Facts conspicuously absent from the EEOC’s self-serving press release include: (1) in June, the federal district court granted summary judgment to AccentCare regarding the EEOC’s primary wrongful termination claim, 2017 WL 2691240 (N.D. Tex. June 21, 2017); (2) the Consent Decree merely resolved the remaining reasonable accommodation claim for nuisance value—a tiny fraction of the approximately $200,000 the EEOC had demanded; (3) additionally, the Consent Decree (a) has only a one year duration, instead of the five years the EEOC had demanded; (b) provides only minimal equitable relief, i.e., notice posting and one hour of ADA managerial training at one facility, not the broad company-wide/nation-wide relief the EEOC had demanded; (4) as part of the resolution, the Charging Party agreed to waive any claim for reinstatement and waived any ability to apply for reemployment in the future; and (5) the EEOC readily agreed to this minimalistic resolution to avoid an embarrassing defeat at trial which would have publicly revealed the slipshod “investigation” made by the EEOC before suit, i.e., the EEOC never bothered to obtain the Charging Party’s medical records which, when obtained after suit was filed, contradicted the Charging Party’s contention that her doctor had taken her off work status or that she needed additional leave.
Facts conspicuously absent from the EEOC’s self-serving press release include: (1) in June, the federal district court granted summary judgment to AccentCare regarding the EEOC’s primary wrongful termination claim, 2017 WL 2691240 (N.D. Tex. June 21, 2017); (2) the Consent Decree merely resolved the remaining reasonable accommodation claim for nuisance value—a tiny fraction of the approximately $200,000 the EEOC had demanded; (3) additionally, the Consent Decree (a) has only a one year duration, instead of the five years the EEOC had demanded; (b) provides only minimal equitable relief, i.e., notice posting and one hour of ADA managerial training at one facility, not the broad company-wide/nation-wide relief the EEOC had demanded; (4) as part of the resolution, the Charging Party agreed to waive any claim for reinstatement and waived any ability to apply for reemployment in the future; and (5) the EEOC readily agreed to this minimalistic resolution to avoid an embarrassing defeat at trial which would have publicly revealed the slipshod “investigation” made by the EEOC before suit, i.e., the EEOC never bothered to obtain the Charging Party’s medical records which, when obtained after suit was filed, contradicted the Charging Party’s contention that her doctor had taken her off work status or that she needed additional leave.