Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Go Daddy Software, Inc.

In September 2001, Youssef Bouamama, a Muslim from Morocco, was hired by Go Daddy Software, Inc. (Go Daddy) (defendant) as a customer-service representative, and he was promoted to sales manager by July 2002. During that time, Bouamama’s supervisor allegedly asked Bouamama about his religion and national origin and made derogatory comments about Muslims, some of which Bouamama allegedly reported to human resources (HR). In April 2003, Bouamama’s new supervisor eliminated all sales-manager positions, including Bouamama’s, and created new sales-supervisor positions. On April 7, the new supervisor allegedly asked Bouamama about his religion and national origin and made a rude comment, which Bouamama allegedly reported to HR. Bouamama interviewed for a sales-supervisor position but was informed that he had not been selected and could return to his old position as a customer-service representative. On April 17, Bouamama went to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff) and reported his demotion and the prior comments about his religion and national origin. On the same day, Bouamama was allegedly fired and not given the option to return to his old position. The EEOC filed suit on Bouamama’s behalf for discrimination and retaliation, alleging, in part, that Go Daddy’s decisions not to promote and to fire Bouamama were in retaliation for Bouamama’s complaints to HR and the EEOC, which constituted protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After closing arguments, Go Daddy moved for judgment as a matter of law. The jury found in the EEOC’s favor for the retaliation claim. Go Daddy filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show that Go Daddy had fired Bouamama due to Bouamama’s engagement in protected activity because Bouamama had only complained about isolated events. The district court denied the motion, and Go Daddy appealed.