EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. NORTHWEST ARKANSAS HOSPITALS LLC (2026)

ORDER ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (“EEOC”) Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 136) and Brief in Support (Doc. 137), Defendant Northwest Arkansas Hospitals, LLC's (“NWAH”) Brief in Opposition (Doc. 142), and the EEOC's Reply (Doc. 148). For the reasons explained herein, the Motion is GRANTED.

On July 24, 2026, following a five-day jury trial, the EEOC prevailed on its sex discrimination claim brought on behalf of former hospital employee Efrain Chavez. The jury awarded Mr. Chavez $5,000 in compensatory damages and assessed NWAH $100,000 in punitive damages. See Doc. 130. The month before trial commenced, NWAH was wholly purchased by Freeman Health System, which changed the hospital's name to Freeman Health System-Bentonville Medical Center. (Doc. 142, p. 2). Though Freeman Health System was never a party to this lawsuit, the EEOC asks that it be deemed the successor in liability to NWAH and enjoined from committing future acts of sex discrimination by requiring all employees and physicians with hospital privileges to complete EEO training on sex discrimination for one hour per year for the next four years; providing proof to the EEOC of each such training; posting the hospital's non-discrimination policies prominently; and providing a positive reference for Mr. Chavez upon request.

Before considering whether the EEOC's suggested prospective relief is appropriate, the Court must first decide whether Freeman Health System is, in fact, the successor in interest to NWAH. The following factors are relevant: (1) whether the successor company had notice of the charge; (2) the ability of the predecessor to provide relief; (3) whether there has been a substantial continuation of business operations; (4) whether the new employer uses the same plant; (5) whether the new employer uses the same or substantially the same work force; (6) whether the new employer uses the same or substantially the same supervisory personnel; (7) whether the same jobs exist under substantially the same working conditions; (8) whether the new employer uses the same machinery, equipment, and methods of production; and (9) whether the new employer produces the same product. Prince v. Kids Ark Learning Ctr., LLC, 622 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing EEOC v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 503 F.2d 1086,1090–91 (6th Cir. 1974)).

Rather than discussing these factors, NWAH states the obvious—that “Freeman is not a party to this lawsuit”—and then argues only with respect to the first factor that the EEOC “has presented no evidence” showing Freeman Health “had notice of the charge.” (Doc. 142, p. 5). This question of notice, however, is not seriously in dispute. The lawsuit was pending for approximately two years prior to Freeman Health's purchase; the Court set the matter for trial about six months before purchase; and the trial began only one month after purchase. Given the timeline, it is implausible that Freeman Health had little to no notice of the suit and NWAH's potential liability.

The remaining eight factors also weigh in favor of finding that Freeman Health is the successor in interest to NWAH, Factor two asks whether NWAH is capable of providing future relief, and NWAH admits it “is in no position” to enforce an injunction “because Freeman is in control of the hospital.” (Doc. 142, p. 2). Factors three through nine examine the continuity of business operations before and after purchase—specifically, whether the physical building, employees, supervisory personnel, working conditions, equipment, and “product” are substantially the same—and, once again, NWAH admits it sold “100% of the facility” to Freeman Health. Id. at p. 1. The doctors and staff who testified at trial indicated they were doing the same jobs they did the previous month, when NWAH was in charge. Furthermore, a few relevant details about the asset purchase are described in an article cited in NWAH's brief. See id. at P. 2 n.1. According to this article, which was originally published on Freeman Health's website, NWAH's “care teams” were absorbed into Freeman Health's “organization,” and NWAH's patients were assured they would “continue to have access to care and valued providers at the facilities they know and trust, now backed by the strength and resources of [Freeman Health],” with no “changes to the insurance plans accepted at the facilities or practices.” https://www.freemanhealth.com/news/freeman-health-system-completes-acquisition-of-northwest-health-expands-regional-care. These facts in combination indicate Freeman Health is NWAH's successor in interest and the appropriate party to enjoin.

The Court is mindful of the fact that the “[f]ailure to hold a successor employer liable for the discriminatory practices of its predecessor could emasculate the relief provisions of Title VII by leaving the discriminatee without a remedy or with an incomplete remedy.” Prince, 622 F.3d at 995 (quotation omitted). The Court retains broad discretion to “order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include ․ equitable relief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1)). Although NWAH contends such relief is unwarranted, the facts adduced at trial indicate otherwise. First, the testimony from Labor and Delivery Charge Nurse Angela Markey showed she reported sex discrimination against Mr. Chavez to upper-level management, but no discipline followed. See Doc. 118, p. 186. Next, Director of Women's Services Jennie McClain testified that she brought up the discrimination in a face-to-face conversation with the hospital's CEO, but he took no action. See id. at pp. 252–53. Finally, the evidence showed Dr. Amy Fry and her medical partner Dr. Katie Beal—both physicians with privileges to practice at NWAH (now Freeman Health)—unilaterally banned Mr. Chavez from their delivery rooms because of his sex. Dr. Fry testified she had no recollection of taking part in any training related to the hospital's Code of Conduct. See Doc. 121, p. 75. Accordingly, the Court finds there is a likelihood that similar discriminatory conduct will recur in this workplace without prospective injunctive relief.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the EEOC's Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 136) is GRANTED as follows:

(1) All employees and physicians with hospital privileges at Freeman Health System-Bentonville Medical Center must complete EEO training on sex discrimination for one hour per year for the next four years;

(2) Freeman Health System-Bentonville Medical Center must maintain records of such training and provide proof of the same to the EEOC within sixty days of each training, including the name, address, telephone number, resume, and appropriate credentials of the trainer(s); the date(s) of the training; and a schedule and contents of the training;

(3) Freeman Health System-Bentonville Medical Center must post the hospital's non-discrimination policies; and

(4) to the extent Freeman Health System-Bentonville Medical Center is asked to provide an employment reference for Mr. Efrain Chavez, it is prohibited from retaliating against Mr. Chavez for having participated in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 3rd day of November, 2026.

TIMOTHY L. BROOKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE