The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a company involved in raspberry farming in which the EEOC had alleged that employees were subjected to regular sexual harassment.  The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that both male and female employees endured a sexually charged hostile work environment that included a supervisor making repeated inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted touching.  Indeed, the lawsuit further alleged that these comments and inappropriate touching sometimes occurred in front of other managers and supervisors, who did nothing to stop the hostile work environment and even retaliated and discouraged employees from making additional complaints.  Such behavior is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaints of discrimination or sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. Tres Hijas Berry Farms, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01919-MWF-Ex (C.D. Cal.). 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a Subway franchise.  The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that the owner of the franchise had instructed the general manager not to hire African American employees or employees who appeared to be African American.  The lawsuit further alleged that the owner created a hostile work environment for African American employees by making disparaging remarks based on their race and by stereotyping these employees based on his own racial bias.  This discriminatory behavior resulted in the general manager eventually being forced to resign.  Such alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their race and prohibits hiring decisions based on race.  See EEOC v. Bilal & Aaya Subway, Inc., H & F Subway Inc. and L & H Subway, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00129-D-BM (E.D.N.C.).

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a recycling, removal, and disposal company, TCI, in which the EEOC claimed that TCI retaliated against an employee who participated in an internal investigation with the company.  The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that a Charge of Discrimination was filed against TCI claiming that TCI's hiring practices were discriminatory against females, which prompted an internal investigation by TCI.  The lawsuit further alleges that a TCI employee who had been with the company for 28 years participated in the investigation, and their employment was terminated in retaliation for their involvement in this investigation.  Such alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation against employees who make complaints of discrimination and participate in investigations of discrimination.  See EEOC v. TCI of Alabama, LLC,  Case No. 4:23-cv-1200-CLM (N.D. Ala.).

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit that it had filed against Olive Garden/GRMI Inc.  The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that Olive Garden discriminated against an applicant due to the applicant's disability.  The applicant used a cane and, during the interview, the GM asked the applicant numerous questions related to his disability including asking what "was wrong" with the applicant, asking how "bad" his disability was, and asking questions about his use of a cane.  Olive Garden ultimately declined to hire the applicant because of his disability and because of information related to his disability that the GM learned through his asking of illegal questions about the applicant's disability.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits employers from making hiring decisions on the basis of an applicant's disability.  See U.S. EEOC v. GMRI, Inc. d/b/a Olive Garden, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-01448-NR (W.D. Pa.).

The National Labor Relations Board recently ruled that a Home Depot store has violated the National Labor Relations Act by insisting that one of its employees remove a "BLM" marking from their uniform.  The NLRB determined that mandating the employee to remove the marking from Home Depot's orange apron constituted an unfair labor practice.  In a separate recent NLRB decision, the NLRB reinstituted a former rule in which an employer's interference with insignia, banners, or badges is presumptively viewed as unlawful, unless there are special circumstances for the interference.  In this present matter, Home Depot insisted that its employee remove a BLM logo from his apron, which the employee had drawn on the apron six months before this request, and told the employee that they feared allowing this logo could lead to other employees to request to put swastikas on their aprons.  This eventually led to the employee being forced to resign.  The NLRB determined that there were no special circumstances permitting Home Depot to prohibit the BLM writing, that Home Depot had forced the employee to resign, and that the employee had engaged in concerted activity because his behavior was a logical outgrowth of other employee complaints of bias against people of color.  Such alleged actions are a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, which protects employees who engage in protected concerted activity to improve workplace conditions.  See Home Depot USA, Inc. and Antonio Morales Jr Case 18–CA–273796.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against Cedar Point amusement park in which the EEOC alleged that Cedar Point had discriminated against employees due to their age.  The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that Cedar Point provided its out-of-town seasonal employees with housing for far below market rate.  In 2021 and 2022, however, Cedar Point changed its policy and provided this housing only to employees (other than entertainers) who were below thirty years of age.  The EEOC's lawsuit further alleged that this policy prevented its older out-of-town employees from having the ability to renew their seasonal employment, because of economic barriers that this policy created.  This alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits employers from implementing policies that discriminate against and disadvantage employees over the age of forty.  See EEOC v. Cedar Fair L.P., et al., Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-01843-JGC (N.D. Ohio).

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a case against a transportation service company that the EEOC had alleged discriminated against its employees due to their sex and sexual orientation.  The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that the company subjected four of its female employees to discriminatory and disparaging comments and actions.  For example, the owner called these employees "f*cking lesbians" and "fat ugly b*tches."  He also told them that he hated dealing with women and that "women like [them]" would be "killed in [his] country."  This harassment resulted in all four women's employment being terminated on the same day.  When terminating their employment, the owner announced to the entire company that all of the lesbians were fired.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against employees due to their sex or sexual orientation, prohibits harassment due to these protected classes, and prohibits retaliation for complaining about discrimination on this basis.  See EEOC v. Sandia Transportation, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00274-MV-GJF (D.N.M.).

The United States Department of Labor recently recovered unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages for more than two dozen employees of a home healthcare agency that were denied time and a half overtime wages for hours that they worked over forty in a workweek.  The DOL found that the home health agency, which operates three different facilities, paid these employees only their regular straight time hours for this overtime work, rather than the time and a half wages that it was obligated to pay.  The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay non-exempt overtime employees, such as most hourly employees and even certain salaried employees, time and a half overtime wages for hours that they work over forty in a workweek.  Failure to pay these employees these required wages may result in the offending employer being obligated to pay the unpaid back wages, an equal amount as liquidated damages, and the statutory attorney's fees and costs that the employees' suffer to collect these damages.  See https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20240307

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against Voyant Beauty, in which the EEOC alleged that the company had terminated an employee because of their disability.  The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that Voyant hired an employee, but, on the first day of her employment, Voyant learned that this employee was deaf.  After learning this, Voyant terminated her employment, despite the new employee being qualified for the job and being able to perform the job with or without an accommodation.  Rather than discussing whether the employee would need any accommodations, Voyant assumed that she could not perform the job and fired her.  Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against employees due to a disability and which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees who need such accommodations.  See Civil Action No.1:23-cv-014023 (N.D. Ill.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit against Gracious, LLC, a bakery, for allegedly discriminating against an employee due to her disability and pregnancy.  The EEOC's lawsuit claims that the bakery terminated an employee from her job because she missed two shifts to receive emergency medical treatment related to her pregnancy.  Indeed, the employee was ready to return to work after two days, but Gracious, LLC informed her that it was choosing to terminate her employment because her pregnancy complications caused a reliability issue.  This alleged conduct violates both the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against an employee due to their disability or perceived disability, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against employees due to their pregnancy.  See EEOC v. Gracious, LLC d/b/a Gracious Bakery + Café), Civil Action No. 24-cv-00218 (E.D. La.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has recently filed a lawsuit against a property management company in which the EEOC alleges that the company revoked a job offer that it had made to an applicant after the company learned that the prospective employee suffered from a disability.  The EEOC's lawsuit claims that the company made a job offer to the employee to work as an administrative employee, but then learned that the employee had subsequently been diagnosed with a common form of breast cancer.  The prospective employee's doctor confirmed that she could still perform the job, but she would need limited time off of work each week for treatment.  Instead of discussing this request for a reasonable accommodation with the employee, the company withdrew her job offer.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees, including those who have not yet started working, due to a disability or a reasonable request for an accommodation related to a disability.  See Case No. 1:24-cv-10370 (D. Mass.)

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a manufacturing and distribution company, J&M Industries, in which the EEOC had alleged that J&M discriminated against one of its employees due to their age.  The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that J&M terminated the employee because she refused to retire after she turned 65 years old.  As her 65th birthday neared, a manager repeatedly asked her about retirement.  In response, the employee told the manager that she had no plans to retire.  After learning this, the company terminated her employment under the pretense that her position was being eliminated for economic reasons.  Less than a month later, however, J&M hired an employee in his thirties for the very same position it had claimed to eliminate.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees over the age of 40 due to their age.  See EEOC v. J&M Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-01100 (E.D. La.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit alleging that a workplace facility management company, ISS Facility Services, refused to grant reasonable accommodations to one of its employees who suffered from a disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that, for months, ISS required its employees to work remotely four days per week due to COVID.  After that requirement ended, the employee in the EEOC's lawsuit asked for ISS to permit her to work from home for two days per week and to allow her additional breaks while at work.  Despite permitting other employees in the same job as her to work from home, ISS refused her requested reasonable accommodations.  Such alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disability or requests for accommodations due to a disability. See EEOC v. ISS Facility Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03708-SCJ-RDC (N.D. Ga.).

The U.S. Department of Labor recently announced that it reached an agreement with Krispy Kreme after a DOL investigation found that Krispy Kreme had denied time-and-a-half overtime wages to over 500 employees throughout the nation.  The DOL's investigation began with a single store, before it expanded when the DOL determined that the overtime violations were systemic.  The DOL found that Krispy Kreme had failed to include monthly bonuses in the regular rate of pay for some of its employees, which denied them certain time-and-a-half overtime wages to which they were entitled.  Many employees who receive bonuses must have these bonuses included for overtime calculation purposes, and a failure to do so may be a Fair Labor Standards Act violation.
​See https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20221117.