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 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.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against a title loan company in which it alleged that the company had subjected an employee racial harassment and then fired her because of her disability.  The lawsuit claims that from August to September 2019, the employee's manager made offensive and discriminatory comments including comments about African American customers, regularly using the n-word, saying that she "hated working with n******," and saying that African Americans "never pay their bills."  The employee reported the comments to two managers and left messages with Human Resources, but nothing was ever done to stop the harassment and HR never returned the calls.  In addition to the racial harassment, the company refused the employee's reasonable request to use crutches or a wheelchair at work while she recovered from a disability and mandated that she not return until she could work with no restrictions whatsoever.  Eventually, instead of allowing her to return to work, the company terminated her employment.  This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibit race discrimination and disability discrimination, respectively.  See EEOC v. Community Loans of America and Carolina Title Loans, Inc., No.: 6:22-cv-01000-DCC-JDA (D.S.C.).

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 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 reached a settlement with a company that the EEOC claimed had harassed one of its employees so badly that it forced him to quit.  The employee, a sales consultant, was allegedly subjected to constant verbal harassment based on race, sexual orientation, and a disability.  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 (including sexual orientation) and race.  The alleged conduct also violations the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability.  See EEOC v. Baccarat, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-02918 (S.D.N.Y.).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has reached a settlement with St. Vincent Hospital in a lawsuit where the EEOC alleged that the hospital discriminated against an employee because of a disability and then retaliated after this employee complained of discrimination.  The lawsuit claimed that one of St. Vincent Hospital’s employees, Asheley Coriz, was subjected to a hostile work environment by her supervisor because Ms. Coriz is deaf.  The lawsuit further claimed that Ms. Coriz was not granted reasonable accommodations, and that St. Vincent then fired Ms. Coriz after she complained about St. Vincent’s failure to grant her requested reasonable accommodations and her supervisor’s discriminatory conduct.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The ADA protects employees from discrimination and retaliation due to a disability.  See EEOC v. St. Vincent Hospital,  No. 1:19-cv-00764 (D.N.M.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit that it had filed last year, in which the EEOC had alleged that a company had discriminated against multiple employees due to their religion and national origin and retaliated against these employees after they complained about the hostile work environment that Service Caster Corporation created.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Service Caster subjected three of its Puerto Rican employees to a hostile work environment because of the Puerto Rican national origin and also because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, Pentecostal.  Specifically, the EEOC asserted that the Plant Manager regularly made derogatory, insulting, and negative remarks about the employees’ national origin and called their religion a cult.  The employees complained to the owner, but the harassment continued, and Service Caster eventually retaliated by reducing their hours and responsibility and eventually terminating their employment.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and harassment based on an employee’s national origin and religion.  See EEOC v. Service Caster Corp., No. 5:19-cv-04525 (E.D. Pa.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Thompson Construction Group, Inc., for allegedly firing a black employee due to his race.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that Thompson hired this employee to work as a pipefitter foreman to oversee a crew of pipe workers.  Just a few months after he was hired, a white subordinate employee made derogatory and offensive comments to this foreman based on his race.  Instead of terminating the Caucasian employee, Thompson Construction fired the African American pipefitter foreman.  The EEOC is alleging that the pipefitter foreman was fired because of his race.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race.  See EEOC v. Thompson Con­struction Group, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00406 (M.D.N.C.).

The EEOC recently sued a chain of fast food restaurants, Smashburger, for allegedly subjecting an employee to racial harassment.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that one of its black employees was subjected to a racially hostile work environment by a general manager who made repeated offensive and demeaning racial comments about the black employee to his fiancée (another employee at the restaurant), such as making suggestions that she should break up with her fiancé because he is black.  The lawsuit further alleges that the company took nearly a year after complaints started before it started conducting a serious investigation.  This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and harassment against employees because of their race.  See EEOC V. Icon Burger Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Smashburger, No. 2:20-cv-01601 (E.D.N.Y.).    

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity recently filed a lawsuit against a special events company that assists with weddings and other corporate events, Great Rentals and Events, LLC.  The EEOC claims that this company subjected one of its female employees to a hostile work environment and then terminated her in retaliation for complaining about this hostile work environment.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that the company’s owner made repeated demeaning comments about women, such as calling women “worthless because they have kids” and referring to female employees as “little girls.”  A female employee complained to human resources about these comments, and the EEOC claims that she was fired in retaliation.  This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaints of sex discrimination or sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. Great Rentals and Events, LLC, No. 5:20-cv-448 (W.D. Tex.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against Porous Materials, Inc., in which the EEOC alleged that the company had harassed employees because of their race, sex, and national origin.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that the company subjected its employees to sexism, racism, and national origin discrimination by a manager’s use of racial slurs, references to foreign-born employees as “terrorists,” and racist remarks to the company’s only black employee that involved a noose.  This manager also complained that immigrants stole American jobs and told immigrant employees to leave America.  The lawsuit also alleged that the manager made discriminatory comments about women and said that women could not perform a “man’s job.”  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits race discrimination, national origin discrimination, and sex discrimination as well as harassment.  See EEOC v. Porous Materials, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01099 (N.D.N.Y.).