CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC (14-1375)

argument 14-1375

CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 5 speakers 6 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue before the Supreme Court in CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case fourteen thirteen seventy five. CRS T van Expedited versus the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mr Smith.

Mr. Smith 0:11

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. On the issue we initially asked this court to resolve in the petition for Sir Sharari, uh the parties are now in complete agreement. Uh that issue, of course, was whether a prevailing defendant in a Title VII case is barred from seeking attorney's fees if it hasn't prevailed on the merits. Uh as we showed in our opening brief, uh such a rule which exists only in the eighth circuit makes little sense. It doesn't it's necessarily not compelled by the statutory language and doesn't serve any uh rational statutory policy to take away the the power uh to award fees in in a in a case of a non merits disposition. The EOC, uh having staunchly defended that uh rule in its brief in opposition,

Mr. Smith 0:52

did it executed in about face and its merits brief and now agrees with us that a non merits disposition can be the basis of a f a defendant attorney's fee award. under title сев. For that reason and for all the reasons in our opening merits brief, which the government apparently found convincing at least, uh we would suggest that uh the the um uh court should should reverse the eighth circuit's ruling and uh resolve the circuit conflict and and rule that uh prevailing defendants can seek fees as long as they meet the Christiansburg standard, whether or not the disposition was on the merits. Uh there are no questions about that. The second issue is what do we do

Elena Kagan 1:30

Isn't the standard whether the uh EOC's actions were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

Mr. Smith 1:39

That is the Christiansberg standard, yes, Your Honor.

1:40

Yes.

Elena Kagan 1:41

So What difference does it make? on what ground it was dismissed. I couldn't agree more. I I I I've been reading these briefs and with or without prejudice, merits, non merits. I don't know that even if a jud if a judge gets to that point of deciding whether it was on the merits or not, that's not enough. You always have to decide the bottom line.

Mr. Smith 2:07

Right. But the Eighth Circuit's rule was that even if it was frivolous or unreasonable or without foundation, if the reason it was frivolous or unreasonable without foundation was the fact that it was race judicata or it was time barred or something like that. It wasn't

Unknown 2:19

the slightest suggestion of any frivolity or groundlessness. to this complaint.

Mr. Smith 2:26

Well, Your Honor, there certainly is, as the case uh turned out, they never had any foundation whatever for bringing this class claim. They never had any pattern of practice that they could identify and and prove.

Unknown 2:38

The claim was that Many women had been harassed by lead drivers, not one but many.

Mr. Smith 2:47

Well that was that was the allegation, Your Honor. But in order to bring a class claim, a collective claim under uh Title seven, what the EOC needs is a pattern or practice, which means either an express policy that's discriminatory or some unexpressed standard operating procedure. That's the term the court used in the Teamsters case. In the absence of that, what you have is a

Unknown 3:07

I thought that was the whole thing. that the company was not giving the lead drivers adequate training, to put it bluntly, they were not taking sexual harassment seriously. Well your honor that was That was the complaint about the Employer that There were complaints about these lead drivers and the And the uh employer just uh Didn't take them seriously.

Mr. Smith 3:34

But what became clear as the case proceeded is that A, the the EOC never investigated any kind of pattern of practice at the investigatory phase. They only investigated two cases. And then when it when they started alleging that they had a pattern of practice and telling the court they wanted to go to trial on a pattern of practice, we we we filed a motion for summary judgment and said, what is your evidence that there's a consistent policy of disregarding these complaints? That there is a consistent failure and And the as Judge Reed found, the evidence didn't remotely support that.