Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast has asked the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, arguing the complaint fails to show that male employees were harmed by a women-focused workplace event.
In a motion filed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the employer said the EEOC did not plead facts that would support a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case centres on a one-day “Women’s Forum” held in September 2024, which the EEOC alleges excluded male employees and provided benefits to female participants, including paid time, hotel accommodations and meals.
Employer says event expanded candidate pool
The employer told the court the forum was designed to encourage women to pursue advancement opportunities and to address what it described as a “manifest imbalance” in its workforce.
According to the motion, the event was a one-time initiative aimed at increasing the pool of qualified internal candidates without changing how promotions were decided.
“The Women’s Forum did not disadvantage or make male employees worse off,” the employer argued in its filing.
The company also pointed to its status at the time as a federal contractor subject to Executive Order 11246, which required efforts to address gender imbalances in the workforce.
It further argued that longstanding interpretations of Title VII allow employers to take voluntary steps to address underrepresentation, including targeted outreach that does not alter selection decisions.
No alleged harm, employer argues
A central argument in the motion is that the EEOC failed to identify any harm to male employees tied to a term or condition of employment.
The employer said the complaint does not allege that male employees lost wages, benefits or advancement opportunities because of the forum.
It also argued that employees who did not attend continued to work and were paid as usual, while those who attended the forum were likewise paid in the normal course.
The filing relies on recent U.S. Supreme Court guidance requiring plaintiffs to show “some harm” to an identifiable term or condition of employment.
“Male employees were not made worse off because of this one-day event,” the employer said.
The motion characterizes the alleged benefits — including meals, lodging and networking opportunities — as too minor to meet that threshold.
Punitive damages claim challenged
The employer also asked the court to strike the EEOC’s request for punitive damages.
It argued the complaint contains only a “conclusory allegation” that the company acted with malice or reckless indifference, without factual support.
The motion states there are no allegations showing intentional wrongdoing or awareness that the conduct violated federal law.
The employer further contends that its actions were consistent with guidance the EEOC itself has historically provided to employers on voluntary affirmative action efforts.
Background of the claim
The EEOC brought the action on behalf of a male employee and a proposed class of similarly affected workers, alleging the forum excluded men and provided unequal benefits based on sex.
According to the complaint, female employees were excused from regular duties to attend the event, received pay, and were provided accommodations and meals.
The employer disputes that those circumstances amount to discrimination under Title VII, maintaining that the forum did not affect promotion decisions or employment conditions for male workers.
The court has not yet ruled on the motion.
For more information, see https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28065078/us_dis_nhd_1_26cv115_d2856686e261_motion_to_dismiss_for_failure_to_state_a_claim_fil.pdf
