Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Bloomberg L.P.

778 F.Supp.2d 458

113 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 150

94 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,259

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,

v.BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant.Jill Patricot, Tanys Lancaster, Janet Loures, Monica Prestia, Marina Kushnir and Maria Mandalakis, Plaintiffs–Intervenors,

v.Bloomberg L.P., Defendant.

No. 07 Civ. 8383(LAP).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Aug. 16, 2011.

Elizabeth Anne Grossman, Raechel Lee Adams, Robert David Rose, Christine Jiyeun Back, Kam Sau Wong, Konrad Batog, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office, New York, NY, Justin Mulaire, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.Milo Silberstein, William J. Dealy, Dealy & Silberstein, LLP, Richard Alan Roth, The Roth Law Firm, PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs–Intervenors.Eric S. Dreiband, Hannah M. Breshin, Sherron Thomas McClain, M. Carter Delorme, Stephanie Holmes, Tonya M. Osborne, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Thomas H. Golden, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Vicki Renee Walcott–Edim, Jones Day, New York, NY, for Defendant.

Opinion & Order

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief Judge.

In a heralded complaint, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accused Bloomberg L.P. of engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against pregnant employees or those who have recently returned from maternity leave in violation of Title VII, 42 United States Code. However, “J'accuse!” is not enough in court. Evidence is required. The evidence presented in this case is insufficient to demonstrate that discrimination was Bloomberg's standard operating procedure, even if there were several isolated instances of individual discrimination. As its standard operating procedure, Bloomberg increased compensation for women returning from maternity leave more than for those who took similarly lengthy leaves and did not reduce the responsibilities of women returning from maternity leave any more than of those who took similarly lengthy leaves.

The law requires that employers not discriminate against pregnant women on the basis of their pregnancy. Considering the evidence, not the accusations, the Court cannot say that the EEOC has proffered evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that Bloomberg engaged in a systemized practice of decreasing the pay, responsibility, or other terms and conditions of the employment of pregnant employees and mothers because they became pregnant or took maternity leave. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's pattern or practice claim.

I. BACKGROUND

The basic allegations and procedural history of this case are stated adequately in the Court's prior opinions, with which the Court assumes familiarity. EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P. ( Bloomberg II), 751 F.Supp.2d 628 (S.D.N.Y.2010); EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P. ( Bloomberg I), No. 07 Civ. 8383, 2010 WL 3466370 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010). Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought a case on behalf of a class of similarly situated women who were pregnant and took maternity leave (“Class Members”), asserting that Defendant Bloomberg L.P. (“Bloomberg”) engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of the class members' sex and/or pregnancy. The EEOC alleges that Bloomberg reduced pregnant women's or mothers' pay, demoted them in title or in number of directly reporting employees (also called “direct reports”), reduced their responsibilities, excluded them from management meetings, and subjected them to stereotypes about female caregivers, any and all of which violated the law because these adverse employment consequences were based on class members' pregnancy or the fact that they took leave for pregnancy related-reasons. The EEOC asserted the same claims on behalf of several individual claimants. The EEOC also brought a retaliation case on behalf of several individual claimants, but that portion of this lawsuit has been dismissed for failure to conciliate those claims out of court. Bloomberg II, 751 F.Supp.2d at 643. The EEOC did not bring a hostile work environment claim. Before the Court is Bloomberg's motion for summary judgment on the pattern or practice claim only.¹

The relevant facts are not disputed. Bloomberg is an international financial services and media company that provides news, information, and analysis. (Bloomberg R.56.1 ¶ 11.) Its core business is providing the Bloomberg terminal, but it has a website, television and radio stations, a broker-dealer service with an electronic trading platform, and a 24–hour global news service. ( Id. ¶¶ 12–18.) Bloomberg employs over 10,000 people. ( Id. ¶ 20.) Bloomberg identified to EEOC 603 Bloomberg employees who were pregnant or took maternity leave in the class period between February 1, 2002, and March 31, 2009. ( See id. ¶ 9.) In this lawsuit, three individuals were included in the original complaint, and the EEOC has identified a total of 78 individuals who have claims of discrimination. ( Id. ¶ 10; EEOC R.56.1 ¶ 113.)

Bloomberg is divided into functional divisions, which are further divided geographically. (Bloomberg R.56.1 ¶¶ 24–25.) Bloomberg went through a major restructuring in 2001 and it regularly restructures its business units. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 26, 29.) Bloomberg's founding philosophy was “hard work, cooperation, loyalty up and down, [and] customer service.” ( Id. ¶ 33.) It has “very high standards for people” and demands much “in terms of expertise [and] commitment to the job.” ( Id. ¶ 32.) One manager stated that “everyone at Bloomberg has ... a work/life balance issue because [everyone] work[s] very hard.” ² ( Id. ¶ 34.) Indeed, men and women have complained about their ability to balance family life and their workload at Bloomberg. ( Id. ¶ 35.) The “Code of Standards” for Bloomberg employees is forthright about this fact of life at the company. It states that Bloomberg “is your livelihood and your first obligation.” (EEOC R.56.1 ¶ 90.) But the founder of Bloomberg started the company with the philosophy that “you pay people a lot and expect a lot from them,” thinking “that's a good way[ ] for the employees and the company to succeed together.” (Bloomberg R.56.1 ¶ 36.) However, before 2008, Bloomberg did not have a robust training program or formal policy regarding pregnancy discrimination. (EEOC R.56.1 ¶ 100.)

Compensation at Bloomberg, as in most for-profit enterprises, signals to some degree an employee's performance. At least during the times at issue here, compensation at Bloomberg included both a base salary and variable, additional compensation known as Equity Equivalence Certificate (“EEC”) grants that were redeemable one year after they were granted. (Bloomberg R.56.1 ¶¶ 38, 41.) EEC grants had an “intended value” based on projected company (not individual) performance, and the intended value of EEC grants plus base salary comprised an employee's total intended compensation for a given year. ( Id. ¶¶ 39–40.) The actual value of an EEC grant could differ from its intended value based on actual company (not individual) financial performance; actual value was determined upon redemption. ( Id. ¶¶ 41–42; Bloomberg Reply R.56.1 ¶ 113.) The change in the raw number of EEC grants from year to year did not indicate better or worse performance because an EEC grant did not have a constant intended or actual value year to year. (Bloomberg Reply R.56.1 ¶ 113.) Therefore, an employee's intended compensation for a given year, rather than actual compensation, is the relevant comparative metric for employee compensation.

An employee who performs well generally would receive an increase in total intended compensation (a combination of base salary and EEC grants) each year. (EEOC R.56.1 ¶ 111.) Among employees in the same group, those who performed relatively better generally would receive relatively larger increases in compensation. ( Id.) Poor performers would receive decreased EEC grants, with a grant of zero EECs signaling that employee's likely termination. ( Id.) Procedural elements of this system were changed slightly in early 2009. (Bloomberg R.56.1 ¶ 43.) Bloomberg offers benefits including health insurance that covers fertility treatments, prenatal care, and pregnancy-related disability, and it offers twelve weeks of paid maternity leave and four weeks of unpaid maternity leave for primary caregivers (at least in its United States offices). ( Id. ¶ 45.)

Head managers of each business unit are responsible for hiring, compensation, and responsibilities of each employee. (EEOC R.56.1 ¶ 96.) Although the chairman of Bloomberg has ultimate authority over compensation decisions, other aspects of employment are determined by managers. ( Id.) Managers make compensation decisions using an online tool that sets forth guidelines and a budget for the manager. (Bloomberg Reply R.56.1 ¶ 102.) Bloomberg also provides formal training about compensation decisions, including specific admonitions not to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy or gender. ( Id.) Compensation is determined by objective, business-centered standards. ( Id.) For example, sales employees are evaluated on commissions generated, new accounts, revenue targets, and monthly sales calls and meetings, while news employees are evaluated based on breaking news, corrections, and readership. ( Id.) These metrics were communicated to managers in performance evaluation forms and by way of mentoring and one-on-one training. ( Id.) There are no written guidelines for determining the compensation of new hires; that decision is left to the discretion of the hiring manager. ( Id. ¶ 102.) Compensation and other employment decisions generally are within the discretion of managers. (EEOC R.56.1 ¶ 102.) Bloomberg does not follow a “traditional” structure for promotions or job titles. ( Id. ¶ 109; Bloomberg Reply R.56.1 ¶ 109.)

To illustrate how these systems played out objectively, Bloomberg presented two...