Tag Archives: title vi

EEOC Suit Against CVS Raises Concerns

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has challenged the legality of provisions commonly included in severance, separation or other settlements with employees being terminated. These provisions state that settlement benefits are to be paid only if the employee doesn’t file charges or otherwise communicate with the EEOC.

Employers planning to use such provisions should note a lawsuit filed by the EEOC against the nation’s largest integrated provider of prescriptions and health-related services, CVS Pharmacy.

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CA no. 14-cv-863 (N.D. Ill., 2014), the EEOC charges that CVS unlawfully violated employees’ right to communicate with the EEOC and file discrimination charges. The EEOC says CVS committed the violation through an overly broad severance agreement that included five pages of small print.

The lawsuit claims CVS violated Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employer conduct that constitutes resistance to the rights protected by Title VII.

The lawsuit also is notable because it is not filed in response to an investigation of a discrimination charge. According to the EEOC, Section 707 permits the agency to seek immediate relief without the same pre-suit administrative process that is required under Section 706 of Title VII, and does not require that the agency’s suit arise from a discrimination charge.

“Charges and communication with employees play a critical role in the EEOC’s enforcement process because they inform the agency of employer practices that might violate the law,” according to the EEOC attorney leading the litigation, John C. Hendrickson. “For this reason, the right to communicate with the EEOC is a right that is protected by federal law. When an employer attempts to limit that communication, the employer effectively is attempting to buy employee silence about potential violations of the law. Put simply, that is a deal that employers cannot lawfully make.”

EEOC District Director Jack Rowe added, “The agency’s most recent strategic enforcement plan identified ‘preserving access to the legal system’ as one of the EEOC’s six strategic enforcement priorities. That was no accident. The importance of employees’ ability to participate in the agency’s process, free from fear of adverse consequences, cannot be overstated. It is always difficult for an employee to report employer discrimination to federal law enforcement officials. Anything that makes that communication harder increases the risk that discrimination will go unremedied.”

The litigation showcases the need for employers to use caution when attempting to prevent employees from reporting to or cooperating with regulators investigating suspected discrimination or other legal violations. The EEOC’s challenge in the CVS litigation is not unique. Challenges have arisen under a wide range of federal and state laws.

The Labor Department Wage and Hour Division has rules that say employers will receive no shield from investigations by the agency or from enforcement of wage and hour laws on settlements with terminated employees that didn’t involve the division. The Justice Department and other government enforcement agencies often view confidentiality provisions as prohibited obstruction or retaliation. In addition, government investigators often view the existence of gag rules as evidence that an organization does not maintain the required culture of compliance.

The CVS litigation also cautions businesses against taking for granted the appropriateness of their current agreements with employees. The EEOC challenge is just one of several developments that can affect the design and use of severance, separation and other settlement agreements with employees intended to resolve employment discrimination claims. While many employers may assume they can safely use agreements used in connection with previous terminations, the CVS litigation highlights the potential advisability of seeking the advice of qualified legal counsel, even if the employer benefited from the advice of legal counsel in drafting the previous agreement.