093764P.pdf   05/08/2012  Remcey Peeples  v.  CRST Van Expedited, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  09-3764
                          and No:  09-3765
                          and No:  10-1682
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. In an action by the EEOC
   alleging CRST subjected approximately 270 female employees to a hostile
   work environment in violation of Title VII, the district court did not err in
   dismissing the EEOC's claims as to 67 women because the EEOC failed
   to meet its statutory pre-suit obligations to investigate and conciliate their
   claims; district court did not abuse its discretion by judicially estopping
   two employees from pursuing their respective claims insofar as they may
   seek to subsequently intervene in the EEOC's action or otherwise seek
   relief individually; district court abused its discretion in judicially
   estopping the EEOC from suing its own name to correct any
   discriminatory employment practices that CRST allegedly perpetrated
   against three female employees; in CRST's work environment, a lead
   driver is not a supervisory employee and CRST is not vicariously liable for
   any harassment its lead drivers allegedly perpetrated against female
   trainees; with respect to several female employees, the district court did
   not err in finding that the harassment they allegedly suffered was neither
   sufficiently severe nor pervasive to support a hostile work-environment
   claim; however, the harassment suffered by one employee named Tillie
   Jones did meet the standard, and it was error to grant CRST summary
   judgment on her claims; with respect to another group of female
   employees, summary judgment for CRST was appropriate because of the
   EEOC's failure to fulfill its investigation and conciliation obligations; with
   respect to a larger group of 21 female employees, CRST lacked actual
   knowledge of harassment as to ten of them because they either failed to
   report harassment or did not report it timely; CRST also lacked
   constructive knowledge of the harassment; with respect to the remaining
   11 employees, CRST took prompt and effective action once it became
   aware of the harassment; CRST's summary judgment on plaintiff Peeple's
   Title VII and Iowa Civil Rights Act claims is affirmed; attorneys' fees
   award against EEOC vacated. Judge Murphy, concurring in part and
   dissenting in part.
  
093764P.pdf   02/22/2012  Remcey Peeples  v.  CRST Van Expedited, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  09-3764
                          and No:  09-3765
                          and No:  10-1682
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - Employment Discrimination. In an action by the EEOC
   alleging CRST subjected approximately 270 female employees to a hostile
   work environment in violation of Title VII, the district court erred in
   granting summary judgment against the EEOC on its claims involving
   three of the plaintiffs because the EEOC, suing as a plaintiff in its own
   name under Section 706 of Title VII, may not be judicially estopped
   because of the employees' independent conduct; however, the court did
   not err in granting CRST summary judgment on two of the employees
   because the harassment was not severe or pervasive or because CRST
   promptly remedied the situation; EEOC wholly failed to satisfy its
   statutory pre-suit obligations as to 67 women, and the district court did
   not err in barring the EEOC from pursuing claims as to these women;
   CRST Lead Drivers were merely the women trainees' coworkers and not
   their supervisors, and CRST could not be vicariously liable for sexual
   harassment perpetrated by the Lead Drivers; district court did not err in
   granting summary judgment for CRST on the EEOC's hostile work-
   environment claims on behalf of 12 women as the alleged harassment was
   not sufficiently severe or pervasive; the district court erred in granting
   summary judgment against the EEOC on its claims on behalf of Tillie
   Jones because the EEOC produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine
   fact issue as to the severity or pervasiveness of harassment suffered by
   Jones; as to 25 women, the EEOC failed to investigate or conciliate its
   claims on behalf of four of them and the district court's summary
   judgment is affirmed on the ground that the EEOC failed to discharge its
   pre-suit duties under Title VII; the district court did not err in granting
   CRST summary judgment with respect to the claims for the other 21
   women because the EEOC failed to create a genuine issue of material fact
   as to whether CRST knew or should have known of the harassment and
   failed to take prompt and remedial action; award of attorneys' fees to
   CRST vacated and remanded. Judge Murphy, concurring in part and
   dissenting in part.