EEOC v. Kronos Inc, No. 11-2834 (3d Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 14, 2012.
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT October 2, 2012 No.11-2834 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellant v. KRONOS INCORPORATED (W.D. Pa. No. 2-09-mc-00079) Present: SLOVITER, CHAGARES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges 1. Motion by Appellant to Modify or Amend Opinion. 2. Response by Appellee in Opposition of Motion to Modify or Amend Opinion. Respectfully, Clerk/dwb Precedential Opinion and Judgment dated 09/14/2012 attached. _________________________________ORDER________________________________ The foregoing motion is hereby granted. The opinion of the Court shall be amended as follows: (1) Page 18, first full paragraph, the first sentence is deleted and is replaced by the following sentence: To determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6) has occurred the EEOC must investigate whether the employment test at issue (1) screen[s] out or tend[s] to screen out disabled applicants; and can investigate whether it (2) is unrelated to the position sought by the applicant; and (3) is not consistent with business necessity. (2) Page 19, second full paragraph, the first two sentences are deleted and are replaced by the following sentences: Again, it may be insufficient for the EEOC to determine simply that there is reasonable cause to believe an employment test screens out disabled applicants. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6). The EEOC can also determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe the test does not relate to the position at issue and is not consistent with business necessity. Id. (3) Page 20, second full paragraph, the second sentence is deleted and is replaced by the following sentence: All of the information in ¶ 3 is already sufficiently limited because it relates to the Kroger Company and is, again, generally necessary to help the EEOC understand whether Kroger s use of the assessment was permissible and to investigate whether there is reasonable cause to believe there has been a violation of § 12112(b)(6). By the Court, /s/ Michael A. Chagares Circuit Judge Dated: November 15, 2012 DWB/cc: Corbett Anderson, Esq. Barbara L. Sloan, Esq. R. Lawrence Ashe, Jr., Esq. Kelly J. Koelker, Esq. Terrence H. Murphy, Esq.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
