DECISION AND ORDERI. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed this action against Defendant Upstate Niagara Cooperative, Inc. (“Upstate Niagara”) after a former applicant filed charges with the EEOC alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-f(1) and (3), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981(a). The EEOC alleges that since 2009, Upstate Niagara has discriminated against qualified female applicants in favor of hiring less qualified men throughout its facilities. The EEOC also alleges that Upstate Niagara has failed to comply with the record-keeping requirements of Section 709(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c).Presently before this Court is Upstate Niagara’s motion to dismiss the EEOC’s complaint in its entirety on the basis that some of the claims are time barred, and that the remaining claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 8) With briefing fully completed and oral argument deemed unnecessary, this Court will deny Upstate Niagara’s motion.II. BACKGROUNDThe facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 572 (2007) (“[A] judge ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).The Complaint alleges that since at least 2009, Upstate Niagara has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its three largest facilities by failing to hire qualified women for various positions in favor of equally or less qualified men, “including hiring male applicants with no relevant past work experience at all.” (Complaint, Docket No. 1, 13(a), (b), (g)) The Complaint also alleges that since 2009, Upstate Niagara has failed to make and preserve records relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, including employment applications, interview documentation, and other hiring-related documentation. (Id. 15)Between 2008 and 2014, Upstate Niagara “hired approximately 160 employees into production-related positions at its Rochester, Dale Road and West Seneca facilities,” and “[d]espite a pool of qualified female candidates, [Upstate Niagara] hired 155 men and only 5 women at those facilities.” (Id. 13(g)) At its Dale Road and Rochester facilities, Upstate Niagara hired no women at all into production-related positions in the same time frame. (Id. 13(e)) For example, in August 2009, one female applicant to Upstate Niagara’s West Seneca facility had over 10 years of experience as a machine operator and 7.5 years of production-related experience, but was never contacted for an interview, and a man (her husband) was hired for the position instead. (Id. 13(h))The Charging Party, Gail Haas, applied for a temporary production position at Upstate Niagara’s West Seneca facility in April 2010; the position entailed “various machine operation and warehouse duties” as well as “regularly stack[ing]/unstacking[ing] cases weighing up to 55 lbs, lift[ing]/maneuver[ing] from floor to shoulder level, and frequently mov[ing] stacks of products with a hook, pallet jacks, two wheelers or dollies.” (Id. 13(j)) With “over [9] years of experience in food production, including as a machine operator and forklift driver and lifting and stacking heavy containers,” Haas was qualified for the position. (Id. 13(k)) Following an interview in April 2010, Haas was offered the position, subject to passing a physical exam. (Id. 13(l)) During the examination, Haas was asked to lift a 50 pound crate to table height and then from table height to over her shoulders; Haas objected to lifting the crate above her shoulders, believing it would violate OSHA regulations. (Id. 13(m)) At the conclusion of Haas’ physical exam, Haas was told that she passed the exam. (Id.) Nonetheless, Haas was not hired for the position; during the same time frame and at the same West Seneca facility, Upstate Niagara hired five men in production-related jobs. (Id. 13(n), (o))In May 2010, Gail Haas filed a charge with the EEOC, alleging that Upstate Niagara’s pre-employment physical examination had a disparate impact on female applicants. (Weissflach Decl., Ex. B., Docket No. 8-1) In June 2010, the EEOC initiated an investigation and requested from Upstate Niagara various employment records, including demographic information regarding all employees and job applicants and descriptions for such positions. (Id., Ex. C) The EEOC subsequently issued Upstate Niagara two more information requests in October 2011 and February 2013, for information regarding its hiring policies, and also directed Upstate Niagara to comply with the EEOC’s record-keeping regulations. (Id., Exs. D, E) In October 2015, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination, concluding that Upstate Niagara engaged in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment in hiring on the basis of sex, but found that Upstate Niagara’s lifting requirement for the physical examination did not have a disparate impact on women. (Id., Ex. G; Compl. 7)After unsuccessfully engaging in conciliation efforts with Upstate Niagara, (Compl.
