EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILSON METAL CASKET COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant

24 F.3d 836, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11727, 64 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,064, 64 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1402

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 1994
• Docket: 92-6643
• Status: Published

Opinions

KEITH, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHNSTONE, Senior District Judge, joined. RYAN, Circuit Judge (pp. 843^45), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

DAMON J. KEITH, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-Appellant, Wilson Metal Casket Co. (‘Wilson Metal”), appeals the district court’s judgment for Plaintiff-Appellee, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), in an employment action for sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the district court’s (1) grant of relief to Dawn McMullan; (2) award of medical expenses to Ellis as a part of her back pay award; and (3) its grant of injunctive relief. We REVERSE the award of the full amount of accrued prejudgment interest and award & of the accrued prejudgment interest.

I.

Wilson Metal, a Tennessee corporation owned arid operated by Elmer Wilson (Wilson”), hired William Ellis on January 11, 1974 and Barbara Ellis on August 6, 1979. William and Barbara are married. Wilson Metal employed Dawn Bryan McMullan (“McMullan”) on April 20, 1987.

In 1982, while Barbara Ellis’ husband was on temporary medical leave, Wilson relocated Barbara’s work station to a building separate from the main plant. Wilson repeatedly followed Barbara Ellis as she walked through the building and whenever she reached an isolated spot he grabbed her, held her, kissed her, and fondled her, touching her breasts and buttocks. He also made sexual comments, requested she meet him after working hours, and forced her to accompany him to isolated areas of the plant and to perform oral sex on him. When William Ellis returned to work, Wilson moved Barbara Ellis’ work station back to the main plant and stopped demanding oral sex. The sexual harassment, however, continued.

On September 18, 1984, William Ellis phoned Wilson at home and said he knew Wilson was having an affair with his wife and demanded that it stop. Wilson’s wife overheard her husband’s side of the conversation and became upset. Wilson announced the incident at a meeting of his employees, including the Ellises. The Ellises denied any allegations of a sexual relationship between Wilson and Barbara Ellis. Wilson, however, fired the Ellises and gave them separation slips which stated they were terminated because of the telephone call and its effect upon Mrs. Wilson.

In 1987, Dawn McMullan worked for Wilson Metal for approximately three months. During McMullan’s employment, anytime she was in isolated parts of the plant, Wilson fondled her breasts and buttocks, and sexually propositioned her. In July 1987, McMul-lan telephoned Wilson and told him she was not coming to work that day because of his continued sexual advances. Wilson told her she was terminated.

On October 31, 1984, William and Barbara Ellis filed separate charges with the EEOC alleging Wilson Metal discriminated against them and other female employees by either subjecting them to sexual harassment or retaliating against their protests of sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. After an investigation, the EEOC found reason to believe: (1) Wilson Metal had sexually harassed Barbara Ellis; (2) Wilson Metal discharged William and Barbara Ellis because they objected to Wilson’s sexual harassment; (3) Wilson engaged in a common practice of making sexual advances toward female employees; and (4) at least two other female employees were forced to quit because of Wilson’s advances. Attempts to conciliate the charges failed in June 1988, and September 1988, the EEOC filed suit in federal district court.

A magistrate judge conducted a trial and submitted a report and recommendation to the district court finding: (1) the EEOC proved a hostile working environment existed at Wilson Metal; (2) Wilson Metal discharged William and Barbara Ellis in retaliation for their objections to sexual harassment of female employees; and (3) Dawn McMul-lan was constructively discharged. The district court adopted the findings regarding liability but found that the magistrate clearly erred by denying Barbara Ellis medical expenses as part of her back pay award, and by denying prejudgment interest on all back pay awards. This timely appeal followed.

II.

On appeal, Wilson Metal argues the district court erred by: (1) including McMul-lan’s claim in this action because she failed to file a complaint with the EEOC; (2) rejecting the magistrate’s recommendation to deny an award for medical expenses; (3) awarding prejudgment interest; and (4) imposing an overly broad injunction that was not narrowly tailored to the unlawful conduct. We will discuss each allegation of error below.

A.

Wilson Metal argues the district court erred by granting relief to McMullan because (1) she failed to file a charge with the EEOC as required by statute; and (2) her claim did not arise during the same time frame as Ellis’ claim. The district court granted McMullan’s request for relief stating McMul-lan’s claim fell within an exception to the filing requirement known as the “single filing rule.” We agree.

Timely filing of an EEOC complaint is a prerequisite to a Title VII suit. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); Allen v. United States Steel Corp., 665 F.2d 689, 695 (5th Cir.1982). The purpose of the Title VII filing requirement is to give notice of potential Title VII liability to an alleged wrongdoer and to allow the EEOC to attempt to conciliate with the wrongdoer rather than go to court. Foster v. Gueory, 655 F.2d 1319, 1323 (D.C.Cir.1981). Many courts, however, have recognized an exception to the EEOC filing requirement known as the “single filing rule.”¹ For example, the Eleventh Circuit adopted the “single filing rule” stating that “[i]n a multiple-plaintiff, non-class action suit, if one plaintiff has filed a timely EEOC complaint as to that plaintiff’s individual claim, then co-plaintiffs with individual claims arising out of similar discriminatory treatment in the same time frame need not have satisfied the filing requirement.” Ezell v. Mobile Housing Board, 709 F.2d 1376, 1381 (11th Cir.1983).

The rationale behind the “single filing rule” is the belief that it would be wasteful for numerous employees with the same grievances to file identical complaints with the EEOC. See Wheeler v. American Home Products Co., 582 F.2d 891, 897 (5th Cir.1977). Consequently, we join the above circuits and hold where a substantially related non-filed claim² arises out of the same time frame as a timely filed claim, the complainant need not satisfy Title VII’s filing requirement to recover. See Ezell, 709 F.2d at 1381.

Here, the claims of sexual discrimination are virtually identical. Wilson sexually propositioned and harassed both Ellis and McMullan at work. Clearly, Wilson engaged in a common practice of sexual harassment of female employees. Because the practice of sexual harassment in this case continued over a three year period, the claims arose during the same time period. Additionally, the EEOC’s letter of determination gave Wilson Metal notice of charges related to Ellis’ allegations and an opportunity to conciliate the charges. McMullan’s claim falls within the purview of the “single filing rule.”³ The district court properly granted McMullan relief.

B.

Next, Wilson Metal argues the district court clearly erred by rejecting the magistrate’s recommendation to deny an award of medical expenses to Barbara Ellis. The district court concluded the magistrate clearly erred by stating “no proof was introduced at trial showing that the Wilson medical plan would have covered Barbara Ellis’ expenses had she remained a Wilson employee” and awarded medical expenses to Barbara Ellis. We agree.

This court may only overturn a grant or denial of back pay upon a showing that the district court abused its discretion in fulfilling the purposes of Title VII. Albemarle v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 424, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2374-75,45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975). The remedial section of Title VII authorizes back pay and other compensation for economic losses sustained. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(l). ‘Victorious Title VII plaintiffs are presumptively entitled to back pay until the date judgment has been entered in the case.” Shore v. Federal Express Corp., 777 F.2d 1155, 1159 (6th Cir.1985); accord Rasimas v. Michigan Dep’t. of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614, 626 (6th Cir.1983) (“in absence of exceptional circumstances, back pay should always be awarded when a Title VII violation is found”). Although back pay awards consist primarily of wages, such awards may also include fringe benefits such as compensation for medical expenses incurred. Rasimas, 714 F.2d at 626; L. Larson, Employment Discrimination, Vol. 3, § 55.37(b).

The victim of discrimination must prove entitlement to back pay by providing information from which her damages can be determined. Wooldridge v. Marlene Industries Corp., 875 F.2d 540, 547 (6th Cir.1989) Once the victim has proven the amount of damages, “she is presumed to be entitled to the amount claimed unless the defendant can prove” otherwise. Id. On appeal, Wilson Metal must demonstrate that it proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Barbara Ellis was not entitled to medical benefits. Id.

Wilson Metal argues the magistrate correctly held there was no evidence that its medical plan would have covered Barbara Ellis’ medical expenses had she remained in Wilson Metal’s employment. Barbara Ellis, however, testified Wilson Metal’s medical plan provided 100% coverage for “medical expenses, hospitalization and doctor bills” with a $200 deductible, and that the plan would have covered her medical expenses. Ellis also stated that while an employee at Wilson Metal, she underwent a surgical procedure. According to Ellis, all her doctor bills and medications were completely covered by Wilson Metal’s medical plan less the deductible. Additionally, the EEOC presented testimonial and circumstantial evidence substantiating Ellis’ claims for medical expenses. Because Barbara Ellis proved her amount of damages, she was presumed to be entitled to that amount. Wilson Metal did not present any evidence to contradict this testimony, and therefore, failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Barbara Ellis was not entitled to an award covering her medical expenses.

Wilson Metal also contends that Ellis’ right to back pay was tolled during the time period when the medical expenses were incurred because she voluntarily withdrew from the workforce. Thus, according to Wilson Metal, her right to medical expenses was also tolled. In support of this proposition, Wilson Metal cites Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., 753 F.2d 1269, 1273 (4th Cir. 1985) and NLRB v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 360 F.2d 569 (5th Cir.1966). The instant case, however, is easily distinguished from the cited authority. In Brady and Miami Coca-Cola, the claimants either failed to seek employment or quit jobs for no apparent reason, and as a result, their right to back pay was tolled. Here, Barbara Ellis entered a hospital for medical care. There was no evidence that she entered the hospital for any other reason. Additionally, Barbara Ellis’ uncontradicted testimony stated the medical costs would have been covered had she been employed at Wilson Metal during that time even though she would not have been entitled to her wages. Although medical expenses are an element of a back pay award, in the instant case an award of medical expenses while back pay was tolled is consistent with the goals and purposes of Title VII to make victims of discrimination whole. Albemarle, 422 U.S. at 424, 95 S.Ct. at 2374-75. Barbara Ellis would not have incurred medical costs but for her unlawful termination. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Barbara Ellis medical expenses as a part of her back pay award.

C.

Wilson Metal next argues the district erred by rejecting the magistrate’s recommendation to deny prejudgment interest. The district court awarded prejudgment interest concluding the court found “no reason not to make complainants whole.” Although we agree in sentiment, we disagree in degree as discussed below.

A district court’s award of prejudgment interest is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173, 185, 65 S.Ct. 254, 260, 89 L.Ed. 160 (1944). An award of “prejudgment interest ... is an element of complete compensation” in a Title VII back pay award. Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 558, 108 S.Ct. 1965, 1971, 100 L.Ed.2d 549 (1988) (citations omitted). Prejudgment interest helps to make victims of discrimination whole and compensates them for the true cost of money damages they incurred. West Virginia v. United States, 479 U.S. 305, 310, 107 S.Ct. 702, 706, 93 L.Ed.2d 639 (1987). This court commonly awards prejudgment interest on back pay awards. See EEOC v. Wooster Brush Co., 727 F.2d 566, 578 (6th Cir.1984) (prejudgment interest added to “back pay awards [has] become reasonably common”).

Here, charges were filed with the EEOC in October 1984. In May 1988, after approximately four years of investigation, the EEOC filed a complaint in the district court. In August 1992, the district court entered judgment. Although we agree an employer who violated Title VII is not entitled to an interest free loan as to relief awarded, because processing this action took an inordinate amount of time, we find the district court abused its discretion in awarding the full amount of prejudgment interest.

We do, however, recognize that victims of discrimination should not be penalized for putative delays in the administrative or judicial process. See Williamson v. Handy Button Machine Co., 817 F.2d 1290, 1297 (7th Cir.1987). We, therefore, reverse the award of $29,980.12 in prejudgment interest and award lf¿ of the accrued prejudgment interest, $14,990.06.

D.

Finally, Wilson Metal argues the injunction in the instant case is overly broad and enjoins lawful conduct. Specifically, the injunction enjoins Wilson from “asking any female employee to accompany him off the premises of the Company unless accompanied by at least one other employee, and kissing or placing his hands on any female employee in the work place.” None of this conduct, according to Appellant is, in and of itself, unlawful.

A district court has broad discretionary powers to craft an injunction to the specific violations found to ensure that the employer complies with the law. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192, 201, 93 S.Ct. 1463 1469-70, 36 L.Ed.2d 151 (1973) (per Burger, C.J.) (“In equity, as nowhere else, courts eschew rigid absolutes and look to the practical realities and necessities inescapably involved in reconciling competing interests.”); Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329, 64 S.Ct. 587, 592, 88 L.Ed. 754 (1944) (“the essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mold each decree to the necessities of the particular case”). The proper scope of an injunction is to enjoin conduct which has been found to have been pursued or is related to the proven unlawful conduct. Nelson v. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 46, 899 F.2d 1557, 1564-65 (9th Cir.1990). “In fashioning relief against a party who has transgressed the governing legal standard, a court of equity is free to proscribe activities that, standing alone, would have been unassailable.” Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. v. Diversified Packaging Corp., et al., 549 F.2d 368, 390 (5th Cir.1977).

In the instant case, a distinct pattern of sexual harassment emerged. Wilson either waited until female employees were alone with him in isolated portions of the facilities or transferred them to isolated areas. Once they were isolated, he grabbed them and fondled their breasts and buttocks. With Barbara Ellis, in addition to unwanted fondling, Wilson forced her to engage in oral sex and sexual intercourse. Wilson also sexually propositioned female employees and asked them to accompany him off the company’s premises. Based on this pattern of behavior, the injunction appropriately enjoins conduct which allowed sexual harassment to occur. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion.

III.

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district court’s (1) grant of relief to Dawn McMullan; (2) award of medical expenses to Ellis as a part of her back pay award; and (3) its grant of injunctive relief. We REVERSE the award of the full amount of accrued prejudgment interest and award % of the accrued prejudgment interest.

1 . See Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094, 1100 (2d Cir.1986); Ezellv. Mobile Housing Brd., 709 F.2d 1376, 1381 (11th Cir.1983); Foster v. Gueory, 655 F.2d 1319, 1322 (D.C.Cir.1981); Wheeler v. American Home Products Corp., 582 F.2d 891, 897 (5th Cir.1977); Allen v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 788, 554 F.2d 876, 883 (8th Cir.1977).

2 . Other courts have defined the scope of "individual claims arising out of similar discriminatory treatment" on a case by case basis by examining the similarity of the claims. See Snell v. Suffolk Co., 782 F.2d 1094, 1101 (2d Cir.1986) ("All these incidents were of a similar nature and occurred at the Suffolk County Correction Facility within a three-year period."); Tolliver v. Xerox Corp., 918 F.2d 1052, 1058 (2d Cir.1990) (“Where the grievances arise in a work unit of modest size, ... mere similarity of the grievances within the same general time frame suffices to permit the 'single filing rule.’ "); Ezell v. Mobile Housing Brd., 709 F.2d 1376, 1381 (11th Cir. 1983) ("The question presented is ... whether Evans’ claim of discrimination was similar enough to either Ezell’s claim or Smith's claim for the district court to invoke the single filing rule.”).

3 .As the dissent aptly notes, our court has previously adopted the "reasonable investigation rule.” EEOC v. Bailey Co., Inc., 563 F.2d 439 (6th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 915, 98 S.Ct. 1468, 55 L.Ed.2d 506 (1978). In Bailey, this court held the scope of the EEOC's complaint is "limited to the scope of the EEOC investigation reasonably expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” Bailey, 563 F.2d at 447; see also EEOC v. Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097 (6th Cir.1984). While the “reasonable investigation rule” may also encompass McMul-lan’s claim, we believe the "single filing rule” directly addresses the issue of whether Title VII's filing requirement precludes McMuIlan's recovery.