Case: 14-3653
Document: 30
Filed: 09/04/2015
Pages: 2
JONES DAY
51 LOUISIANA AVENUE, N.W . • WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001-2113
TELEPHONE: (202) 879-3939 • FACSIMILE: (202) 626-1700
September 4, 2015
Gino J. Agnello, Clerk of the Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Room 2722
219 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Re:
EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (No. 14-3653)
Dear Mr. Agnello:
The district court’s decision in EEOC v. Doherty Enterprises, Inc., 2015 WL
5118067 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2015), does not support the Commission’s claim here,
and to the extent it does, is poorly reasoned and should not be followed.
First, Doherty did not find intentional “resistance” to Title VII rights or
define the scope of § 707(a) claims. Use of CVS’s severance agreement could not
support such a claim. CVS.Br.13-23, 37-38. While the employment contract in
Doherty required all disputes to be arbitrated, with no carve-out for discrimination
proceedings (2015 WL 5118067, at *1), CVS’s severance agreement expressly
authorized participation in discrimination proceedings before the Commission and
thus could not reasonably be construed to forbid charge-filing. CVS.Br.15-19.
Second, while Doherty concluded that § 707(a) “resistance” claims do not
require allegations of discrimination or retaliation (2015 WL 5118067, at *5-6), it
did not address the extensive legislative history, caselaw, or agency statements
confirming precisely the opposite. CVS.Br.26-31. Nor did it explain what a
pattern of “resistance” to “the rights secured by” Title VII means, if not repeated
discrimination or retaliation. Rather, the court relied exclusively on United States
v. Original Knights of Ku Klux Klan, 250 F. Supp. 330 (E.D. La. 1965), which it
claimed “did not involve discrimination.” 2015 WL 5118067, at *6. But that case
did involve discrimination; it simply held that the KKK, while not an employer,
could be held liable for “intimidat[ing] employers” into discriminating, 250 F.
Supp. at 56. CVS.Br.33-34.

ALKHOBAR
F R A N K F U RT
MI L A N
SAN
AT L A N TA

H O NG

DIEGO


BE I J I NG
KO N G

MO S C OW

SAN
FRANCISCO

MU N I C H


B O STO N
HO U S TO N


S H A N G HA I
I RV I N E
N EW


BRUSSELS

D EL H I
SI L I CO N
C H I C AG O

JEDDAH

VA L L E Y
N EW


L O N DO N
LOS

YO R K
SINGAPORE

C L E V E LA N D


C O L UMB U S

A N G E L ES
PA R I S
SY D N E Y


TA I P E I


ME X I CO

PITTSBURGH


DALLAS
MA D R I D
TO K YO

DUBAI
CITY
R I YA D H
W AS H I NG TO N
Case: 14-3653
Document: 30
Filed: 09/04/2015 JONES
Pages: 2DAY
Page 2
Third, while Doherty held that the Commission must conciliate only when it
acts “on a charge of discrimination,” 2015 WL 5118067, at *4, this case did
originate with a charge. CVS.Br.46. Anyway, Doherty’s construction misreads
§ 707, creates a nonsensical scheme, and is refuted by statutory history.
CVS.Br.46-48. It also ignores EEOC regulations, which demand conciliation in all
cases. CVS.Br.43-44, 49-50. Doherty relied exclusively on United States v.
Allegheny-Ludlum, but that case—in a passage Doherty overlooked—expressly
acknowledged that the Commission “may” have to conciliate in § 707 suits. 517
F.2d 826, 869 (5th Cir. 1975). Many other courts have so held. CVS.Br.42.
Sincerely,
/s/ Eric S. Dreiband
Eric S. Dreiband
Yaakov M. Roth
Nikki L. McArthur
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 879-3939
Counsel for Appellee
CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
cc:
All Counsel of Record (whom the above-signing attorney certifies was
served with this letter on September 4, 2015, via ECF)