The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a company who terminated an employee shortly after they returned from a leave related to a disability.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that employee told his employer, Ranew Management Company, that he suffered from severe depression and needed three weeks off of work, which was recommended by his doctor.  The employer told the employee to take as much time as he needed.  After six weeks of leave, the employee tried to return to work and gave Ranew a return to work note from his doctor.  Instead of allowing him to return, Ranew told him that it could no longer trust him to perform his job and fired him.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations.  See No. 5:21-CV-00443-MTT (M.D. Ga.).

A trucking and property management company recently settled a lawsuit that the EEOC had filed against it in which the EEOC alleged that the company refused to make reasonable accommodations and then fired two of its employees because of their disabilities.  The lawsuit claimed that Groendyke Transport had a policy to fire employees after they had exhausted their 12 weeks of FMLA leave.  One employee (who had worked for Groendyke for 20 years) needed only one additional week of leave after his 12 weeks of FMLA leave were exhausted, but the company refused this accommodation and terminated his 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. Groendyke Transport, Inc and McKenzie Property Management, Inc. f/k/a McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-02830-RV-EMT (N.D. Fla.).

A federal judge has ordered that Sweet Lemon Inc., which does business as Sweet Lemons Thai Restaurant, pay unpaid overtime and liquidated damages to 13 of its employees because it illegally denied employees of overtime wages and tips to which the employees were entitled.  The Department of Labor found these violations after it investigated the company.  The Department of Labor also found that the company retaliated against employees after the DOL’s investigation started by interrogating them about whether they had talked to DOL investigators.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires employers to pay overtime non-exempt employees time-and-a-half overtime wages for their hours worked over 40 in a workweek and prohibits discrimination for complaints about unpaid overtime or cooperation in a Department of Labor investigation.  See Walsh v. Sweet Lemon Inc., et al., No. 20-12217-RGS.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against a parts manufacturer.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that it hired an employee in May 2017 who had a severe hearing impairment.  She was proficient in American Sign Language but not English, and she communicated almost entirely with ASL.  The employee filed grievances between January 2018 to May 2018 claiming that the company was excluding her from meetings due to her disability.  The Complaint further alleged that, after she brought the complaint, the company disciplined her.  After she was forced to attend a mandatory meeting with no ASL interpreting, she filed a formal request for an interpreter to be present at meetings.  The company denied the request and then terminated her employment.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disability.  See Commission v. Pneuline Supply, Inc., No.: 22-00292 (Dist. Colo.).

 The U.S. Department of Labor recently recovered significant unpaid overtime wages from a restaurant (MTLE LLC) that had illegally denied these wages to its employees.  The DOL found that the company, which operated as Mezcal Mexican Grill, did not pay time-and-a-half overtime wages to its employees who worked over 40 hours in a workweek, instead paying them only straight time wages regardless of how many hours they worked in a workweek.  The restaurant had acquired many of these employees through a staffing agency, and the DOL found that both companies were joint employers over the employees at issue.  The use of a staffing agency does not absolve a company of its responsibility to ensure that employees are properly paid for their overtime hours.  Any company that controls and manages the work of an employee is also responsible for making sure that they are paid all wages to which they are entitled.  See: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20220204-0

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.).

A federal court issued a judgment against a medical staffing agency, requiring the company to pay unpaid wages and liquidated damages to over one thousand nursing aides, licensed practical nurses, and registered nurses.  The Court found that the employees had been misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees.  This misclassification cost the employees millions of dollars in overtime wages that the employees were entitled to by paying straight time wages instead of time-and-a-half overtime wages for their hours worked over forty in a workweek.  This alleged conduct is a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that non-exempt employees receive time-and-a-half overtime wages (regardless of whether they have been misclassified as independent contractors).  See U.S. DOL v. Medical Staffing of America, LLC, No. 2:18cv226 (E.D. Va.).

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 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against a fabrication, coating, and assembly company, Ranew's Management, for allegedly terminating an employee due to his disability and requests for a reasonable accommodation.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that Ranew fired one of its employees after he had informed the company that he had been diagnosed with severe depression and asked for three weeks off of work as an accommodation for his disability.  This accommodation request for time off of work was recommended by the employee’s doctor.  The CEO of Ranew told the employee to take as much time as he needed.  The employee tried to return to work with a doctor’s release six weeks later, but the CEO told the employee that he could not trust him to perform his job duties, and he fired the employee.  The alleged conduct would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability.  Employers are also obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees.  See EEOC v. Ranew's Management Co., No. 5:21-cv-00443 (M.D. Ga.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently won a jury verdict finding that RockAuto  discriminated against a prospective employee by failing to hire him due to his age.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the potential employee applied for a job as a Supply Chain Manager in 2016, and that he had many years of relevant experience.  After receiving the application, RockAuto asked the applicant when he had received his undergraduate degree.  The applicant informed RockAuto of the year (more than twenty years before his application), and he was rejected for the position the very next day.  Instead, RockAuto hired significantly younger and less qualified candidates for the position.  This conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants on this basis of their age.  See EEOC v. RockAuto, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-00797 (W.D. Wis. 2020).

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 EEOC recently sued a Sonic restaurant franchise for sexual harassment, alleging that one of the franchise’s co-managers made inappropriate sexual comments to at least three separate teenage female “carhops.”  The manager also allegedly propositioned these women and subjected them to inappropriate and unwanted physical touching.  Despite reports of this sexual harassment, Sonic took no action to prevent or mitigate the harassment.  Instead, the manager was given a promotion.  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. SDI of Mineola, L.L.C., No. 6:21-CV-00226 (E.D. Tex.).

The EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against AscensionPoint Recovery Services, alleging that the company discriminated against an employee due to his sincerely held religious beliefs.  The EEOC lawsuit claims that AscensionPoint asked one of its employees to have his fingerprints taken as part of a background check for a client.  The employee informed Ascension point that taking his fingerprints was in contradiction to his sincerely held religious beliefs, and that he therefore could not do this.  Instead of trying to accommodate this employee, AscensionPoint fired him.  Indeed, the lawsuit alleges that AscensionPoint did not even ask the client if there was a possible alternative in order to accommodate this employee.  The EEOC alleges that this alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination against employees due to their sincerely held religious beliefs.  See EEOC v. AscensionPoint Recovery Services, LLC, No. 0:21-cv-01428 (D. Minn.).

The Department of Labor has recovered back pay wages for 80 employees who were illegally denied overtime payment by a nonprofit company, Keystone Adolescent Center.  This company ran five facilities with the goal of helping at-risk youth.  The Department of Labor investigated the company and found that 80 employees there were obligated to attend meetings and trainings outside of their normal working hours.  Despite this, Keystone did not pay these employees any wages whatsoever for this time.  Instead, Keystone only paid the employees to attend these meetings if the meetings happened to occur during the employees’ regularly scheduled shifts.  This conduct is a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Employers are obligated to pay their employees for mandatory work meetings, even when such meetings happen outside of normal shift times.  https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20210405-1

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.).