The U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a response to an Illinois hog farm's motion to dismiss its Title VII sexual harassment suit on behalf of a transgender former employee.
The EEOC filed suit against Sis-Bro in Illinois federal court in March. The company's president insisted on calling the unidentified former employee by her former name and criticized her for seeking gender-affirming care when she began transitioning in 2018. The situation worsened, and the employee was forced to quit in October 2021 after a new employee touched her breasts, exposed himself to her, and made unwanted sexual advances. Most of the conduct happened with the knowledge of managers, who took no action to stop the harassment.
Sis-Bro Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the EEOC suit in May, arguing that its complaint identifies no one and lacks sufficient information to show that any harassment of the employee occurred or that she was forced to quit. However, the EEOC responded that the company is well aware of the former employee's identity and that its complaint contains plenty of facts to put Sis-Bro on notice of its claims and gives rise to a claim for relief, thus overcoming a motion to dismiss. Furthermore, the complaint identified the dates on which the incidents occurred, who committed the harassment, and what specifically occurred during those incidents. The allegations also described behavior with sufficient detail that rose to the level of "subjectively offensive."
Sis-Bro also argued that the EEOC's suit should be dismissed because much of the complained-about conduct occurred before the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. In Bostock, the Supreme Court extended the protections of Title VII to individuals experiencing discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity. Nonetheless, the EEOC pointed out that the Seventh Circuit and other courts have applied the Bostock decision retroactively.
The case is U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sis-Bro Inc., case number 3:24-cv-00968, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.