## Facts

- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Sears, Roebuck & Co., alleging nationwide sex discrimination in employment practices during roughly 1973–1980.
- The case proceeded as a pattern-or-practice action and was tried to the court in a lengthy bench trial (about ten months) on two principal claims.
- First, the EEOC alleged Sears failed to hire women into commission-sales jobs and failed to move women from noncommission sales into commission-sales jobs on the same basis as similarly situated men.
- Second, the EEOC alleged Sears paid female “checklist management” employees less than comparable male employees.
- The EEOC’s proof centered on statistical disparities in the composition of commission-sales positions and on pay comparisons; no individual applicant or employee testified that Sears discriminated against her personally.
- Sears defended with evidence that it had equal-opportunity and affirmative-action efforts aimed at increasing women’s participation in commission-sales work, and it offered statistical and contextual evidence suggesting that differences in outcomes were driven by differences in interest and job preferences rather than intentional discrimination by Sears.
- In the same published opinion, the court also addressed an outstanding EEOC motion for partial summary judgment seeking liability rulings on five discrete Title VII “policy” claims tied to Sears’s written personnel policies:
  - limiting women’s working hours due to state protective laws;
  - refusing to hire pregnant applicants;
  - treating pregnancy-related disability absences as subject to layoff when other temporary disability absences were not;
  - involuntary transfer of visibly pregnant employees when appearance was treated as job-related; and
  - granting a paid day off to male employees when their wives gave birth, without a comparable paid day off for female employees when they gave birth.
- Sears opposed summary judgment, arguing the policies had been changed or discontinued, and disputing whether and how they were actually applied during the relevant liability period (which began two years before the commissioner’s charge).

## Issues

1. Whether the EEOC proved that intentional sex discrimination was Sears’s standard operating procedure in (a) hiring/advancing workers into commission-sales positions and (b) pay for checklist management employees during the charged period.
2. Whether the EEOC was entitled to partial summary judgment on Title VII liability for the five challenged personnel-policy claims, or whether genuine disputes of material fact required trial.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Sears on the pattern-or-practice claims after the bench trial, finding the EEOC did not meet its burden to prove intentional discrimination as Sears’s regular practice in the challenged areas.
- The court denied the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment on all five personnel-policy claims, concluding the record did not eliminate material fact disputes about the existence, timing, and application of the asserted policies and their treatment under Title VII.

## Legal Principles

- In a Title VII pattern-or-practice case, the plaintiff must show that discrimination was the employer’s “standard operating procedure,” not an isolated or accidental occurrence.
- Statistical disparities may help establish a prima facie showing, but they are evaluated for reliability, fit with the relevant labor pool, and whether they persuasively point to intentional discrimination; the employer may rebut with nondiscriminatory explanations and competing proof.
- The absence of testimony from individuals claiming they personally experienced discrimination may affect the weight the court gives to a pattern-or-practice claim built largely on aggregate proof.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence and reasonable inferences are drawn for the nonmoving party.
- Written personnel policies, standing alone, may be insufficient for plaintiff-side summary judgment where there are factual disputes about whether the policy was in effect during the relevant period, how it operated in practice, and whether it resulted in unlawful disparate treatment.
- Where challenged practices intersect with changing legal requirements (such as state protective laws) and evolving employer policies, unresolved questions about scope, duration, and enforcement can bar summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court ruled for Sears after a lengthy bench trial because the EEOC did not prove that intentional sex discrimination was Sears’s regular companywide practice in commission-sales hiring/advancement or checklist-management pay, and the court separately denied the EEOC’s bid for partial summary judgment on five policy-based Title VII claims due to unresolved factual disputes about the content, timing, and real-world application of those policies.


Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F. Supp. 1264 (1986)