Lori’s Gifts will pay $600,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the company unlawfully screened out job applicants with disabilities.  According to the EEOC, Lori’s Gifts used preemployment questions asking applicants whether they could lift up to 30 pounds or stand and walk for up to five hours, and automatically rejected applicants who answered “no”, even when those requirements were not necessary for the job. The agency also alleged the company refused to hire qualified applicants based on assumptions about the need for accommodations, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  In addition to the monetary settlement, the company agreed to revise its hiring practices, provide ADA training, establish reporting procedures for disability discrimination complaints, and submit compliance reports to the EEOC for two years. (EEOC v. Lori’s Gifts, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-03175-EAS-CMV)

Metro Eighteen, Inc. will pay $70,098 to settle a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging race harassment and retaliation at its Los Angeles location.  According to the EEOC, a Black employee was subjected to racially charged comments and conduct by co-workers. Although he complained to management, the harassment allegedly continued, and the company later fired him after he reported the discrimination.  The EEOC alleged the conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination and retaliation against employees who complain about unlawful workplace conduct. In addition to the monetary settlement, Metro Eighteen agreed to implement measures aimed at preventing future discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. (​(EEOC v. Metro Eighteen, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-03412-AH(ADSx)))

The Carlstar Group will pay $300,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the company fired or denied opportunities to employees who lawfully used prescription medications for disabilities.  According to the EEOC, Carlstar took adverse action against manufacturing employees in Tennessee and South Carolina after learning they were prescribed medications such as opioids or narcotics, even when the employees had been medically cleared to perform their jobs. The agency also alleged the company failed to consider reasonable accommodations that would allow employees to continue working while using prescribed medication.  The EEOC alleged the conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to individually assess employees and provide reasonable accommodations where appropriate. In addition to the monetary settlement, Carlstar agreed to implement new accommodation policies, train supervisors and employees on ADA compliance, track accommodation requests, and report to the EEOC for five years. ​(EEOC v. The Carlstar Group, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00575EJR)

PepsiCo will pay $270,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the company failed to accommodate a blind employee and then terminated him.  According to the EEOC, PepsiCo hired a blind employee to work as a customer care advocate at its Winston-Salem, North Carolina call center in 2022. The employee requested accommodations that would allow him to access necessary information on the company’s computer systems, but the company allegedly concluded no accommodation was available and fired him. The EEOC also alleged PepsiCo rejected outside assistance offered to help identify accessibility solutions.  In addition to the monetary settlement, PepsiCo agreed to work with an accessibility consultant to improve software access for visually impaired employees, provide ADA training, update its accommodation policies, and report compliance efforts to the EEOC for two years.

A federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor has resulted in the recovery of more than $293,000 in back wages for 56 construction workers employed by Idaho-based Speedy’s Framing LLC. According to the Department’s Wage and Hour Division, the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by paying straight-time rates for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, instead of the legally required overtime premium. Investigators also found that a foreman was not compensated for travel time spent driving company vehicles between job sites, resulting in additional unpaid overtime. The recovered wages varied widely among affected workers, ranging from as little as $90 to more than $32,000. Due to the willful nature of the violations, the employer was also assessed a civil penalty of nearly $25,000. Speedy’s Framing has agreed to pay the back wages and come into compliance with federal overtime and record keeping requirements going forward.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit against Silver Cross Hospital, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the complaint, a certified surgical technologist requested a religious exemption from the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate in August 2021 based on her Christian beliefs. The hospital allegedly denied the request and terminated her employment in November 2021, despite the EEOC’s claim that a reasonable accommodation could have been provided without undue hardship. The EEOC contends that while vaccine mandates are not inherently unlawful, employers must still comply with Title VII by reasonably accommodating sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose more than a minimal burden. The agency further alleges that the employee’s termination constituted unlawful retaliation for asserting her rights. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Illinois, seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief to prevent similar violations. ​(EEOC v. Silver Cross Hospital, Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-3343).

Epiq Food Hall Woodbridge LLC will pay $54,000 to resolve a racial harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a Black general manager. According to the EEOC, the company’s owner repeatedly subjected the employee to racist slurs and degrading comments, calling Black customers and employees “ignorant,” “ghetto,” and “riff-raff,” telling the manager he “looked like he spoke thug language,” and using the N-word. After six months of enduring the harassment with no meaningful way to report it, the employee resigned in January 2023. The EEOC alleged the conduct created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under a three-year consent decree, the company agreed to pay damages and, if it resumes operations, implement anti-harassment policies and training. Claims against a successor entity, 4 Brothers Properties LLC, remain pending.

The Young Men’s and Women’s Hebrew Association of Washington Heights and Inwood has agreed to pay $100,200 to settle a religious discrimination and retaliation charge brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. According to the EEOC, the organization failed to accommodate a Christian employee who requested schedule flexibility so she could attend Sunday church services and leadership meetings required by her faith. The EEOC found that the employer denied the request and later retaliated against the employee, ultimately forcing her to resign in 2022. The agency concluded the conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause undue hardship and prohibits retaliation for requesting accommodations.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a subpoena enforcement action against Nike, Inc. in federal court to compel production of records tied to allegations of systemic race discrimination against white employees, applicants, and training program participants. The probe targets Nike’s DEI 2025 Targets and related initiatives, which the EEOC says may have driven unlawful disparate treatment in hiring, promotions, layoffs, internships, mentoring, leadership development, and career opportunities dating back to 2018, potentially through race-based preferences, tracking of race/ethnicity data linked to executive compensation, and 16 programs allegedly restricting access by race. After partial non-compliance with the subpoena, the EEOC sought court intervention, with EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas reaffirming Title VII's application, "“Title VII’s prohibition of race-based employment discrimination is colorblind and requires the EEOC to protect employees of all races from unlawful employment practices." This case signals intensified scrutiny of DEI practices that may cross into prohibited race-based decision-making.

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.).​