Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—E.D. Mich.: EEOC advances individual, class claims on behalf of female FCA production employees, (May 18, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

One female employee alleged that during her tenure “myself and other women were subjected to sexual harassment by members of management as well as other male employees.”

The EEOC not only plausibly alleged FCA US, L.L.C., created a hostile work environment for female production employees at its Detroit “Mack Plant” by supervisors who sexually harassed female employees and by failing to respond to complaints of sexual harassment, it also plausibly alleged claims for class-wide relief, a federal district court in Michigan ruled, denying the automotive manufacturer’s motion to dismiss. The court also granted the motion to intervene filed by three individual plaintiffs (EEOC v. FCA US, L.L.C., No. 25-cv-10174 (E.D. Mich. May 13, 2026)).

In 2021, two female production employees at FCA’s Mack Plant filed separate discrimination charges alleging sexual harassment by a male supervisor. While the first complainant did not mention whether the supervisor had harassed anyone else, the second alleged that other women were also subjected to harassment by members of management as well as by other male employees. And while the first also alleged she was fired, the second claimed she was forced to resign.

Lawsuit. After investigating their allegations, the EEOC determined there was reasonable cause to believe the complainants were subjected to sexual harassment by their male supervisors and that one had been constructively discharged. The federal agency sued FCA alleging it created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII with respect to the two complainants and “all aggrieved current or former female production employees who worked at Defendant’s Mack Plant.”

The EEOC sought to permanently enjoin FCA from maintaining a sexually hostile work environment as well as an order requiring the company to “institute and carry out policies which provide equal employment opportunities for female employees and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.” It also sought, among other things, punitive damages.

Motion to intervene. After the EEOC filed its lawsuit, three putative plaintiffs moved to intervene. All three also alleged they had been subjected to inappropriate conduct by male supervisors, including groping, threats, and dehumanizing remarks, and that they were forced to resign or were fired for complaining. Their proposed complaint asserted claims under Title VII and Michigan’s Ellliott-Larson Civil Rights Act.

Hostile work environment. Denying FCA’s motion to dismiss the EEOC’s hostile work environment claim, the court found the Commission plausibly alleged both complainants were subjected to a hostile environment based on their sex. It alleged, for example, that a male supervisor “regularly and inappropriately touched [the first complainant] while she was working, leered at her in a sexual manner, and made offensive sexual comments to her.” The complaint also included specific examples, including that the supervisor purposely brushed up against her thighs and made comments such as “I want your panties on my desk by noon” and “Your body looks right in that outfit.”

The EEOC also alleged that a different male supervisor purposely regularly had inappropriate sexual conversations in front of the second complainant, groped her, and, when she told him to stop, intentionally visited her work area and spoke loudly about men and women engaging in sex. These allegations, said the court, were sufficient to support the EEOC’s sexual harassment claims on behalf of the two complainants.

Class claims. Further, said the court, the complaint includes plausible and sufficiently definite claims for class-wide relief on behalf of female production workers at the Mack Plant who were subjected to a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment. Those allegations, the court explained, target a single plant, seek relief on behalf of “aggrieved, current or former, female production employees,” include details regarding the scope of the class, and allege that unlawful employment practices occurred at the plant “[s]ince at least December of 2020” based on an investigation that concluded in or around May 2024.

The complaint also alleges that FCA “received several complaints that male employees, including supervisors, were sexually harassing female employees,” that multiple women complained that a particular supervisor “touched them inappropriately, made vulgar, sexual comments to them, and would use his authority to make working at the Mack Plant more difficult.”

The complaint also provides specific details regarding the complaints raised by the two complainants. In sum, said the court, the EEOC plausibly asserts a hostile work environment claim on behalf of the two complainants and a class of additional women who were subjected to a hostile work environment while working at the Mack Plant after December 2020 and during the period covered by the EEOC’s investigation.

Constructive discharge. The EEOC’s allegations, the court next found, are also sufficient to infer that FCA deliberately created intolerable working conditions in order to force the second complainant to resign. According to the EEOC, she complained to FCA that she was being sexually harassed by her supervisor, she later complained that the same supervisor was attempting to intimidate her, and she asked FCA repeatedly to transfer her so she could work under a different supervisor. Rather than transferring her, however, or taking any action with regard to her complaint, FCA ensured that she continued to work under the alleged harasser. Those allegations, the court concluded, were sufficient to allege the complainant was constructively discharged.

Motion to intervene. Turning to the individual plaintiffs’ motion to intervene, the court found that while none of the three intervenors filed a charge with the EEOC, they could, under the Sixth Circuit’s single-filing rule, piggyback off the charge the second complainant filed. The claims asserted by the intervening plaintiffs are substantially related to her timely filed charge, they were all employed at the same plant, and, like the complainant, the intervening plaintiffs also claim they were sexually harassed by male supervisors or coworkers while working at the plant.

Further, they all claim FCA failed to adequately investigate and respond to complaints about sexual harassment. In addition, the complainant’s charge specifically put FCA on notice of the potential for other female employees at the plant to assert that they were being sexually harassed.

The intervenors’ claims, the court continued, could also be deemed to arise from the same time period as the those asserted by the complainant even though they all worked at the plant after she was discharged. The EEOC, the court explained, appears to have concluded that FCA engaged in a common practice of tolerating sex discrimination against the two complainants and other female employees at the plant by subjecting them to sexual harassment.

The agency’s allegations also appear to indicate that this practice continued after the second complainant’s alleged constructive discharge in June 2021 as the complaint alleges FCA “has engaged in unlawful employment practices” since at least December 2020. These allegations, the court stated, are sufficient to permit the intervening plaintiffs to pursue judicial relief under the single-filing rule.

The case is No. 25-cv-10174.

Judge: Levy, J.

Attorneys: Karen Ladell Brooks for the EEOC. Daniel E. Turner (Littler Mendelson) for FCA US, L.L.C.

Companies: FCA US, L.L.C.

Cases: SexualHarassment Discrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge Procedure ClassActions MichiganNews