Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sofidel America Corp.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 24-CV-462-JFJ

)

SOFIDEL AMERICA CORP., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Motion for

Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and/or to Strike Sofidel Defenses 15 and 18 (ECF No. 14). The

parties have consented to a magistrate judge presiding over the case. ECF No. 15.

I. Background

The following relevant facts are alleged in the Complaint (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brings this action under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to seek relief on behalf of Camryn

Edmonds (“Edmonds”). EEOC alleges Defendant Sofidel America Corp. (“Sofidel”) violated

Title VII when it allowed a male co-worker to sexually harass Edmonds for over six months, even

after Edmonds complained to Sofidel about the harassment. Compl. ¶¶ 20-53, 64-73. EEOC

alleges that, after Edmonds obtained an emergency judicial order of protection against her harasser,

Sofidel terminated Edmonds’ employment in retaliation for obtaining the protective order but did

not terminate her harasser. Id. ¶¶ 54-63, 74-87.

EEOC alleges the following facts. Edmonds filed a Charge of Discrimination with EEOC

asserting Title VII violations by Sofidel. Id. ¶ 7. EEOC issued Sofidel a Letter of Determination

on August 27, 2024, which stated it found reasonable cause to believe that Title VII was violated

and which invited Sofidel to engage with EEOC in informal methods of conciliation in attempt to

eliminate unlawful employment practices and provide proper relief. Id. ¶ 8. EEOC communicated

with Sofidel about the discriminatory practices, but EEOC was unable to reach a conciliation

agreement with Sofidel. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. EEOC issued a Notice of Conciliation Failure to Sofidel on

September 19, 2024, which advised Sofidel that it was unable to secure an acceptable conciliation

agreement between EEOC and Sofidel. Id. ¶ 11.

EEOC filed the Complaint in this case on September 30, 2024. Sofidel filed its Answer on

February 14, 2025. ECF No. 10. In the Answer, Sofidel admits that it received correspondence

from EEOC with its allegations of Title VII violations and a request to settle with Edmonds. Id. ¶

8. Sofidel does not admit that EEOC’s conciliation efforts were reasonable or permitted by law.

Id. ¶ 9. Sofidel admits that it did not come to an agreeable resolution with EEOC, and that it

received correspondence from EEOC confirming the parties did not come to an agreeable

resolution prior to suit. Id. ¶ 11. Sofidel asserts numerous affirmative defenses, including that

EEOC lacks “standing to assert the claims brought and/or is acting outside the scope of its

authority” (“Defense 15”), and EEOC “failed to reasonably conciliate the Charge of

Discrimination after a for-cause finding” (“Defense 18”). Id. at 11-12.

In the current motion, EEOC moves either (1) for partial judgment on the pleadings of

Defenses 15 and 18, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), or (2) to strike Defenses 15 and

18 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). ECF No. 14. EEOC contends that these two

defenses are not legally permissible under the agreed facts of this case. Because the Court grants

EEOC’s motion to strike Defenses 15 and 18, the Court does not address EEOC’s request for

partial judgment on the pleadings.

II. General Legal Standards – Rule 12(f)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(f). Included in this rule are affirmative defenses, which are defenses that “will defeat the

plaintiff’s claim if [they are] accepted by the district court or the jury.” 5 Charles Alan Wright &

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1270 (4th ed. 2025). “Motions to strike

affirmative defenses are disfavored and should be infrequently granted.” Bruna v. Gates, No. 20-

CV-00628-GKF-CDL, 2021 WL 6048913, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 30, 2021) (citing United States

v. Hardage, 116 F.R.D. 460, 463 (W.D. Okla. 1987)). Such a motion should not be granted

“unless, as a matter of law, the defense cannot succeed under any circumstances or unless it is

clear that the affirmative defenses clearly have no bearing upon the subject matter of the litigation

or the defenses are clearly insufficient as a matter of law.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Courts disagree on whether a showing of prejudice by the movant is required before a

motion to strike may be granted. Compare Jenkins v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.R.D. 544, 548

(D.N.M. 2019) (explaining that it would not require a showing of prejudice under Rule 12(f)

because “the rule makes no mention of prejudice and permits a court to strike material sua sponte”)

and Knighten v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. CIV-17-683-D, 2018 WL 718533, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Feb.

5, 2018) (stating that motion to strike should not be granted unless the defense may cause

“significant prejudice to one or more of the parties to the action” ). For purposes of this motion,

the Court assumes that such a showing of prejudice is required. Ultimately, the decision whether

to grant a motion to strike “rests within the sound discretion of the Court.” Durham v. Xerox

Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 1994).

III. Analysis

Before suing an employer for discrimination, the EEOC “must try to remedy unlawful

workplace practices through informal methods of conciliation.” Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C.,

575 U.S. 480, 482-83 (2015). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), (f) (providing for EEOC conciliation

requirement prior to suit). To ensure this requirement is met, a court may conduct a narrow review

to determine (1) whether the EEOC told the employer about the claim, i.e., “what practice has

harmed which person or class,” and (2) whether the EEOC provided the employer “with an

opportunity to discuss the matter in an effort to achieve voluntary compliance.” EEOC v. United

Parcel Serv., No. 15-CV-4141-MKB-CLP, 2017 WL 2829513, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2017).

If the court finds EEOC’s conciliation efforts were deficient, the appropriate remedy is “to order

the EEOC to undertake the mandated efforts to obtain voluntary compliance.” Mach Mining, 575

U.S. at 495 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)).

Based on this legal framework, the Court concludes that Defense 18 is an improper

affirmative defense that is clearly insufficient as a matter of law. Even if Sofidel successfully

shows that EEOC’s conciliation efforts were deficient, this would not defeat EEOC’s

discrimination claim or limit Sofidel’s liability. It would merely permit this Court to order the

parties to complete the necessary step of conciliation before proceeding with the lawsuit. Defense

18 does not qualify as a proper affirmative defense, and the Court exercises its discretion to strike

such defense from the pleadings. See EEOC v. Darden Rest., Inc., No. 15-20561-CIV, 2016 WL

9488709, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2016) (striking failure to conciliate defense as improper

affirmative defense because “the remedy to inadequate conciliation is an order staying case and

requiring the parties to conciliate” rather than limiting or defeating plaintiff’s ability to recover).

See also EEOC v. Chipotle Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 4948888, at *14 (D. Kan. Dec. 3, 2024)

(granting summary judgment to EEOC on failure to conciliate defense, “because failure to

conciliate is not an affirmative defense” and cannot bar EEOC’s claims as a matter of law); EEOC

v. DolGenCorp, LLC, No. CIV-21-295-GLJ, 2024 WL 402921, at *11 (E.D. Okla. Feb. 2, 2024)

(same). Sofidel does not argue that Defense 18 is pleaded as anything other than an affirmative

defense. It is appropriate in this rare instance to strike Defense 18 as “clearly insufficient as a

matter of law” as an affirmative defense. Bruna, 2021 WL 6048913, at *1 (quotation omitted).1

To the extent a showing of prejudice is required, the Court finds that EEOC would suffer

prejudice from having to expend resources responding to and conducting discovery on affirmative

defenses that are clearly insufficient under prevailing law. See EEOC v. AZ Metro Distribs., LLC,

272 F. Supp. 3d 336, 341 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (finding prejudice in “the larding up of the pleadings

and the litigation with purported affirmative defenses that are not affirmative defenses as a matter

of law”).

Sofidel admits that Defense 15 (standing) is merely derivative of Defense 18: “EEOC

cannot bring a claim, and therefore lacks standing, until it has properly conciliated.” ECF No. 17

at 4 n.2. Because the Court strikes Defense 18 as an improper affirmative defense, the Court

correspondingly strikes Defense 15 as an improper affirmative defense. The Court finds no need

to consider EEOC’s separate arguments regarding its standing to bring suit.

If Sofidel contends that appropriate conciliation efforts did not occur, then it may file a

motion to stay this proceeding pending conciliation. See Darden Rest., 2016 WL 9488709, at *3

1 In its response, Sofidel relies heavily on EEOC v. Unit Drilling Co., No. 13-CV-147-TCK-PJC,

2014 WL 2211011 (N.D. Okla. May 28, 2014), in support of its argument that failure to conciliate

is a proper affirmative defense. While Unit Drilling appears to support Sofidel’s position, it is no

longer persuasive in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Mach Mining. Mach

Mining established narrow limits on judicial review of EEOC’s conciliation efforts. 575 U.S. at

495. The affirmative defenses at issue in Unit Drilling would have exceeded the scope of judicial

review available after Mach Mining, and Mach Mining clarified that staying an EEOC case is the

appropriate remedy to failure to conciliate. The Court is not persuaded that the Unit Drilling court

would have reached the same conclusion today.

n.6 (permitting defendant to file motion to stay if it contested EEOC’s conciliation efforts). Upon

review of any relevant evidence, the Court will determine whether a stay is necessary to permit

conciliation to take place. See Mach Mining, 575 US. at 494 (“A sworn affidavit from the EEOC

stating that it has performed the obligations noted above but that its efforts have failed will usually

suffice to show that it has met the conciliation requirement.”).

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons detailed above, Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion to Strike Sofidel Defenses 15 and

18 (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED. Sofidel’s affirmative defenses 15 and 18 are hereby

STRICKEN. Plaintiffs alternative Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED AS

MOOT. Any motion to stay on the basis of a failure to conciliate must be filed no later than July

24, 2025.

SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2025.

J@DIF. JAY AGISA RATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT