EEOC not Required to Identify Aggrieved Individual in Title VII race Discrimination Claim
1 min read
Apr 14, 2015
On April 7, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not required to identify an aggrieved individual in order to pursue a race discrimination claim pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII").
After unsuccessful attempts at a pre-litigation settlement, the EEOC filed a complaint against Rosebud Restaurants, alleging that from November of 2009 to the present, they failed or refused to hire African-Americans in violation of Title VII. Rosebud filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the EEOC was required to identify an individual job applicant who was rejected because of his or her race and that no such individual had been named. Judge Andrea Wood disagreed, finding Rosebud's argument was not supported by the language of the statute.
Pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII, the EEOC has authority to bring a civil action in its own name. This Section, according to Judge Wood, contains no provision limiting such actions to matters brought on behalf of individuals. Instead, the EEOC is authorized to prevent any person from engaging in an unlawful employment practice, which includes the widespread failure to hire an individual based on race. Accordingly, Judge Wood denied Rosebud's motion to dismiss, allowing the EEOC's allegations of intentional discrimination to move forward even in the absence of the identification of an aggrieved individual.
The EEOC already is using this Rosebud decision to garner support for its Strategic Enforcement Plan, adopted in November of 2012, which prioritizes combating systemic discrimination in hiring and recruitment on the basis of race. Hinshaw attorneys will track that issue and the impact of this case. Please direct any questions to your regular Hinshaw lawyer.
Featured Insights

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

