Stating that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had “abandoned its role as a neutral investigator” and had made an “insupportable demand for compensatory damages as a weapon to force settlement” in a case involving an Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination claim, the Fifth Circuit orders the EEOC to pay approximately $225,000 attorneys’ fees and costs to the company.

A worker who was born without sweat glands needed to cool himself with water or a fan more frequently than others, and his employer allowed him to take breaks as needed. On one assignment, the employee felt nauseated after helping load feed barrels, and informed his supervisor that he could not load the barrels in the morning because it would be too hot and he would get sick. His supervisor told him that if he did not participate in loading the drums, he would “suffer the consequences.” The supervisor did not tell the worker that he could not take breaks, and did not tell the worker that he had to participate non-stop, only that he had to be present to help, the Court observed. When the worker did not show up to assist with the loading, the company terminated him, and he subsequently filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC.

The EEOC, according to the Court, had classified the case as a “cause determination” before completing its investigation. The company complained that an EEOC investigator assigned to the case “made insulting remarks during interviews; indicated disgust for the statements of management witnesses; raised her voice; rephrased witnesses’ statements to favor the charge; and selectively recorded portions of the statements,” the Court says. The EEOC did not respond to the company’s complaint, and also did not respond to numerous subsequent requests by the company to meet.

The Court agreed with a lower court that in dealing with employer, the EEOC did not attempt conciliation in good faith. “By repeatedly failing to communicate with [the company], the EEOC failed to respond in a reasonable and flexible manner to the reasonable attitudes of the employer,” the Court says. The award for attorney’s fees to the company is to date from the time the complainant testified in a deposition that he was not substantially limited in a major life activity because he could regulate his body temperature with breaks, fans, and air conditioning; and that he was not denied reasonable accommodation because he was capable of performing manual labor when given breaks to cool off and that the company had never denied him a break. The Court agrees with the lower court that “the EEOC was absolutely unjustified in proceeding past the deposition” of the complainant.

“The EEOC must vigorously enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act and ensure its protections to affected workers, but in doing so, the EEOC owes duties to employers as well: a duty reasonably to investigate charges, a duty to conciliate in good faith, and a duty to cease enforcement attempts after learning that an action lacks merit,” the Court concludes. EEOC v. Agro Distribution