Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
628 F. Supp. 1264 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a prima facie case of a "pattern or practice" of disparate treatment discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show not only the existence of a written policy but also provide some evidence that the policy was actually implemented and affected employees. The mere existence of facially discriminatory language in a personnel manual, without evidence of enforcement, is insufficient to prove that discrimination was the company's 'standard operating procedure.'
Facts:
- Sears, Roebuck and Co. maintained a Personnel Manual containing its employment policies.
- The manual included a policy subjecting women absent for pregnancy-related disabilities to lay-off, while persons absent for other temporary disabilities were not subject to the same lay-off provisions.
- The manual contained a policy providing for the involuntary transfer of pregnant women when appearance was deemed a factor in job performance.
- The manual had a policy granting male employees a paid day's absence when their wife gave birth, but did not grant a similar paid day's absence to female employees when they gave birth.
- These policies were documented in Sears' written materials during the relevant time period, commencing August 30, 1971.
- Sears asserted that these policies were long-discontinued and presented affidavits stating they were never enforced.
Procedural Posture:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a charge against Sears, Roebuck and Co. on August 30, 1973.
- The EEOC subsequently filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Title VII.
- The EEOC moved for partial summary judgment as to liability on five claims, asserting that certain Sears policies were discriminatory on their face.
- In its response, Sears argued that the policies were discontinued and that material issues of fact existed, specifically refuting that the policies were ever implemented against any employee.
- During the litigation, the EEOC withdrew two of the five claims on which it had sought summary judgment.
- The District Court is now ruling on the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment on the three remaining policy-based claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the mere existence of written policies in a company's personnel manual, which on their face appear to be discriminatory, suffice to establish a prima facie case of a "pattern or practice" of disparate treatment under Title VII, without any evidence that the policies were ever implemented or affected any employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Nordberg, District Judge
No. The mere existence of written policies that appear discriminatory on their face is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of a pattern or practice of disparate treatment under Title VII without evidence that the policies were actually implemented. In a pattern or practice disparate treatment case, the plaintiff has the initial burden to demonstrate that unlawful discrimination was the employer's 'standard operating procedure—the regular rather than the unusual practice.' The EEOC presented Sears' written policies but failed to identify any victims or provide any statistical or testimonial evidence showing that Sears ever enforced these policies. Citing Durant v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., Inc., the court held that a written provision that was never applied to any individual does not constitute a discriminatory policy. While a plaintiff need not identify every victim at the liability stage, it must produce some evidence—direct or circumstantial—to show the policy was actually followed. The court found no legal authority for the EEOC's theory that the existence of written discriminatory language creates a presumption of enforcement and, therefore, concluded the EEOC failed to establish its prima facie case.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in 'pattern or practice' discrimination cases based on written policies. It establishes that a 'smoking gun' in the form of a facially discriminatory policy is insufficient on its own; a plaintiff must also present evidence that the policy was enforced and had a real-world impact on employees. This ruling heightens the initial burden on plaintiffs like the EEOC, requiring them to move beyond textual evidence to demonstrate actual harm to survive summary judgment. Consequently, the decision protects employers from liability for historical, unenforced policies that may remain in outdated company manuals.
Unlock the full brief for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.