In Re Bemis Company, Inc.
279 F.3d 419, 2002 WL 115551 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is exempt from the class certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when it brings enforcement actions under Title VII. The EEOC acts primarily as a law enforcement agency vindicating the public interest, not as a representative of private parties.
Facts:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Bemis Company under Title VII.
- The lawsuit was brought on behalf of five named black employees and a larger 'class' of other black employees at the company.
- The EEOC alleged that these employees were victims of racial harassment.
- In its complaint, the EEOC sought compensatory and punitive damages for the group of employees.
Procedural Posture:
- The EEOC sued Bemis Company in federal district court (a court of first instance) on behalf of a group of employees.
- In its answer to the complaint, Bemis asserted as a defense that the EEOC had failed to comply with the class action requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
- The EEOC filed a motion to strike this defense from Bemis's answer.
- The district court granted the EEOC's motion to strike, ruling that the EEOC is not subject to Rule 23.
- Bemis Company, as petitioner, filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking permission under Rule 23(f) to appeal the district court's order.
- The Court of Appeals found the district court's order to be the 'functional equivalent' of a class certification decision and agreed to hear the appeal.
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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have to comply with the class action requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when it brings a Title VII enforcement action seeking damages on behalf of a group of employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No. The EEOC does not have to comply with the class action requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This issue is controlled by the Supreme Court's holding in General Telephone of the Northwest, Inc. v. EEOC, which established that the EEOC is exempt from Rule 23. The core reasoning is that the EEOC's primary role is that of a law enforcement agency acting to advance the public interest, not as a representative for private individuals in the manner of a typical Rule 23 class representative. Forcing the EEOC to satisfy Rule 23's procedural requirements would interfere with its prosecutorial discretion. The fact that the EEOC now seeks compensatory and punitive damages, a remedy unavailable at the time of General Telephone, does not change this fundamental principle, as the Supreme Court's recent decision in EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. affirmed that the EEOC remains the 'master of its own case.'
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the broad enforcement power of the EEOC, solidifying its unique status as a public prosecutor rather than a private litigant. It clarifies that the EEOC's authority, as established in General Telephone, was not diminished by the 1991 Civil Rights Act amendments that allowed for compensatory and punitive damages. This gives the EEOC significant leverage and flexibility in pursuing large-scale discrimination cases without the procedural hurdles of Rule 23 certification, which can be costly and time-consuming for private plaintiffs. Consequently, defendants in EEOC enforcement actions cannot use Rule 23 as a procedural shield to challenge the scope of the government's suit.
