Turning The Tables: Employer Secures Attorneys’ Fees Against EEOC

Seyfarth Synopsis: In a noteworthy ruling from the District of Colorado, the Court awarded A&A Appliance, Inc. (“A&A”) a full award of attorneys’ fees, deeming the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s claims “frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.” The decision in EEOC v. A&A, No. 23-cv-02456 (D. Colo.) offers employers a potential roadmap for pushing back on questionable EEOC litigation.

The ruling underscores that, under the right circumstances, courts are willing to closely scrutinize the evidentiary support behind EEOC claims, particularly where the agency has had years to investigate before filing suit, and to impose consequences where that support is lacking.

The decision equips employers with stronger arguments to challenge weak cases early, creates potential leverage to seek recovery of full defense costs, and provides additional pressure points in settlement negotiations where the EEOC’s claims cannot withstand scrutiny.

Relevant Case Background

This case involves allegations that A&A violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate Karima Javanzad and terminating her employment.

In April 2020, Ms. Javanzad requested twelve weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for reasons that varied, including contracting COVID-19, caring for her son with COVID-19 or pneumonia, or an ailing from a gastrointestinal condition. A&A approved retroactive leave from March 15 to June 7. After weeks of communication about her leave and a possible extension, A&A terminated Ms. Javanzad for failing to return to work, stating it would not extend leave for her gastrointestinal condition, as it was unrelated to her COVID-19 diagnosis.

Both parties later moved for summary judgment. On September 3, 2025, the court granted A&A’s motion, holding the EEOC failed to establish a prima facie case because A&A lacked notice of a disability requiring accommodation.

The Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Court concluded that the defendant was entitled to attorney’s fees because the EEOC’s claims were “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” under Christiansburg v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978).

The Court first recognized that the Tenth Circuit (which includes Colorado) has affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s factors to determine whether a claim is “frivolous, unreasonable or groundless” under Christiansburg. Those factors include: (1) whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case; (2) whether the defendant offered to settle; and (3) whether the trial court dismissed the case prior to trial. Here, all of these factors supported a fee award, as the EEOC failed to establish a prima facie case, the defendant offered to settle, and the case was dismissed on summary judgment.

The Court also addressed the EEOC’s preferred formulation of Christiansburg – that fees are warranted only where a plaintiff “utterly fails to produce any evidence” supporting essential elements. The Court rejected that as the exclusive test, explaining the EEOC’s version was just one way to satisfy the fee-shifting standard, not the only one.

But the Court found the EEOC failed even under its own heightened standard. The EEOC produced no evidence that the employer knew of the alleged disability, which is an essential element of its claims. Emails referencing “health conditions” and leave requests were insufficient to show knowledge of a qualifying disability. That failure alone justified summary judgment, and supported an award of attorneys’ fees incurred by A&A in connection with the litigation.

The Court further found the EEOC acted unreasonably in continuing to litigate despite this defect, particularly given it had years to investigate the matter before filing its lawsuit, and possessed facts undermining its claims from the outset.

Finally, and importantly, the Court recognized, quoting Christiansburg, that “[a] district court may consider distinctions between the Commission and private plaintiffs in determining the reasonableness of the Commission’s litigation efforts” (quotations omitted). As such, the Court held: “Ms. Jazanzad might have been excused from pressing these issues. The EEOC is not.”

Implications for Employers

This decision offers several important takeaways for employers facing EEOC enforcement actions. While uncommon, this case confirms that courts can award attorneys’ fees where the EEOC pursues claims lacking any evidentiary support. In this case, as well as another district court decision we recently covered here, the employer’s lack of knowledge alone was sufficient to warrant summary judgment. As EEOC v. A&A demonstrates, failure to produce evidence on a single required element can justify both summary judgment and in rare instances, a fee award. The prospect of fee-shifting can be a powerful negotiation tool, as well. Where a case is plainly meritless, raising the risk that the EEOC may be required to pay defense costs can create meaningful pressure for early resolution. Indeed, this opinion recognizes that courts may scrutinize the EEOC more closely than private plaintiffs, given its duties to investigate and cease pursuing unsupported claims.