically settled.

CRST argues that when the district court "barred" the EEOC from pursuing the claims, they essentially handed victory to CRST, meaning they should be considered a "prevailing party" and owed the fees.

In the original case in 2012, an Iowa federal district court found that the EEOC failed to show "a pattern or practice of discrimination," and the 8th Circuit affirmed it.