Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.

6th CircuitApril 9, 2014No. 13-3408Cited 15 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Keith, Cook, Kethledge
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
State
Ohio

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Kaplan, rejecting the EEOC's disparate-impact claim based on credit-check screening. The court found that the EEOC's expert's race-rating methodology—identifying applicant race from driver's license photos—was unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and failed to satisfy Daubert factors.

What This Ruling Means

**The Dispute** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Kaplan Higher Education Corp over employment discrimination. The EEOC claimed that Kaplan violated federal laws by discriminating against employees or job applicants. The case went through the court system, with a lower court making an initial decision that both sides challenged. **The Court's Decision** The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling in April 2014. The court agreed with some parts of the lower court's decision but disagreed with other parts. This meant that some aspects of the EEOC's discrimination claims were upheld while others were rejected. The court did not award monetary damages in this case. **What This Means for Workers** This case shows that employment discrimination claims can be complex, with courts sometimes ruling partially in favor of both sides. While the mixed outcome means the EEOC didn't achieve a complete victory, it demonstrates that federal agencies continue to pursue discrimination cases against employers. Workers should know that the EEOC investigates workplace discrimination and can file lawsuits on behalf of employees when discrimination is suspected.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.