Serrano v. Cintas Corp.

5 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Looking Backwards and Forward: A Review of Key EEOC Developments, Successes and Failures in FY 2015 and What to Watch For in FY 2016

    Littler Mendelson, P.C.Barry HartsteinNovember 23, 2015

    However, on March 3, 2015, the court issued a judgment in favor of the EEOC, finding that: (1) the EEOC did respond to 3 of the 4 requests and the employer should have amended its complaint and argued that the EEOC’s responses were inadequate; and (2) “the Court finds that Texas Roadhouse must first appeal to the EEOC the EEOC’s decision to redact or withhold certain documents pursuant to FOIA exemptions,” and “the Court will dismiss without prejudice Texas Roadhouse’s FOIA claims so that Texas Roadhouse first may administratively exhaust those claims.”EEOC v. Texas Roadhouse, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25468 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 3, 2015).61SeeEEOC v. Cintas Corporation, Case No. 2:04-cv-40132-SFC-RSW, Docket No. 1095 (E.D. Mich.) (Amended Complaint filed Mar. 13, 2013).62InSerrano & EEOC v. Cintas,699 F. 3d 884 (6th Cir. 2012),reh’g en banc, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1684 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2013),cert. denied, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 6874 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court and held that the EEOC could pursue a “pattern or practice” claim under Section 706.

  2. When Must Executives Testify in Corporate Litigation? Wisconsin Judge Provides Insight

    Foley & Lardner LLPNathan ImfeldMarch 16, 2016

    As Epic noted in its briefing on the issue, not all federal circuits recognize the doctrine. See, e.g., Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884, 902 (6th Cir. 2012) (reversing a lower court decision relying on the doctrine, and explicitly rejecting it in favor of basic Rule 26(c) analysis). Further, the doctrine is limited by its terms to executives at fairly large organizations, as smaller firms will have a hard time satisfying a court that the executive has no first-hand knowledge of a dispute.

  3. Supreme Court Endorses Limited Review of the EEOC’s Conciliation Efforts

    Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLPJoyce TaberMay 5, 2015

    Besides the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Mach Mining, the Sixth and Eighth Circuits had also considered the issue. In Serrano et al. and EEOC v. Cintas Corporation, 699 F.3d 884 (6th Cir. 2012), the Sixth Circuit held that the EEOC was only required to show that it made a good faith effort to conciliate such that the employer had notice of the potential suit. In contrast, in EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 679 F.3d 657 (8th Cir. 2012), the Eighth Circuit concluded that the EEOC could only sue on behalf of individuals who it identified during conciliation, whose allegations were actually investigated, and on whose behalf the EEOC actually attempted to conciliate.

  4. Waiting for the Dust to Settle: Mach Mining and the Future of the EEOC's Duty to Conciliate in Good-Faith Prior to Civil Litigation

    Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLCGordon MowenNovember 24, 2014

    In the middle, three circuits (the Fourth, Sixth and Tenth) have found that the conciliation precondition is subject to judicial review, but under a deferential standard. Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884, 904 (6th Cir. 2012). The Eighth and Ninth circuits have also subjected the EEOC’s conciliation efforts to fairly strict judicial review, but neither circuit has articulated a specific standard.

  5. Sixth Circuit

    Outten & Golden LLPPaul MollicaApril 5, 2011

    Outcome on Appeal: Reversed [plaintiff]. Grounds: No LMRA preemption of state civil-rights law claim, where complaint did not refer to CBA (only invoked by employer).Request for accommodation - that she receive help moving/carrying patients receiving x-rays - did not implicate CBA rights.EEOC v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884, 116 FEP 801 (6th Cir. 2012). Panel: MOORE, Alarcon [GIBBONS, concurring in part].