By: Michael A. Warner and Patrick M. DePoy
This week, a federal district court ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) made sufficient factual allegations of intentional discrimination against a local farming company to survive a motion to dismiss. What makes this case unusual is that the EEOC alleges discrimination against U.S.-born workers, a departure from a typical national-origin discrimination case that more often involves foreign-born workers.
According to the allegations in EEOC v. J&R Baker Farms LLC, a Georgia farm violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and engaged in unlawful discrimination by subjecting its American workers—both white and African American—to different terms and conditions of employment. For example, Baker Farms allegedly divided its work crews by national origin and race, with foreign, often Hispanic, workers placed in one group and American workers in another.
American workers were also allegedly held to higher production standards than their foreign coworkers. On one occasion, several American workers were fired for not meeting a vegetable-picking quota that had not been announced until after they were terminated; foreign workers reportedly had no quota at all. The EEOC also presented statistics that American workers were fired at a much higher rate than their foreign coworkers.
Baker Farms filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that the EEOC failed to present sufficient factual allegations. The company asserted the EEOC failed to identify any individuals who instituted these practices and failed to provide specific dates for the actions alleged, and therefore did not meet federal pleading standards. The district court disagreed and denied the motion to dismiss.
The court noted that on a motion to dismiss the EEOC need not prove its allegations, but instead must make plausible factual allegations which, if true, would support a claim of discrimination. The EEOC clearly identified a class of employees—U.S.-born workers—whom the defendants allegedly subjected to different, more rigorous terms and conditions of employment, which the court found sufficient to show intentional disparate treatment.
The court also relied on the EEOC’s statistical allegations regarding disproportionate termination of American workers. The EEOC alleged that the employer fired a large share of its American employees while increasing its foreign-born workforce. The court held that, if proven, these facts could support liability for disparate treatment in violation of Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination based on national origin.
The EEOC described Baker Farms as one example of what it calls “reverse” national-origin discrimination and noted concerns about negative stereotypes of U.S.-born workers’ work ethic or willingness to complain about injustice. Employers and businesses should be vigilant and remember that Title VII protects all workers of every race, color, creed and national origin.
Employers looking to review best practices and risk mitigation for similar claims can consult Employment discrimination cases and employer considerations for guidance on handling allegations and workplace policies.
For additional context on hiring statistics and how they relate to employer litigation risk, see Employment discrimination, hiring statistics, and employer litigation risk.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can U.S.-born workers bring a national origin discrimination claim?
Yes. Title VII protects all employees from discrimination based on national origin, including U.S.-born workers, when they are treated differently because of perceived national origin or related stereotypes.
What must the EEOC allege to survive a motion to dismiss?
The EEOC must make plausible factual allegations that, if true, would show intentional discrimination or disparate treatment; it does not need to prove the case at the pleading stage.
What types of evidence can support a discrimination claim?
Evidence can include policies or practices that treat groups differently, statistical disparities in hiring or firing, and specific examples of unequal treatment or harsher standards applied to one group.
How should employers respond to allegations of national origin discrimination?
Employers should investigate promptly, document their policies and decisions, train managers on nondiscrimination, and correct any problematic practices to reduce legal risk.