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.) ​

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit alleging that a Center One employee, an adherent of Messianic Judaism, requested a reasonable accommodation of his religious beliefs requiring abstaining from work on religious observance days. The EEOC charged that Center One refused to grant the employee a schedule modification to observe the religious holiday. The company instead imposed disciplinary points against the employee for his religious-based absences. Such alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious beliefs, practices, and observances absent undue hardship on the employers’ business. Both Center One, LLC, and Capital Management Services, LP, will pay $60,000 to settle the religious accommodation lawsuit. See EEOC v. Center One, LLC., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-1242. (W.D. Pa.).

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.  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.  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, Case 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.).