According to the EEOC,  Central Austin Motorcars, LLC, Hi Tech Motorcars, LLC, and Stadium Motorcars, LLC will pay $925,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, five managers at South Austin Nissan, a car dealership in Austin, subjected four female sales employees to a sexually hostile work environment including frequent sexual comments, unwanted touching, and a physical assault in the workplace. The filing claimed managers also instructed female sales associates to “show more, sell more,” encouraging them to use sexuality to sell cars. One female sales associate was forced to resign her employment in February 2023 due to the harassment. The EEOC’s suit also alleged the dealerships engaged in unlawful retaliation stemming from the transfer and subsequent termination of a male sales manager upon learning he reported the sexual harassment. (EEOC v. Central Austin Motorcars, LLC, Hi Tech Motorcars, LLC, and Stadium Motorcars, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01541-RP)

According to the EEOC, Alabama recycler TCI of Alabama, LLC, will pay $2.6 million and provide other relief to settle a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit, the federal agency announced today. The EEOC’s suit charged that TCI intentionally violated federal law by engaging in a long-standing pattern of refusing to hire female laborers at its Pell City, Alabama recycling plant, potentially impacting thousands of women. According to the complaint, starting in 2006 when the company purchased the plant, through late 2022, the company intentionally hired only men for laborer positions and converted showers and locker rooms to male-only facilities. When TCI began outsourcing its labor staffing to third-party agencies, it directed them to refer only male applicants even when qualified female candidates were available. “Employers cannot evade Title VII by outsourcing their hiring and directing staffing agencies to carry out their discriminatory preferences based on sex,” said Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District. “The EEOC will aggressively pursue staffing agencies who comply with unlawful requests under federal law and employers who refuse to hire qualified females.” This alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits denying qualified individuals employment based on their sex. (EEOC v. TCI of Alabama, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00089-CLM)

According to the EEOC,  Dana Sealing Manufacturing, LLC, a manufacturer of automotive parts, violated federal law when it collected the medical history of applicants’ family members during the pre-employment physical examination process at its facility in Danville. According to the EEOC’s suit, from at least January 2022 until October 2024, Dana Sealing requested genetic information from applicants by requiring applicants to state whether their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and grandparents had ever had certain medical conditions (e.g., cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes, epilepsy, asthma or mental illness) as a part of its pre-employment physical examination process. “The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act prevents employers from requesting family medical history information from employees and applicants, except in narrow circumstances, none of which applied here,” said Kenneth L. Bird, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Indianapolis District. “The EEOC will continue to enforce GINA and other federal anti-discrimination laws.” Such alleged conduct violates the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which makes it unlawful for an employer to request, require or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee or applicant. “Genetic information” includes information about any disease or disorder manifesting in an employee or applicant’s family members. (EEOC v. Dana Sealing Manufacturing, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00233-REW-EBA)

According to the EEOC, Tawa Supermarket, Inc. doing business as 99 Ranch Market, violated federal law when it fired and otherwise discriminated against non-Chinese workers based on their national origin. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, since at least 2016, following a leadership change, the grocery store chain allegedly terminated recently hired non-Chinese managers at multiple locations. Tawa also subjected non-Chinese store-level employees to discrimination by failing to promote them because they are not Chinese, paying them less than Chinese workers, and scheduling them for fewer work hours than Chinese counterparts. As a result, some non-Chinese workers felt they had no choice but to resign. “The EEOC will not hesitate to bring litigation to make clear to employers that cultural preference regarding the composition of their workforce does not insulate them from liability. Preferences based on protected characteristics are simply a form of illegal discrimination under Title VII,” said Catherine Eschbach, acting general counsel for the EEOC. “That the employer here is a Chinese supermarket chain does not provide license to terminate non-Chinese managers or otherwise discriminate against non-Chinese workers in employment terms and conditions.” Christine Park-Gonzalez, director of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, said, “Customer preference or beliefs that workers from certain groups are more productive do not justify national origin discrimination. Employers must follow federal law and not exclude workers due to national origin.” (EEOC v. Tawa Supermarket, Inc. dba 99 Ranch Market, et al. Case No. 8:26-cv-01682)

According to the EEOC LeachGarner, Inc., a metallurgical manufacturer and supplier, will pay $2.8 million and provide other relief to settle a federal sex discrimination lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that for years LeachGarner routinely assigned female manufacturing employees at its Attleboro, Massachusetts facility to lower paying jobs. Manufacturing positions were held nearly exclusively by men and paid more than those held by women, even though the male dominated positions required no prior experience and they involved similar work. LeachGarner also told staffing agencies that it preferred men for certain vacancies, the suit alleged. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act (EPA), both of which prohibit discrimination based on sex. Arlean Nieto, the acting director of the EEOC’s New York District, said, “Title VII and the EPA require equal pay for equal work. All employers should take steps to ensure that they are allowing men and women an equal chance to earn good wages.” (EEOC v. LeachGarner d/b/a LeachGarner, a Berkshire Hathaway Company, Case No. 23-cv-11014)

According to the EEOC, Kaiser Permanente, a national health insurance and healthcare company headquartered in Oakland, California, resolved 12 charges of discrimination filed with multiple offices at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for $358,000 and injunctive relief. The EEOC charges of discrimination alleged that Kaiser denied employees religious accommodations to the company’s vaccine mandate policy. The EEOC investigated the allegations and found reasonable cause to believe that Kaiser violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it questioned the sincerity of employees’ religious beliefs and failed to provide religious accommodations as appropriate to employees at various locations in several states. Without admitting liability, Kaiser entered into conciliation agreements with the EEOC. The company confirmed completion of equal employment opportunity training on reasonable religious accommodations and installed processes to address reasonable religious accommodations made by employees in accordance with federal law. The EEOC will monitor compliance for the agreements’ one-year term.

According to the EEOC, PT Administrative Services LLC, a large chain of physical therapy clinics doing business as JAG Physical Therapy, will pay $125,000 and furnish other relief to settle a childbirth discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In the lawsuit, the EEOC charged that in late 2023, the employee, a patient services coordinator at the Brooklyn Heights JAG location, reached out the day she gave birth to ask about a brief leave or a schedule change, reasonable accommodations that would have permitted her to physically recover from childbirth and facilitated her lactation.  JAG allegedly refused to grant these accommodations and immediately fired the employee simply for asking about them. JAG’s alleged conduct violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which requires employers, absent undue hardship, to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions and prohibits punishing an employee for asking about or using such accommodations. (EEOC v. PT Administrative Services LLC d/b/a JAG Physical Therapy, Case No. 1:25-cv-03615)

According to the EEOC, Holsum of Fort Wayne, Inc., a wholesale bakery with two locations in northern Indiana, will pay $50,000, amend workplace policies, and offer additional training to its employees to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Holsum maintained a policy prohibiting the use of personal items in the production area. In August 2020, one of its supervisors permitted an employee to bring a walker into the area so she could walk throughout the facility. However, approximately a year later, the bakery told her she could no longer use the walker, as it violated the personal items policy. The employee said she needed the walker due to her disabilities, but Holsum refused to grant her an exception to the policy and forced her to take medical leave. A few months later, Holsum fired her because she was unable to return to work without the assistance of a walker. “The ADA prohibits an employer from forcing an employee with a disability off the job when a reasonable accommodation is available and will allow that employee to continue working,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Kenneth Bird. “When an employer refuses to consider such an accommodation, it ignores its obligation under the law.”(EEOC v. Holsum of Fort Wayne, Inc., Case No. 3:24-CV-00702-CCB-SJF)

According to the EEOC, Buc-ee’s, Ltd., a travel center retailer with locations throughout Texas and in 10 other states, violated federal law when it denied a disabled employee reasonable accommodations and subsequently terminated him. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a Buc-ee’s cashier in Bastrop, Texas requested a reasonable accommodation in October 2024 for physician-imposed restrictions related to his disability, myasthenia gravis, a chronic neuromuscular condition. Among the accommodations he requested was to have seating available at his workstation so that he could avoid standing continuously for more than 15 minutes at a time and regain his stamina after standing. But Buc-ee’s denied the cashier’s request, requiring that he stand continuously, and eventually the company fired him after he was unable to return to work due to denial of his accommodation request, the EEOC charged. (EEOC v. Buc-ee’s, Ltd., Case No. 1:26-CV-0139)

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, $171,897 in back wages has been recovered from a physical therapy and rehabilitation clinic after an investigation determined the employer denied 32 employees full overtime pay at three of its facilities, in violation of federal law. Investigators with the department’s Wage and Hour Division determined First Physical & Functional Rehab failed to combine hours worked across its three locations in Wahiawa, Waianae, and Waipahu, resulting in some workers not receiving overtime compensation. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay workers time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. 

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.