Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AZ Metro Distributors, LLC
Docket: 15-cv-5370 (ENV) (PK)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York; August 18, 2017; Federal District Court
In September 2015, the EEOC initiated an action against AZ Metro Distributors, LLC, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act due to the termination of employees Archibald Roberts and Cesar Fernandez. A report and recommendation (R. R.) by Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo, dated December 20, 2016, addressed the EEOC's motion to strike several of AZ Metro's affirmative defenses, recommending that some defenses be granted and others denied. Specifically, the R. R. suggested granting the motion to strike the third, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses while denying it for the fourth and eighth.
AZ Metro previously sought a pre-motion conference to discuss a proposed motion to dismiss based on the EEOC's alleged failure to meet statutory prerequisites for filing suit, which was denied. In response to the complaint, AZ Metro asserted 31 affirmative defenses. The EEOC's motion to strike was referred to Magistrate Judge Kuo, who ultimately recommended partial granting of the motion. Both parties filed timely objections to the R. R., with the EEOC responding to AZ Metro's objections.
The standard of review for the magistrate judge’s recommendations allows the district judge to accept, reject, or modify findings based on objections, requiring a de novo review of any properly objected parts. The discussion specifically focused on the third, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses, which claimed complete defenses to the ADEA claims, with the third and sixth arguing noncompliance with statutory prerequisites and the fifth alleging unlawful retaliation by the EEOC.
Judge Kuo recommended striking several affirmative defenses based on a three-part legal framework for Rule 12(f) motions, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) no factual question exists that could allow the defense to succeed, (2) no legal question exists that could allow the defense to succeed, and (3) the plaintiff would be prejudiced by the defense's inclusion. AZ Metro contends Judge Kuo misapplied this framework, arguing that factual and legal questions exist that could allow its defenses to succeed, and that the EEOC would not face prejudice from discovery related to these defenses. However, the objections raised are merely reiterations of previously rejected arguments, failing to advance beyond those presented to Judge Kuo. She provided a comprehensive analysis of the third, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses, which satisfies the clear error standard of review, leading to the overruling of AZ Metro’s objections.
In contrast, the fourth and eighth affirmative defenses, characterized more as requests for attorney's fees and costs rather than true defenses, were not struck by Judge Kuo. The EEOC argued these should be stricken as they do not qualify as affirmative defenses. Upon de novo review, this objection is upheld; requests for fees and costs do not meet the criteria for affirmative defenses as they do not preclude liability if the plaintiff's claims are proven. Therefore, even if AZ Metro were awarded fees, these assertions would not defeat the plaintiff's claims, confirming their classification as improper affirmative defenses.
An affirmative defense can negate a plaintiff's claim if recognized by the district court or jury. The defendant improperly demanded fees and costs within affirmative defenses, which should instead follow after a case's merits are resolved. The referenced case, Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, allows for attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant if the plaintiff's action is deemed frivolous. Judge Kuo recommended not striking the fourth and eighth affirmative defenses, noting the EEOC did not move against the seventh defense, which also sought fees based on the same facts as the enforcement action. However, the inclusion of non-affirmative defenses complicates litigation and does not warrant pretrial discovery. The EEOC is prejudiced by the presence of these non-affirmative defenses, which clutter the pleadings. The failure to challenge the seventh defense does not prevent the striking of the other two. Under Rule 12(f), the court can remove insufficient defenses sua sponte. Consequently, the fourth, seventh, and eighth defenses are stricken from AZ Metro’s answer, allowing the defendant to seek fees if prevailing. Additionally, the third, fifth, and sixth defenses are also stricken. The court adopts Judge Kuo's recommendations as modified.
The third affirmative defense asserts that the plaintiff did not meet the statutory requirements to initiate the lawsuit. The sixth defense claims that, regardless of AZ METRO's burden of proof, the EEOC failed to conduct a fair investigation and to engage in good faith conciliation before filing the action. The fifth defense alleges that the EEOC retaliated against AZ METRO for its complaint to the Office of the Inspector General by continuing the litigation. Even if a de novo review had been applicable, the Court would have overruled AZ METRO's objections. The fourth defense contends that, without conceding the burden of proof, the EEOC acted in bad faith in pursuing the case, warranting an award of attorney's fees, costs, and sanctions against the plaintiff. The eighth defense claims that the EEOC engaged in biased investigations and improper determinations related to charges against Roberts and Fernandez, which caused damages to AZ METRO, including legal costs. Both the plaintiff and Judge Kuo have described these defenses as requests for attorney’s fees and costs, a characterization not contested by the defendant. The seventh affirmative defense states that the plaintiff's claims are unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, and vexatious, thus justifying an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions against the plaintiff in favor of the defendant.
