Court Determines That EEOC Pattern Or Practice Claim Against Bloomberg Lacks Merit For Want Of Statistical Support Or Compelling Anecdotal Evidence

On August 17, 2011, Judge Loretta Preska in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York issued a decision putting a resounding end to nearly four years of litigation in EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2011). In 2007, the EEOC accused Bloomberg of violating Title VII by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against pregnant employees or those who recently returned from maternity leave. Bloomberg had 603 employees who were pregnant or took maternity leave between 2002 and 2009 – 78 of whom the EEOC claimed were victims of discrimination. In granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the Court held that it “cannot say that the EEOC has proffered evidence from which a fact-finder could conclude that Bloomberg engaged in a . . . practice of decreasing the pay, responsibility, or other terms and conditions of employment” of its alleged victims. Id. at 2. In so doing, the Court took the EEOC to task on the very underpinnings of its case theory, and issued a stunning rebuke to the Commission in one of its highest-profile cases.

 

To read this blog post click here