Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc.

Background

The EEOC brought this enforcement action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The complaint alleges that Hillstone engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional age discrimination against older people who applied for front-of-house positions at two of its New York City restaurants. The EEOC seeks injunctive relief and monetary relief for similarly affected employees.

The EEOC proposed dividing discovery and trial into two phases. The parties agreed that Phase 1 should address whether Hillstone engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination, Hillstone’s affirmative defenses, and injunctive relief if warranted. They also agreed that Phase 2 should address at least some individual claimants’ damages if Hillstone were found liable. They disagreed about whether Phase 1 should include damages for individual claimants who testified during that phase and whether it should include willfulness—the employer’s knowing or reckless disregard of whether its conduct violated the Act, which is required for liquidated damages.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that pattern-or-practice cases generally separate liability from individualized relief. Liability concerns whether discrimination was the employer’s regular practice toward a protected group. Individual damages require claimant-specific evidence, including the person’s qualifications, possible lawful reasons for the employment decision, pay rate, and efforts to reduce losses.

The court concluded that putting individual damages issues into Phase 1 would make discovery less efficient and could confuse the jury. If Hillstone prevailed on liability, there would be no need for Phase 2 discovery or testimony. If the EEOC prevailed, Phase 2 would still be needed for claimants who did not testify in Phase 1. The court therefore confined individual damages issues to Phase 2 discovery.

The court treated willfulness differently. Evidence about Hillstone’s intent, knowledge, or reckless disregard would overlap substantially with evidence concerning pattern-or-practice liability, including statistical evidence, individual testimony, company records, and testimony from Hillstone representatives. For efficiency and economy, the court allowed Phase 1 discovery to include evidence relevant to willfulness. It also explained that some willfulness issues could remain individualized and could be addressed in Phase 2, particularly because liquidated damages would be assessed for particular claimants.

Disposition

The court ordered that discovery be bifurcated. Phase 1 includes liability, Hillstone’s affirmative defenses, and injunctive relief if warranted. Phase 2 includes all damages-related issues, including the amount of any liquidated damages. Phase 1 may also include discovery of Hillstone’s intent, knowledge, or reckless disregard concerning age discrimination and violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The court denied without prejudice the parties’ requests to bifurcate the trial. It explained that the case had been referred to the magistrate judge for pretrial management only, and that decisions about trial conduct remained with the district judge. The Clerk was directed to terminate the letter motion at Docket 38.