UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 10, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 20-2023

ROARK-WHITTEN HOSPITALITY 2, LP, d/b/a Whitten Inn and Jai Hanuman, LLC, d/b/a Whitten Inn Taos and/or El Camino Lodge; SGI, LLC, d/b/a El Camino Lodge,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00884-PJK-LF) _________________________________

Anne N. Occhialino, Senior Appellate Attorney (Sharon F. Gustafson, General Counsel, Jennifer S. Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, and Elizabeth E. Theran, Assistant General Counsel, with her on the briefs), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, appearing for Appellant.

Paul E. Frye (W. Gregory Kelly, with him on the brief), Frye & Kelly, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, appearing for Appellee SGI, LLC.

Patrick J. Rogers, Patrick J. Rogers, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, appearing for Appellees Roark-Whitten Hospitality, 2, LP, and Jai Hanuman, LLC. _________________________________

Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Appellate Case: 20-2023 Document: 010110655232 Date Filed: 03/10/2022 Page: 2

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. _________________________________

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this action

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of

1991 against defendant Roark-Whitten Hospitality 2 (RW2) seeking relief for what

the EEOC alleged were unlawful employment practices by RW2 on the basis of race,

color, national origin, and retaliation. Those unlawful employment practices

allegedly occurred after RW2 purchased and began operating a hotel in Taos, New

Mexico in 2009. The aggrieved employees were all employed at the hotel prior to

RW2’s purchase, and were all either terminated or constructively discharged at some

point after the purchase. After the action was initiated, the EEOC filed amended

complaints seeking to add as defendants two additional entities, Jai Hanuman, LLC

(Jai), which purchased the hotel from RW2 in 2014, and SGI, LLC (SGI), which

purchased the hotel from Jai in 2016.

The district court dismissed the EEOC’s claims against SGI on the grounds

that the EEOC failed to adequately allege a basis for successor liability against SGI.

As for RW2 and Jai, the district court, acting pursuant to a motion for civil contempt

filed by the EEOC, entered default judgment against them and then conducted a

hearing on the issue of damages. After conducting that hearing, the district court

dismissed the EEOC’s claims against Jai on the grounds that the EEOC failed to

adequately allege a basis for successor liability against Jai, and it ordered RW2 to

pay compensatory damages to the EEOC in the total amount of $35,000.

2 Appellate Case: 20-2023 Document: 010110655232 Date Filed: 03/10/2022 Page: 3

The EEOC now appeals, raising two general issues. First, the EEOC argues

that the district court erred in dismissing its claims against defendants SGI and Jai.

Second, the EEOC argues that the district court erred in awarding only $35,000 in

compensatory damages for the eleven aggrieved individuals. Exercising juri