The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against Long John Silver's after it alleged that the restaurant subjected a teenage employee to sexual harassment and retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment.  The lawsuit claimed that two adult male managers sexually harassed a female teenage employee by making numerous sexual comments, propositioning her for sex, making unwanted physical touching with her, and sending sexually explicit and inappropriate text messages.  The teenage employee complained about the sexual harassment, but Long John Silver's did not investigate and then cut her hours.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment as well as retaliation against employees who make complaints about sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. LJS Opco Two, LLC d/b/a Long John Silver’s Store #70250, No. 3:21-cv-00717 (C.D. Ill.).

A health services provider for correctional facilities has settled a lawsuit that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed, alleging that the company discriminated against one of its employees because of their sincerely held religious beliefs.  The lawsuit claimed that a nurse, who was a practicing Apostolic Pentecostal Christian, informed the company’s human resources department that she was required to dress modestly because of her religious beliefs, including wearing a skirt instead of pants at work.  After she informed HR, her request was declined and her job offer rescinded.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against employees because of their sincerely held religious beliefs.  See EEOC v. Wellpath LLC, No. 5:20-cv-01092 (W.D. Tex.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit against a company that provides delivery services for Amazon, in which the EEOC claimed that the company discriminated against one of its employees because of his sincerely held religious beliefs.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the employee requested Sundays off of work so that he could attend church services.  The delivery company scheduled this employee on a Sunday despite his request.  The employee reminded the dispatcher that he was not able to work on Sundays because of his religious beliefs.  When he failed to appear for work on Sunday, the company terminated his employment.  Such alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to grant reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs.  See EEOC v. Tampa Bay Delivery Service, LLC,  No. 8:21-cv-02302 (M.D. Fla.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity settled a lawsuit in which the EEOC had alleged that the employer created such a racially hostile work environment that the employee was forced the quit.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the general manager of the company discriminated against one of its African American employees by calling him “Black boy,” “the Black boy,” and “little Black guy.”  The lawsuit further alleged that the manager regularly used the “n” word in front of this employee.  On one occasion, a supervisor repeatedly told this employee that he was a “bitch as n*****,” and he said it in front of both the manager and other employees.  In response, the company sent the African American employee home for the day instead of the supervisor.  The work environment reached such a level of racial hostility that the employee resigned.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of a person’s race.  See EEOC v. Don's Specialty Meats, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-03421 (W.D. La.). 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against two car dealerships, which allegedly fired a title clerk, because they feared that she might have cancer.  The employee had missed several days of work because of an abrupt illness, and she also told management that she had been hospitalized and was being tested for cancer.  A day before her planned return to work, the dealerships fired the title clerk, telling her to “focus on her health” and stated that the termination of her employment was not because of her work performance.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability or a perceived disability.  See EEOC v. Cappo Management, No. 2:20-cv-02245 (E.D. Cal.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against Dollar Tree, after the EEOC alleged that Dollar Tree discriminated against an applicant because of their disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that a deaf prospective employee applied to Dollar Tree but was denied the job.  Instead of hiring this applicant, the EEOC alleged that Dollar Tree instead hired applicants with worse qualifications who were not hearing impaired.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against both employees and applicants on the basis of their disability or requests for reasonable accommodations.  See EEOC v. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-05959 (W.D. Wash.).

Charter Senior Living has settled a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Charter hired a new employee who passed her pre-employment physical.  This employee worked for Charter for weeks without any issue until Charter learned that she had nerve damage in one of her hands.  After learning of this nerve damage, Charter insisted that the employee complete another physical.  The second physical resulted in a determination that the employee met physical standards, but she was not passed unconditionally because of the nerve damage.  Charter ultimately fired the employee.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disabilities or requests for reasonable accommodations due to a disability.  See EEOC v. Charter Senior Living, LLC, No. 3:21-cv-00708 (N.D. Ohio).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit for $390,000 and other relief against BMW Cleveland, in which the EEOC alleged that the company had subjected three of its employees to age discrimination.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that BMW Cleveland refused to hire one of its former employees because of her age (52), and that it also fired two of its other employees due to their ages (67 and 70).  This alleged conduct would be a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits discrimination, including a refusal to hire, against employees or prospective employees due to their age.  See EEOC v. Davis Automotive Group, Inc. t/a BMW Cleveland, No. 1:19-cv-02257 (N.D. Ohio).

The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit alleging that one of Walmart’s male employees subjected a female employee to sexually inappropriate and unwanted vulgar comments, advances, and touching .  The EEOC further alleged that Walmart had known of this conduct for years through written complaints.  The lawsuit claimed that the male employee commented on female coworkers’ breasts and buttocks, that he told one female co-worker that he couldn’t wait to see her in thong underwear, that he made repeated invites to “hang out” alone with female co-workers despite repeated rejections, and that he stated he wanted to have sex with certain female co-workers who had told him they were not interested.  On one occasion, one of the victims of the harassment reported the conduct and was advised that she should “stand up for herself” and put her “big girl panties on.”  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 6:19-cv-06718 (W.D.N.Y.).

The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against Burrow Global Services, LLC, which is an engineering and construction company.  The EEOC had alleged that Burrow discriminated against one of its electrical designers (who was over 60 years old) based on his age after the electrical designer’s supervisor was replaced with a much younger individual.  Right after this supervisor took over, he made repeated comments to the older designer about retirement and regularly asked when the designer was planning to retire.  Soon after, this same supervisor terminated the designer’s employment and offered the job to a significantly younger person.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  Employers may not discriminate against or terminate older employees due to their age.  See EEOC v. Burrow Global Services, LLC, No. 4:20-cv-00423 (S.D. Tex.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit that it filed against a security company that allegedly terminated one of its employees due to her pregnancy.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that Allied Universal transferred one of its security guards to a more difficult post after it learned that she was pregnant.  The security guard told Allied Universal that this new post was causing her pain.  In response, Allied Universal did not move the employee back to her original post but instead requested a doctor’s note. The employee provided Allied Universal with the note, and Allied placed the employee on a leave of absence involuntarily.  Allied then demanded another doctor’s note in order to release her to return to work.  Again, the security guard provided this note.  Despite this, Allied kept the employee on leave for more than a month and then terminated her employment.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act Amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  See EEOC v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-02467 (E.D. La.).

The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit against Optimal Solutions & Technologies, Inc. after the EEOC alleged that the company terminated one of its employees after he disclosed a disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that one of the senior administrators working at Optimal Solutions told his supervisor that he had a benign brain tumor, and that this brain tumor would require radiation treatment for about six weeks.  The employee also informed his supervisor that the treatments would occur after work and would not impact his job.  Despite this, and despite the employees continued strong work performance, Optimal Solutions terminated his employment just a month after he informed Optimal Solutions of his disability and only one week before his radiation treatment was scheduled to begin.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from firing employees because of a disability or because of their requests for reasonable accommodations due to a disability.  EEOC v. Optimal Solutions & Technologies, No. 8:17-cv-02861 (D. Md.).

The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit in which it alleged that a male manager had targeted young female employees around the ages of 15-to-20 and subjected them to sexual harassment.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the manager made sexual comments to these women and that he inappropriately touched and groped some of them.  The EEOC further alleged that he asked one of the restaurant’s 15 year old employees to text him nude pictures of herself.  This event led to the arrest of the manager by the local police.  Despite the accusation, arrest, and indeed a guilty plea for misdemeanor harassment, the restaurant allowed the manager to return to work and did not stop the inappropriate behavior.  The EEOC’s Complaint asserted that New China terminated the employment of at least one female employee in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment by this manager.  This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment as well as retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. New China, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00277 (D. Or.).

An aerospace components manufacturer, United Precision Products Co., recently settled a lawsuit that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had filed against it.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that United Precision failed to hire a prospective employee because of his age (64).  The applicant sought work at United Precision through a staffing agency, however, during the interview process, United’s Precision’s plant supervisor asked for the prospective employee’s age, when he graduated high school, and his driver’s license.  After the interview, this same supervisor told the staffing agency that they were rejecting the applicant because he did not have the “desire” for the job. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or prospective employees due to their age.  See EEOC v. United Precision Products Co., No. 2:20-cv-10930 (S.D. Mich.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a security services firm in which the EEOC had claimed that the company had subjected female employees to sexual harassment and at least one employee to retaliation as well.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that one of the company’s site managers had subjected a female security guard to unwanted touching, inappropriate and lewd sexual comments, and that he had cornered this guard in an elevator and kissed her without consent.  The guard complained to management.  Instead of addressing the manager’s inappropriate and illegal behavior, the company fired the guard in retaliation for her complaints.  The EEOC further alleged that this manager had also sexually harassed a class of female employees at the company with similar behavior including sexual advances, inappropriate sexual comments, requests for explicit pictures, and an attempt to kiss another employee.  Other managers saw this harassment, but the company did nothing to stop it.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex, as well as complaints about such discrimination and harassment.  See EEOC v. MVM, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-02881 (D. Md.). 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a sexual harassment lawsuit against  Nature’s Medicines.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that one of the General Managers  subjected multiple employees to a hostile work environment.  The lawsuit further claimed that the harassment involved unwelcome touching and offensive sexual comments to the staff and offensive sexual comments to and about customers.  On at least one occasion, the GM showed an employee a nude picture on his phone.  Multiple employees complained about this behavior.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. AMMA Investment Group, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-02786 (D. Md.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a medical transportation company named American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc., in which the EEOC had claimed that AMRAS had discriminated against one of its employees because of her pregnancy.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that one of AMRAS’s paramedics requested a reasonable light duty accommodation near the last stages of her pregnancy.  The employee submitted a doctor’s note as part of her request for this light duty work.  Despite the reasonable request, AMRAS denied her light duty.  In comparison, for other employees, AMRAS permitted light duty accommodations when these employees had been injured on the job.  Instead, AMRAS insisted that the paramedic could either work without any restrictions or take an unpaid leave.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  When companies provide light duty accommodations to employees who are injured on the job, then it must maintain consistency in that policy with pregnant employees who request the same accommodation.  See EEOC v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-258 (E.D. Wash.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit against a steel-fabrication company, Moore & Morford, Inc.  The EEOC had previously filed a lawsuit against the company alleging harassment based on her sex and retaliation for her complaints of harassment.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Moore & Morford subjected one of its female employees to a hostile work environment based on her sex.  Male employees of the company regularly used offensive and derogatory terms to the female employee that were based on her sex, and they told her that “women don’t belong on the floor.”  The female employee complained to the owners, but that only resulted in the company’s foreman treating her even worse (grabbing her by her shirt collar, denying her tools, and making her clean feces in the women’s bathroom).  Due to the continued harassment, she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, and shortly after filing the Charge, the company terminated her employment.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits harassment based on sex and retaliation for complaints of such harassment.  See EEOC v. Moore & Morford, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00892 (W.D. Pa.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced that it had settled a lawsuit against Interconnect Cable Technologies Corporation in which the EEOC had alleged that ICTC had discriminated against one of its employees who suffered from a disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that ICTC first demoted and then fired its employee who had been hospitalized due to a mental illness from which the employee suffered.  The employee, who suffered from major depressive disorder, was hospitalized for a short time due to her disability.  When she attempted to return to work after this hospitalization, ICTC took away her job duties.  Shortly after that, ICTC demoted the employee and cut her pay.  Eventually, about four months after the hospitalization, ICTC terminated her employment.  Such alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disability.  See EEOC v. Interconnect Cable Technologies Corp., No. 8:20-cv-00644 (M.D. Fla.).

A nursing home, formerly known as Edgewood Manor, has agreed to settle an Equal Pay Act lawsuit filed by the EEOC.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that 12 Licensed Practical Nurses were paid at a rate lower than it paid to its male LPNs.  The EEOC alleged that Edgewood paid female LPNs a range of $20-$26.50 per hour (depending on experience) compared to a range of $25 to $27 per hour for its male LPNs who had the same or less experience.  The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits pay discrimination based on sex.  See EEOC v. Edgewood Manor OPCO LLC, No. 4:19-cv-760 (W.D. Mo.).