On September 9, 2008, in response to charges filed by 18 women, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this lawsuit against Sterling Jewelers, alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on sex-discriminatory employment practices. Specifically, the EEOC claimed that Sterling Jewelers intentionally discriminated against female sales employees by maintaining a system of excessively subjective promotion and compensation decisions and thereby permitting or encouraging managers to deny equal access to promotion and compensation to female employees. The EEOC claimed in the alternative that Sterling Jewelers maintained an excessively subjective system that had an illegal disparate impact on female retail sales employees. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief, including back pay, promotion, compensation for lost benefits and emotional suffering, and development of policies and programs to provide equal opportunities to women and eliminate the effects of past discrimination. The EEOC also sought to recoup the cost of its litigation. The litigation was brought on behalf of the 18 charging parties and all other similarly situated female employees.

The progress of the case has been slow because of numerous disputes over procedure and discovery.

On January 6, 2010, the Court (Judge Richard J. Arcara) denied Sterling's motion to dismiss all claims for conduct preceding the statute of limitations period for the first party to file charges with the EEOC. 2010 WL 86376 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that the EEOC was not bound by the statute of limitations, which applied only to individuals).

On July 15, 2010, the Court (Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy), among other things, allowed the charging parties to intervene in the proceedings to participate in argument over the scope of a protective order. 2010 WL 2803017 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). For contractual reasons the charging parties were pursuing their claims separately in a class-action arbitration and wanted to be able to receive discovery information from the EEOC, though they were prohibited from sharing information with the EEOC. See Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc.. The protective order was issued on July 23, 2011.

On April 25, 2011, the Court (Judge Richard J. Arcara) bifurcated the trial and discovery into two phases, liability (Stage I) and damages (Stage II). Stage I generally covered the issue of whether there was a disparate impact on female retail employees at Sterling to establish a pattern or practice of discrimination, while Stage II, would occur only if the EEOC prevailed at phase I, and covered the individual aspects of each employee's case and whether there was a legitimate business reason for the disparity. The EEOC sought to have the punitive damages determination included in phase I, but the Court rejected that approach. 788 F.Supp.2d 83 (W.D.N.Y. 2011).

The bifurcation was followed by extensive discovery dispute from 2011 to 2012.

On September 25, 2013, Sterling moved for partial summary judgment on the grounds that the EEOC failed to satisfy their obligation to conduct an investigation of Sterling's employment practices. EEOC did, in fact, conduct an investigation, but Sterling's claim was that this investigation did not suffice their obligation since it wasn't nationwide. To this, EEOC stated that the courts didn't have to inquire into the sufficiency of the investigation itself.

On March 10, 2014, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which granted the motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part. The court granted partial summary judgment on the finding that EEOC failed to prove that it satisfied its statutory obligation to conduct a pre-suit investigation, and denied Sterling’s motion to strike portions of EEOC’s Statement of Facts for the reason that it contained “statement[s] that rely on an admissible evidence not in the record, as well as legal argument and generalized conclusory statements”.

On May 15, 2014, EEOC filed a civil appeal arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the magistrate judge improperly reviewed the sufficiency of the EEOC, rather than whether there was an investigation.

The circuit court agreed and decided on September 9, 2015, to vacate the district court's summary judgment order, thus remanding the case for further proceedings.

On May 4, 2017, EEOC and Sterling entered into a consent decree. The court maintained jurisdiction for a period of three years and three months. Provisions included general injunctions against Sterling, the appointment of an employment practice expert to oversee and recommend changes within Sterling, training, and further additional internal procedures for implementing equal employment practices. While there was no award of attorneys fees, Sterling agreed to bear all expenses that would incur to implement the provisions of the consent decree.

The consent decree is ongoing.

Kenneth Gray - 06/14/2013
Jennifer Huseby - 10/11/2018


compress summary