It's tough for an employer to win an employee discrimination claim once the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) gets involved. It's even more difficult to win and get paid attorneys' fees.

Score one for employer Agro Distribution when a court recently ordered the EEOC to pay the company's legal fees after it concluded that the agency grossly mishandled an employee's frivolous lawsuit.

According to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the EEOC must pay nearly $225,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to defendant Agro after affirming a lower court's decision that the employee is not disabled under the definition in the Americans with Disabilities Act and that “the suit lacked foundation.”

Employee Henry Velez allegedly suffered from a medical condition that included the absence of sweat glands. Accordingly, his employer made special accommodation by allowing him to take regular breaks in order to cool down. After the employer assigned a new duty to all employees in his position, Velez complained that his condition prevented him from helping. The manager countered that the new duty – the unpleasant task of unloading dirty feed buckets, was similar work to the original position.

Velez filed a complaint with the EEOC. Following an on-site investigation, Agro's attorney wrote a letter to the EEOC, reporting that the investigator “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.” Attempts at settlement broke down, the EEOC refused to return calls, and then sued Agro.

Nearly nine years since the alleged violation, the appeals court concluded that “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. In this case, the EEOC abandoned its duties and pursued a groundless action with exorbitant demands. Then every employee in Velez's position was assigned a new duty the unpleasant task of unloading dirty, empty barrels that had been used to feed cattle. Velez told his boss his condition prevented him from helping.”

—Source: www.hrblunders.com and EEOC v. Agro Distribution LLC.