A recent EEOC lawsuit against Franchise Management, LLC, an operator of more than 20 Subway locations in Utah, highlights the serious legal consequences employers face when they fail to protect workers from sexual harassment, particularly young employees. According to the EEOC, a male district manager sexually harassed a teenage male employee over several months by making sexual comments, requesting explicit photos, and sending inappropriate images, culminating in forcible sexual abuse during a work shift. The case, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, resulted in a $150,000 settlement and a three-year consent decree requiring policy revisions, mandatory sexual harassment training, an apology to the employee, and enhanced workplace safeguards. This case serves as a stark reminder that sexual harassment, including same-sex harassment, is unlawful, that employers are responsible for preventing and promptly addressing misconduct by supervisors, and that workers, regardless of age or gender, have the right to a safe and respectful workplace. ​(EEOC v. Franchise Management, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-000392)

A U.S. Department of Labor investigation found that the owner of two Boise restaurants violated federal wage laws, resulting in lost pay for hundreds of workers. The investigation determined that 388 employees were denied proper minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Federal investigators found that the restaurants illegally required tipped employees to share tips with managers and supervisors. Because management cannot participate in tip pools, this practice invalidated the employer’s tip credit and led to minimum wage and overtime violations. The employer also deducted uniform costs from workers’ pay, pushing wages below the legal minimum. In addition, employees were only paid overtime after working more than 80 hours in a pay period, rather than receiving time-and-one-half pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, as required by law. Some workers were also misclassified as overtime-exempt managers despite not meeting the legal criteria. As a result, the Department of Labor recovered $366,261 in back wages for affected employees and assessed an additional $47,282 in civil penalties for willful violations. This case highlights common wage violations in the restaurant industry and reinforces that employees have the right to keep their tips, earn minimum wage, and receive overtime pay under federal law.

The EEOC recently sued Wrightway Ready-Mix, LLC and Wright Concrete & Construction, Inc. in West Virginia for refusing to hire a job applicant solely because he was taking methadone as part of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. During the interview, the hiring manager illegally asked about his medications, learned he was on methadone, and denied him the laborer position based on a blanket company policy against hiring anyone using methadone. HR confirmed the policy. This violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects individuals in recovery as having a disability, bans pre-offer medical inquiries that reveal disabilities, and prohibits qualification standards that screen out people with disabilities unless job-related and necessary. Blanket bans on hiring workers using prescribed methadone or similar treatments are unlawful. Employers must consider applicants individually and cannot discriminate against those managing opioid addiction through medically approved treatment.

According to the EEOC, Air Evac EMS, an emergency air medical transportation services company headquartered in O’Fallon, Missouri, operating more than 150 helicopter air ambulance bases across 15 states, will pay $59,000 and furnish other relief, settling a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC’s suit charged Air Evac with violating federal law when it rescinded an applicant’s job offer because of potential side effects of the applicant’s prescription medication. Air Evac offered the applicant a position in Cullman County, Alabama in May 2021, but rescinded the offer one month later after learning of the applicant’s prescription through a pre-employment medical screening. Federal law prohibits employers from refusing to hire qualified applicants because of their actual or perceived disabilities.

Two Phoenix drywall and painting companies have been ordered to pay over $7.4 million after the Department of Labor found they intentionally denied overtime pay to more than 1,400 workers. The investigation revealed that the companies used multiple tactics, including paying workers with multiple checks, cash payments through labor brokers, and piece-rate systems that ignored overtime requirements. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), all non-exempt employees must be paid time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 in a week, regardless of how they’re paid. Employers cannot disguise pay methods to avoid this obligation. This case underscores the importance of knowing your rights. If you’re working long hours without overtime pay, receiving multiple checks, or being paid in cash or by the job, you may be owed significant back wages. See Julie Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Inc. and Empire Wall Systems Inc. (D. Ariz.)

Sam’s Club and its parent company Walmart have agreed to pay $60,000 and implement corrective measures to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The case involved a longtime employee at the Douglasville, Georgia, location who was fired after requesting temporary accommodations for injuries sustained in a car accident. Although she was able to perform her job with restrictions, management refused to allow her to continue working, denied her request for additional leave, and terminated her employment. The EEOC argued that this violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires reasonable accommodations regardless of how a disability arises. Under the consent decree, Sam’s Club must provide monetary relief, notify employees of their rights under the ADA, train managers on compliance, and report future denials of accommodation requests. The settlement underscores the EEOC’s commitment to enforcing the ADA and reminds employers that terminating workers rather than accommodating them can lead to costly consequences. See EEOC v. Sam’s East, Inc. and Walmart Inc., Case No. 1:25-CV-0222 (N.D. Ga).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against PACE Southeast Michigan, a company providing care for the elderly, which agreed to pay $170,000 in relief. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, PACE maintained a policy that treated any employee unable to return to work following the expiration of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave as having “voluntarily resigned,” resulting in termination. Two employees requested a brief leave extension of three weeks or less, supported by medical documentation, but PACE refused to consider the requests and instead fired them. Replacements for the employees were not hired until well after they could have returned to work. This conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability. See EEOC v. PACE Southeast Michigan, Case No. 2:24-cv-12424 (E.D. Mich.).​

The EEOC filed a lawsuit against FCA US, L.L.C., an international automobile manufacturer, alleging it violated federal law by subjecting female production employees to widespread sexual harassment. According to the lawsuit, female employees at FCA’s Detroit Assembly Complex were harassed by male supervisors and co-workers through sexually explicit comments and inappropriate touching. Despite receiving complaints, FCA either failed to act or responded in an untimely and negligent manner, including by failing to discipline the harassers. The hostile work environment ultimately caused one woman to resign. This conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment. See EEOC v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10174 (E.D. Mich.).

The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Delaware-based TCI of Alabama, LLC, a recycler of large items such as transformers and electrical equipment, alleging it violated federal employment law by discriminating against female job applicants at its Pell City, Alabama, location. The EEOC charged that since at least August 1, 2020, TCI systematically denied women laborer positions by instructing staffing agencies not to place or refer them. This conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex-based discrimination. See EEOC v. TCI of Alabama, LLC, Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-00089-SGC (N.D. Ala.).

he EEOC filed a lawsuit against LeoPalace Guam Corporation, doing business as LeoPalace Resort, a major hotel and resort in the U.S. territory of Guam, which agreed to pay $1,412,500 and provide equitable relief. According to the lawsuit, from as early as 2015, LeoPalace provided non-Japanese employees—including multiple American nationals—with less favorable wages, benefits, and employment terms compared to Japanese employees who held equal or lesser positions. This conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin. See EEOC v. LeoPalace Guam Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00004 (D. Guam).

The EEOC filed a lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic, alleging it violated federal civil rights law by denying a security guard’s request for a religious accommodation to its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. The employee explained his religious objections to the vaccine and offered to undergo regular testing and masking as alternatives. Mayo rejected the request, questioned the sincerity of his beliefs, and threatened termination. This effectively forced the employee to get vaccinated to keep his job. The EEOC argues this violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The agency seeks damages and policy changes to prevent future violations. For employees, this case is a reminder that you have the right to request a reasonable religious accommodation in the workplace without fear of retaliation. If your request is denied or ignored, you may have legal options. See EEOC v. Mayo Clinic, Case No. 0:25-cv-03066 (D. Minn.).

Voudris Law is proud to share an important victory for the hardworking servers, bartenders, and bussers at Lanning’s restaurant. On July 10, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted our request to send notice to all tipped employees who may have been underpaid due to unlawful tip deductions.  At the center of this case is Lanning’s policy of excessively deducting 5% from employees’ credit card tips instead of deducting the restaurant’s actual lower credit card processing fees from those tips. The Court has already ruled that this practice violated federal and Ohio minimum wage laws — meaning tipped workers were unfairly shorted on the wages they earned.  This ruling means that every tipped employee who worked at Lanning’s since December 11, 2020, now has the opportunity to join this collective action and seek the unpaid wages they rightfully deserve.  At Voudris Law, we are dedicated to standing up for workers and achieving real results when employers break the rules. This latest success shows why so many employees trust our team to fight for their rights — and win.
Justice for workers. Results you can trust.

​The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against General Motors (GM) and the international union of United Auto Workers violated federal law when they negotiated a collective bargaining agreement which limited short-term disability payments to older workers who receive Social Security Retirement benefits. According to the lawsuit, since at least 2019, the agreement between the parties provided that GM will pay weekly benefits to employees who miss work due to sickness or injury. But GM paid less to employees who were entitled, by their age, to full retirement benefits through Social Security program, leaving workers aged 66 and older with fewer benefits than younger coworkers. This conduct violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), which prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals aged 40 and older in compensations, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, including employee benefits, because of their age. See EEOC v. General Motors, LLC, and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Case No. 4:25-cv-00010 (S.D. Ind.).

The EEOC filed suit charging that the owner and operator of the three retirement communities in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., illegally discriminated against a Black employee when it failed to promote her to an executive-level position because of her race and fired her in retaliation for complaining of race-based discrimination.  See EEOC v. Westminster Ingleside King Farm Presbyterian Retirement Communities, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-02811 (D. Md.) ​

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit regarding equal pay with a multipurpose psychiatric facility.  According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Finan paid a male recreation therapist higher wages than his four female employees who have more experience than him. Their requests to Finan to equalize their pay were ignored. Such alleged conduct allegedly violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits pay discrimination between persons of the opposite sex for performing equal work. In addition to the monetary relief of $270,000 paid to the female recreation therapists, Finan is not allowed to engage in pay discrimination or retaliate against employees in the future. See EEOC v. Thomas B. Finan Maryland Department of Health, Case No. MJM-22-2407 (D. Md.) ​