Key Points

• Employers can recover attorney's fees from the EEOC when claims are frivolous. A Colorado federal court awarded full attorney's fees to an employer after finding the EEOC's disability discrimination lawsuit lacked foundation.
• The EEOC is held to a higher standard than private plaintiffs. The EEOC owes duties to employers to reasonably investigate, conciliate in good faith, and cease enforcement when cases lack merit.
• Employers should document medical communications and raise defenses early. Clear records of what employees communicate and consistent identification of deficiencies strengthen potential fee petitions.

In a significant win for employers, a Colorado federal district court recently ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) disability discrimination lawsuit was “frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation” — entitling the employer to recover its full reasonable attorney’s fees. The ruling in EEOC v. A&A Appliance, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02456-DDD-CYC (D. Colo. June 1, 2026), underscores the EEOC’s duties owed in investigating and pursuing meritorious claims. Employers should take note of the practical lessons this case offers when facing off against the EEOC in litigation.

What is this Case About?

In April 2020, the employee requested a 12-week leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The reasons she cited varied — contracting COVID-19, caring for her son or suffering from a gastrointestinal disorder. The employer granted the leave retroactively, covering March 15 through June 7. When she did not return to work after the FMLA leave period expired, the employer terminated her employment on June 10.

Critically, the court observed that the EEOC’s own complaint showed that the employee’s diagnoses of vocal cord paralysis and gastritis came after her June 9, 2020 endoscopy — and her COVID-19 diagnosis also came after termination — meaning “these diagnoses all took place after the alleged accommodation requests which ended on June 9, 2020.”

The employee later filed a charge with the EEOC alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. After investigation, the EEOC issued a reasonable-cause determination and attempted conciliation. When conciliation failed, the EEOC filed suit, asserting three claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): (1) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (2) disparate treatment based on disability; and (3) retaliation for requesting accommodation.

Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding the EEOC “cannot make a prima facie case that Defendant was aware of a disability or a request for accommodation.” Following this victory, the employer moved to recover its attorney’s fees from the EEOC, and the court granted the request.

Court’s Legal Reasoning

The ADA permits a court to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under the standard set by Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). A court must find the plaintiff’s claims were “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.”

In making this determination, the court in this case applied a three-factor test from the 11th Circuit that had been recognized in the 10th Circuit:

• Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case.
• Whether the defendant offered to settle.
• Whether the case was dismissed before trial.

The court rejected the EEOC’s argument that fee-shifting requires a party to “utterly fail to produce any evidence.” The court held that this is merely one extreme way to meet the standard — not the only way.

The court also highlighted a timing problem at the heart of the EEOC’s case: The EEOC’s own complaint showed the employee was diagnosed with vocal cord paralysis and gastritis after her June 9 endoscopy — one day before her June 10 termination — and her COVID-19 diagnosis also came after termination. Her diagnoses all post-dated the alleged accommodation requests. The employer raised these deficiencies throughout discovery, and the EEOC did not dispute that it did so.

The EEOC’s Special Duties

Most notable about the court’s reasoning in this matter is its discussion of the EEOC’s unique role in litigation and the duties it owes in contrast to private plaintiffs. The court noted that under Christiansburg, courts “may consider distinctions between the Commission and private plaintiffs in determining the reasonableness of the Commission’s litigation efforts.”

The court noted expressly that the EEOC is not a regular plaintiff. Indeed, the court quoted the Fifth Circuit’s holding in EEOC v. Agro Distribution, LLC, 555 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 2009): “The EEOC must vigorously enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act and ensure its protections to affected workers, but in doing so, the EEOC owes duties to employers as well: a duty reasonably to investigate charges, a duty to conciliate in good faith, and a duty to cease enforcement attempts after learning that an action lacks merit.”

Judge Domenico put it directly: The employee “might have been excused from pressing these issues. The EEOC is not.” The court emphasized that the EEOC had multiple years to investigate before filing suit in September 2023 and should have recognized — based on well-established 10th Circuit precedent—that it could not prove employer knowledge of a qualifying ADA disability. A private individual unfamiliar with the nuances of the ADA might be forgiven for confusing a “health condition” with a “disability,” but the EEOC, as the federal agency charged with enforcing the statute, is held to a higher standard.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

1. Document what you know — and when you know it. The court’s decision turned on whether the employer was on notice of an actual ADA-qualifying disability, as distinguished from a general health condition. Employers should maintain clear records of what medical information employees actually communicate and when, including the specific language employees use in leave requests and related correspondence.

2. Scrutinize the EEOC’s investigation and theories. Given the EEOC’s duties owed to employers to reasonably investigate charges, conciliate in good faith and cease enforcement attempts when they lack merit, employers should conduct an early assessment of how the EEOC has proceeded through investigation, conciliation, and litigation to identify weaknesses in its processes and legal theories.

3. Preserve and assert defenses early. The employer’s success rested in part on its consistent identification of factual and legal deficiencies throughout discovery. Raising these issues early —and documenting that you raised them — strengthens a future fee petition if the plaintiff proceeds without addressing the gaps.

4. Consider early settlement offers. The employer’s April 2024 settlement offer also factored into the court’s analysis. A well-timed, reasonable offer to settle can serve dual purposes: resolving litigation efficiently and supporting a fee application if the case continues.

5. Fee-shifting against the EEOC is rare but attainable. Courts remain cautious about awarding fees to prevailing defendants in civil rights cases. But this decision confirms that when the EEOC presses claims it should have known lacked evidentiary support — especially given its investigative resources and expertise — fee-shifting is a viable remedy. Employers facing what they believe to be meritless EEOC enforcement actions should preserve the record for a potential fee motion.

The full opinion is available at 2025 WL 746892.

For additional information, please contact Renee J. Sheyko at rsheyko@foxrothschild.com or another member of Fox Rothschild’s Labor & Employment Department.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this alert should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this alert without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily this law firm or its clients. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.