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 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 recently settled a lawsuit that it had filed against a construction company, BHT Constructions LLC, in which the EEOC alleged that BHT had discriminated against a prospective employee due to her sex. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the company rejected a female job applicant because she was a woman. The prospective employee applied to work as a heavy machine operator. She had more than 20 years of experience in this role, but one of BHT’s supervisors told this applicant that they “do not hire women.” This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against potential employees due to their sex. See EEOC v. BHT Constructions LLC, No. 19-cv-62145 (S.D. Fla.).
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.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against a retirement community that the EEOC said discriminated against a potential employee because of her potential to become pregnant in the future. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that a manager working for the retirement community sent a text message to a job applicant asking when she planned to have another baby. The manager also said that the position does not allow “a lot of time off for long periods of time.” After this, the company did not interview that job applicant and instead hired an older employee, which it believed would not become pregnant. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits pregnancy and sex discrimination by an employer or potential employer. See EEOC v. Glenridge on Palmer Ranch, Inc., No. 8:18-cv-02340 (M.D. Fla.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against The Children’s Home, Inc., wherein it alleged that the non-profit company discriminated against a male employee by refusing to consider him for a management position based on his sex. The lawsuit also alleges that the company retaliated against the employee by refusing to allow him to apply for other positions after he complained that he was not being considered for a position because of his sex. The company allegedly discouraged the male employee, Luis Vasquez, from applying to a position in the organization’s new Adolescent Motherhood Program. The lawsuit claims that the employee was informed that management “wasn’t sure if they would accept males to work at the new motherhood program” and also said to the employee “can you imagine males changing pampers, working with babies and with pregnant girls?” Vazquez complained that he had been refused the position because of his sex, and thereafter the company told him that there were no other positions available for him. A female employee with less experience was given the position to which he had applied. The alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their sex, as well as retaliation for complaining about such discrimination. See EEOC v. Children's Home, Inc., No. 8:17-cv-02262 (M.D. Fla.).
The EEOC recently filed a lawsuit alleging that a Buffalo Wild Wings discriminated against males by refusing to hired qualified male applicants for bartender positions. Allegedly, the company told a male bartender applicant that it was looking to hire a female. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee or prospective employee’s sex. See EEOC v. R Wings R Wild LLC, No. 4:17-cv-624 (E.D. Ark.).
The United States Department of Labor recently filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co., which alleges that JPMorgan Chase discriminated against female employees in certain positions by paying them less than it paid male counterparts. The Department of Labor found that JPMorgan Chase has paid nearly one hundred female employees less than male comparators in various positions at the company. The lawsuit was filed by the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which alleges that JPMorgan Chase has violated an executive order that prohibits federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes disparate payment because of a person’s sex.
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Mobile, will reportedly pay $35,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit that was brought by the EEOC. The lawsuit alleges that the company refused to hire a female applicant for two open warehouse positions because of her sex. The company instead hired two male applicants who were less qualified than than her. The EEOC additionally alleged that the company failed to keep certain application materials that were related the positions for which owed applied, and that the company’s failure to maintain these materials violated federal record-keeping laws. The alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and prospective employees because of their sex. See EEOC v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00486 (S.D. Ala.).
NFI RoadRail, LLC and NFI Industries, Inc. have reportedly agreed to pay $45,000 to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that the companies paid a female director less than three male directors who had worked in the same role. The female director discovered the pay disparity after she saw a pay stub for one of the former male directors. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits employers from paying women a lower salary than men for equal work. See EEOC v. NFI Industries, No. 3:14-cv-00181 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
SOCI Petroleum/Santmyer Oil Company has been charged by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of violating federal equal pay laws by paying a female employee less than the male predecessor in her position for performing substantially the same work. The EEOC’s Complaint states that in 2009 Lori Bowersock, who had worked for SOCI in Wooster, Ohio since 2006, replaced the former male human resources manager but was paid less than him. The Complaint also alleges that SOCI condoned derogatory remarks made to female employees and that its gave female employees less credit for their accomplishments than their male counterparts. These alleged actions violate the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division. The EEOC seeks permanent injunctive relief to prohibit SOCI from future discrimination by providing equal pay to women for equal work, access to equal employment opportunities for women, lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages. See EEOC v. SOCI Petroleum/Santmyer Oil Co., No. 5:15-cv-02017 (N.D. Ohio).
Reserve Casino Hotel was charged this week by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for failing to hire older and female candidates with equal or greater qualifications than males and young applicants who were hired in violation of federal age discrimination law. Reserve Casino Hotel bought the hotel in January 2011 and subsequently hired 240 employees. The EEOC alleges that Reserve Casino Hotel chose to hire males and younger applicants over their more highly qualified female counterparts and that it made comments about getting rid of the “gray hairs” and that former company’s workforce contained “too many old, fat, ugly, and gray-haired employees.” The EEOC’s investigation also revealed a marked disparity between female and male hires, and a notably greater number of applicants under forty years of age were hired over applicants over forty years of age. See EEOC v. RCH Colorado, No. 1:15-cv-02170 (D. Colo.).
The EEOC has sued Extended Stay Hotels for allegedly paying their male employees higher wages than their female employees, even though they all performed equal work, in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Latoya Weaver worked as a guest services representative for five years at Extended Stay Hotels. Extended Stay Hotels, however, allegedly paid new male employees more than it paid Ms. Weaver, even though they allegedly performed equal work. See EEOC v. HVM L.L.C., No. 8:13-cv-01980 (D. Md.).