Between 2015 and 2016, the claimants, five caregivers for Home Instead Senior Care, provided in-home assistance to an 80-year-old client in Alameda. They claimed that they were repeatedly groped, subjected to lewd comments about their breasts and buttocks, and subjected to racially and sexually offensive comments by the client. The caregivers claimed that they told their employer about the client’s conduct, but that the company failed to act on the complaints. They also claimed that at least one of them was retaliated against by not being placed in other available assignments. The former employees filed a claim with plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which had an EEOC investigator and an enforcement supervisor initiate an investigation, and had allegedly attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC sued a franchisee of Home Instead Senior Care, R. MacArthur Corp.; believed owners of R. MacArthur Corp., Ronald MacArthur, Renee MacArthur; and the successor of R. MacArthur Corp., San Oak Caring Hands, LLC. The EEOC alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted sexual harassment, racial harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the caregiver that was allegedly retaliated against passed away in 2016 and that San Oak Caring Hands did not own the Home Instead businesses until after that caregiver passed away. Counsel also noted that San Oak Caring Hands was joined as a defendant only based on successor liability and that Ronald MacArthur and Renee MacArthur were ultimately removed from the case. Defense counsel denied the caregivers’ allegations, including those regarding prior complaints, racial harassment, groping, failure to act, and especially in regard to alleged retaliation. Counsel asserted that when the company became aware of the alleged inappropriate behavior, it took prompt corrective action. Defense counsel also noted that the single, offending patient was a bedbound male with dementia and that the patient died shortly thereafter. In addition, counsel denied that the EEOC attempted to conciliate in good faith., The former caregivers alleged that they suffered from emotional distress as a result of their treatment. The EEOC sought recovery of non-economic damages for the former caregivers’ emotional pain and suffering. It also sought recovery of back pay for one claimant and sought injunctive relief.