## Facts

- An EEOC Commissioner’s charge (filed Aug. 30, 1973) alleged discriminatory employment practices at Sears.
- After conciliation failed, the EEOC sued (Oct. 22, 1979) alleging nationwide Title VII discrimination against women in hiring, promotion, and pay; minority claims were later withdrawn.
- The case focused on (1) women’s access to higher-paying commission sales jobs and (2) pay for women in certain “checklist” management positions.
- Sears moved to dismiss, asserting an EEOC attorney leading the investigation had a conflict of interest due to service on the board of an organization that filed separate charges against Sears; the district court denied dismissal.
- A lengthy bench trial began Sept. 13, 1984 and lasted about ten months (135 trial days).
- The EEOC sought to show that from Mar. 3, 1973 to Dec. 31, 1980, discrimination against women was Sears’ regular practice in commission hiring/promotion and checklist management pay.
- The district court entered judgment for Sears on all claims and denied the EEOC’s partial summary judgment motion challenging certain pregnancy-related and other policies, including a pre-1974 paid day off for male employees when their wives gave birth (without an equivalent benefit for women who gave birth).
- The EEOC appealed the adverse disparate treatment findings and the denial of partial summary judgment on the childbirth paid-day-off policy; Sears cross-appealed the denial of dismissal for conflict of interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the EEOC proved a nationwide pattern or practice of intentional sex discrimination in hiring and promotion to commission sales positions and in pay for checklist management positions under Title VII.
2. Whether the district court erred in evaluating and discounting the EEOC’s statistical proof of discrimination.
3. Whether Sears could rebut the EEOC’s showing with evidence that disparities were explained by differences in interest and qualifications for commission sales work.
4. What level of appellate deference applied to the district court’s factual findings after an extensive bench trial.
5. Whether an asserted conflict of interest involving an EEOC attorney required dismissal or other sanctions.
6. Whether the district court erred in denying partial summary judgment concerning Sears’ former childbirth paid-day-off policy for men.

## Decision

- Affirmed the judgment for Sears on the Title VII pattern-or-practice disparate treatment claims.
- Held the EEOC failed to prove that intentional discrimination against women was Sears’ “standard operating procedure.”
- Upheld the district court’s treatment of the EEOC’s statistical analyses as having significant methodological and contextual weaknesses.
- Approved the district court’s reliance on Sears’ countervailing evidence that commission and non-commission jobs materially differed and that women, as a group, showed less interest in and were often less qualified for commission work.
- Applied clear-error review to the district court’s fact findings and declined to reweigh credibility and competing expert proof.
- Affirmed the denial of Sears’ motion to dismiss based on the asserted conflict of interest.
- Declined to disturb the denial of partial summary judgment on the childbirth paid-day-off policy given the posture of the case after a full trial record.

## Legal Principles

- In a Title VII pattern-or-practice disparate treatment case, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance that intentional discrimination was the employer’s regular practice rather than isolated or unusual conduct.
- Statistical evidence may support an inference of discrimination but is not conclusive and must be assessed in the specific job and labor-market context alongside other evidence.
- An employer may rebut a prima facie systemic showing with credible, non-discriminatory explanations, including evidence concerning differences in job requirements, applicant/employee interest, and qualifications, so long as the explanation is not grounded in unlawful barriers.
- Following a bench trial, appellate review of factual findings is highly deferential; reversal requires clear error, not mere disagreement with the trial court’s weighing of evidence.
- Dismissal for alleged attorney conflict requires more than asserted advocacy affiliations; the remedy depends on whether the conflict materially compromised the integrity of the proceedings.
- Denial of partial summary judgment is generally not a basis for reversal after a full trial record unless the appellant shows reversible legal error affecting the final judgment.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment for Sears, concluding that the EEOC did not carry its burden to prove a nationwide pattern or practice of intentional sex discrimination and that the district court permissibly discounted the EEOC’s statistics in light of substantial counterevidence about job differences, interest, and qualifications, while also rejecting Sears’ conflict-of-interest challenge and leaving undisturbed the denial of partial summary judgment on a former childbirth benefit policy.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988)