Preview Newsletter
EEOC Statements
-
Peninsula Packaging Voluntarily Settles EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Charge for $45,000 (PRESS RELEASE)
Oct 24, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Company Placed Pregnant Employee on Involuntary Leave, Federal Agency Charges -
Kaiser Aluminum Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit (PRESS RELEASE)
Oct 24, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Agreement Provides $175,000 and Job Offer for Construction Worker -
Local 100, United Labor Unions to Pay $30,000 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination Lawsuit (PRESS RELEASE)
Oct 23, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Union Fired Two Black Organizers Due to Race, Federal Agency Charged -
PPG Industries To Pay $45,250 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit (PRESS RELEASE)
Sep 28, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Global Paint Supplier Fired Employee Who Had a Seizure, Federal Agency Charged -
Allsup’s Settles EEOC Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Lawsuit For $950,000 (PRESS RELEASE)
Sep 25, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Convenience Stores Systematically Discriminated Against Pregnant Workers and Refused to Accommodate Their Pregnancy-Related Disabilities, Federal Agency Charged -
Bass Pro to Pay $10.5 Million To Settle EEOC Hiring Discrimination And Retaliation Suit (PRESS RELEASE)
Nov 1, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Outdoor Equipment Chain Discriminated in Hiring and Punished Employees for Complaining, Federal Agency Charged -
Texas Roadhouse to Pay $12 Million to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit (PRESS RELEASE)
Mar 31, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
BOSTON - Texas Roadhouse, a national, Kentucky-based restaurant chain, will pay $12 million and furnish other relief to settle an age discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. The EEOC had filed suit seeking relief for a class of applicants the EEOC charged had been denied front-of-the-house positions, such as servers, hosts, server assistants and bartenders, because of their age, 40 years and older. As part of the settlement, Texas Roadhouse will change its hiring and recruiting practices. -
EEOC AND CINCINNATI BELL SETTLE CLASS PREGNANCY BIAS SUIT (PRESS RELEASE)
Nov 1, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
CLEVELAND - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of a class lawsuit alleging pregnancy discrimination against Cincinnati Bell Telephone and Cincinnati Bell Information Systems. The suit charged the companies with discriminating against pregnant employees under 1995 early retirement plans by denying them proper service credits for time spent on maternity leave -- a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which was passed in 1978 and became effective in 1979.
Press Releases on Settlements
Joint Statements
-
Oct 24, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FRESNO, Calif. - Exeter, Calif.-based Peninsula Packaging will pay $45,000 and provide other relief to settle a charge of pregnancy discrimination filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
The charge made to the EEOC alleged that a packer required a modification to her job due to her pregnancy, which Peninsula Packaging refused to do. Instead, the company placed the employee on an involuntary leave of absence. The EEOC investigated the allegations and found reasonable cause to believe that Peninsula Packaging discriminated against the employee due to her pregnancy, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Without admitting liability, Peninsula Packaging agreed to enter into a three-year conciliation agreement with the EEOC and the alleged victim, thereby avoiding litigation. In addition to the monetary relief, the company agreed to hire an outside equal employment opportunity consultant to develop and conduct effective training for all employees on discrimination with an emphasis on pregnancy discrimination, develop reporting procedures, and assist the company with revising and modifying its current discrimination policies. The EEOC will monitor compliance with this agreement.
"Employers have an obligation to provide an accommodation to a pregnant employee, particularly if they are providing the same accommodation to other employees," said Melissa Barrios, director of the EEOC's Fresno Local Office, which includes San Benito County in its jurisdiction. "We commend Peninsula Packaging for working with the EEOC to resolve this charge and for implementing measures intended to prevent discrimination in the workplace."
According to the company's website, www.peninsulapackaging.com, Peninsula Packaging provides design, development, and the production of packaging for consumer-ready produce, bakery, deli, and other on-the-go food items.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
-
Kaiser Aluminum Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit (PRESS RELEASE)
Oct 24, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC's suit, Kaiser withdrew its job offer for production work at its Trentwood mill in Spokane after Donald McMurray's medical records showed a workplace injury from over 10 years ago. The EEOC found that McMurray, with a long history of construction work at the time, was a well-qualified candidate fully capable of meeting the job's physical demands.
"All I ever wanted was for Kaiser to let me prove that I was physically able to do the job," said McMurray. "My medical history didn't paint the true picture of who I am today and what I can do. But that's all behind me, and I am excited that my future is with an industry leader like Kaiser."
Failing to hire a person based on a record of a prior disability or a perceived disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (EEOC v. Kaiser Aluminum Washington, LLC, 2:16-cv-00343-SAB) after an investigation by EEOC investigator Toni Haley and after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
"EEOC and Kaiser worked hard together to resolve a tough case and further the objectives of the ADA," said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Teri Healy. "We are very pleased with the outcome of this lawsuit and appreciate Kaiser's willingness to work with the EEOC to resolve this matter and its commitment to its obligations under the law."
Seattle EEOC Field Director Nancy Sienko added, "Mr. McMurray will be a great addition to the Kaiser team. His reinstatement and Kaiser's implementation of new hiring procedures are a win-win for all involved. Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring and enforcing the ADA are high priorities for the EEOC."
With headquarters in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Kaiser employs more than 2,000 people at its 12 facilities in North America, and, according to www.kaiseraluminum.org , is a leading producer of fabricated aluminum products, with reported net sales of $1.4 billion and value-added revenue of $790 million in 2015.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
-
Oct 23, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
HOUSTON - Local 100 of the United Labor Unions, a multi-state service workers' union, has agreed to pay $30,000 in lost wages and damages to settle a race discrimination suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the union fired Maurice Roberts and Rosalind Holt because of their race. Both had been hired by the union in May 2014 to recruit public school employees in Houston. The EEOC said that they were terminated supposedly for not recruiting enough members, but a white organizer was not fired, despite his having recruited fewer people than they did.
Race discrimination violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No.4:17-1628) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.
On October 17, 2017, the court signed and entered a consent decree settling the suit agreed to by all parties. In addition to the monetary award for Holt and Roberts, the decree provides significant non-monetary relief, including an injunction prohibiting any future discrimination. Local 100 has further agreed to develop effective policies to protect employees against race discrimination. Additionally, the union will conduct training about Title VII's prohibitions against race discrimination. Local 100 will report to the EEOC on its compliance with the consent decree and post an "EEO Is the Law" poster for employees and/or applicants to be aware of their rights.
"A union cannot make employment decisions that favor one race over another," said Rudy Sustaita, regional attorney for the EEOC's Houston and New Orleans offices. "Federal law obligates unions to follow the same non-discriminatory practices as any other employers."
Local 100 is part of a system of numerous labor unions under the umbrella United Labor Unions. Its members are service workers at various entities. In this instance, Local 100 has been recruiting members from public and private school employees in Houston and other cities in the United States.
The EEOC's Houston District Office has jurisdiction over parts of Texas and all of Louisiana.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
-
PPG Industries To Pay $45,250 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit (PRESS RELEASE)
Sep 28, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
DETROIT - PPG Industries, Inc., a Pittsburgh-based paint manufacturing company, has agreed to pay $45,250 to settle a federal disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, PPG Industries failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee at its Ferndale, Mich., plant, who was placed on a six-month medical restriction prohibiting him from driving and operating heavy machinery as a result of his having suffered a seizure. Instead of accommodating the employee, PPG Industries fired him, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee's disability unless the employer would suffer an undue hardship. The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Michigan (EEOC v. PPG Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-12304) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation resolution through its conciliation process.
In addition to monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit requires PPG Industries to provide training to its employees on its obligations under the ADA. The decree also requires the company to post a notice on its bulletin boards which reaffirms its obligations under the ADA.
"Instead of adopting blanket policies, an employer should conduct an individualized inquiry and evaluate whether it can provide a disabled employee with a reasonable accommodation," explained Nedra Campbell, trial attorney for the EEOC. "PPG Industries, which presumably recognized it could have handled this situation differently, should be commended for resolving this case early on."
According to its website (www.ppg.com), PPG Industries, Inc. (NYSE:PPG) is a global paint supplier. It is a Fortune 500 company that has locations throughout the United States and abroad.
The Detroit Field Office is part of the Indianapolis District Office, which oversees Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and parts of Ohio.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
-
Allsup’s Settles EEOC Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Lawsuit For $950,000 (PRESS RELEASE)
Sep 25, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc., owners of over 300 convenience stores in New Mexico and Texas, has agreed to pay $950,000 to settle a pregnancy and disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced today.
The EEOC's lawsuit charged that Allsup's managers and area supervisors subjected pregnant employees to different working conditions because of their pregnancies and/or their pregnancy-related disabilities. The EEOC alleged that Allsup's subjected pregnant employees to negative comments about their pregnancies and gave pregnant employees less favorable tasks and shifts. For example, the EEOC said that some pregnant women were told, "You're too pregnant to continue working," "You are a liability," "Had I known of your pregnancy, you would not have been hired," and "Aren't you ever going to quit having kids?"
The EEOC also alleged that Allsup's denied reasonable accommodations to employees with pregnancy-related disabilities and put them on involuntary unpaid leave. The agency said that Allsup's would not provide extended leave for pregnant employees on bed rest and would not provide reasonable accommodations like modified stocking methods for pregnant employees with lifting restrictions. The EEOC further alleged that Allsup's had a policy of limiting medical leave and that Allsup's fired pregnant employees when they ran out of medical leave without considering when they could return to work.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is incorporated into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, makes discrimination based on pregnancy a form of sex discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees from discrimination because of a disability, including a pregnancy-related disability.
The three-year consent decree settling the suit requires Allsup's to pay $950,000 to 28 women who were discriminated against based on pregnancy or a pregnancy-related disability. Under the terms of the decree, the company must make offers of re-employment to the 28 women and provide them with letters of reference. In addition, the decree requires Allsup's to implement policies and practices that will provide its employees a workplace free of discrimination. The company will also provide training on preventing pregnancy- and disability-related discrimination to its clerks, managers, area supervisors, and human resources employees to ensure that they understand the rights of employees to be free from pregnancy- and disability-related discrimination and how Allsup's managers and staff can accommodate pregnant employees and employees with pregnancy-related disabilities.
"We see too many cases where employers think that pregnancy-related disabilities are not covered by the ADA," said EEOC Phoenix District Office Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill. "Employers must understand that the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 clarified that employees and applicants with pregnancy-related disabilities are protected from discrimination based on those disabilities. An employer cannot place an employee with a pregnancy-related disability on involuntary leave or fire her because of her disability or her pregnancy."
Elizabeth Cadle, district director of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, added, "Pregnancy discrimination is far too common. In the 2016 fiscal year alone, 3,486 charges of pregnancy discrimination were filed with the EEOC. The outcome here should remind all employers of their obligations under the law and encourage them to respect the rights of pregnant employees."
More information on the EEOC's position on discrimination based on pregnancy and discrimination based on pregnancy-related disabilities is available at www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/pregnancy_guidance.cfm.
The EEOC's Phoenix District Office has jurisdiction for Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and part of New Mexico (including Albuquerque).
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
-
Nov 1, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
HOUSTON - Springfield, Mo.-based Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, a leading retailer of fishing, camping, and hunting equipment and apparel, has agreed to pay $10.5 million and provide other significant relief to settle a hiring discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The nationwide agreement seeks to strengthen and improve Bass Pro's hiring and recruiting practices of African-Americans and Hispanics, and resolves a pattern-or-practice lawsuit filed by the EEOC on Sept. 21, 2011. The EEOC's suit charged that the company discriminated in hiring at its retail stores, unlawfully retaliated against employees who opposed practices they believed to be unlawful, and failed to adhere to federal record-keeping laws and regulations.
A central focus of the agreement is strengthening Bass Pro's diversity efforts and its commitment to non-discriminatory hiring, including appointment of a director of diversity and inclusion, affirmative outreach efforts to increase diversity in its workforce, updated EEO policies and hiring practices, and annual EEO training for management and non-management employees.
"The EEOC is pleased to have reached what the agency believes to be a fair resolution," said EEOC Deputy General Counsel James Lee. "We look forward to working with Bass Pro in implementing the consent decree."
EEOC Houston District Office Regional Attorney Rudy Sustaita said, "The EEOC commends Bass Pro for its efforts in bringing the pending litigation to a conclusion, and for its commitment to hiring a diverse workforce."
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
-
Texas Roadhouse to Pay $12 Million to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit (PRESS RELEASE)
Mar 31, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
BOSTON - Texas Roadhouse, a national, Kentucky-based restaurant chain, will pay $12 million and furnish other relief to settle an age discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. The EEOC had filed suit seeking relief for a class of applicants the EEOC charged had been denied front-of-the-house positions, such as servers, hosts, server assistants and bartenders, because of their age, 40 years and older. As part of the settlement, Texas Roadhouse will change its hiring and recruiting practices.
The EEOC's lawsuit, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-11732-DJC, filed in September 2011 in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleged that Texas Roadhouse violated federal law by engaging in a nationwide pattern or practice of age discrimination in hiring hourly front-of-the-house employees. The case, which was scheduled for a retrial on May 15, 2017, had resulted in a hung jury after nearly a four-week trial earlier this year.
"I am pleased to see this matter come to a mutually agreed-upon resolution," said EEOC Acting Chair Victoria A. Lipnic. "As we mark the 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) this year, it is as important as ever to recognize the very real consequences of age discrimination and the need for job opportunities for older workers."
The consent decree resolving the case, which was approved by Judge Denise Casper today, sets up a claims process that will identify and compensate those affected individuals age 40 and older who applied to Texas Roadhouse for a front-of-the-house position between Jan. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2014.
EEOC Deputy General Counsel James Lee said, "The decree includes robust terms that will ensure that Texas Roadhouse complies with the law. As a national law enforcement agency, the EEOC will vigorously protect the rights of job applicants to ensure that hiring decisions are based on abilities, not age."
In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree, which will be in force for three and a half years, includes an injunction preventing Texas Roadhouse from discriminating on the basis of age in the future. It also requires the company to establish a diversity director and pay for a decree compliance monitor, who is charged with ensuring that the company complies with the decree's terms. These terms require Texas Roadhouse to comply with the ADEA and to increase its recruitment and hiring of employees age 40 and older for front-of-the-house positions.
"During this landmark year for the ADEA, everyone should recognize how far we still have to go in eliminating age discrimination in the workplace," said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the New York District Office.
EEOC New York District Director Kevin Berry said, "Identifying and resolving age discrimination in employment is critical for older Americans. The ability to find a new job should not be impeded because an employer considers someone the wrong age."
Mark Penzel and Sara Smolik were the EEOC's lead trial attorneys for this case.
Penzel said, "Applicants rarely know that they have been denied a job because of their age. When the Commission uncovers such evidence, it will act aggressively and doggedly to remedy the violation."
Individuals who believe they may have been denied a front-of-the-house position at Texas Roadhouse because of their age after Jan. 1, 2007, should contact the EEOC toll-free at (855) 556-1129, or by e-mail at texasroadhouse.lawsuit@eeoc.gov and indicate "Consent Decree" in the subject line.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
-
EEOC AND CINCINNATI BELL SETTLE CLASS PREGNANCY BIAS SUIT (PRESS RELEASE)
Nov 1, 2017 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
CLEVELAND - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of a class lawsuit alleging pregnancy discrimination against Cincinnati Bell Telephone and Cincinnati Bell Information Systems. The suit charged the companies with discriminating against pregnant employees under 1995 early retirement plans by denying them proper service credits for time spent on maternity leave -- a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which was passed in 1978 and became effective in 1979.
It has been the Commission's long held position that employers must treat pregnancy in the same manner as they treat other temporary disabilities for purposes of accruing seniority while on medical leave. "Employers must understand that newly announced retirement plans that fail to give service credit to women for pre-1979 maternity leaves may, under appropriate circumstances, constitute a new act of sex discrimination," said EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro. "We are pleased that Cincinnati Bell has worked cooperatively with us to resolve this suit."
EEOC's suit was filed in 1998 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, in Cincinnati. Under terms of the agreement, approximately 458 female class members will receive service credit adjustments generally in the range of 60 to 90 days per pregnancy, depending upon the amount of time that was actually deducted from an individual's service credit at the time of reinstatement following a maternity leave. The class consists of all women covered by one of Cincinnati Bell's pension plans who were employed as of January 1, 1995, and had been denied service credit for pre-1979 maternity leaves.
In addition, a subclass of approximately 40 individuals will receive monetary relief estimated to exceed $1 million. The payments will range from $1,000 to $180,000, depending on how much the service credit adjustment affects the individual's eligibility to receive various enhanced retirement benefits that were part of the early retirement offers made in 1995. For example, a retiree whose pension status is only slightly changed will be eligible to receive monetary relief in the lower range. A current employee who can now retire under the terms of one of the 1995 plans will receive a payment in the higher range.
The settlement package is subject to final court approval and, therefore, a precise total dollar figure will not be known until after the completion of a multi-step implementation process. Once the agreement is approved, all class members will be notified and a fairness hearing will be held. The final settlement agreement will be carried out through a process monitored by the Commission.
"This case is an example of the Commission's efforts to strategically concentrate its limited resources on resolving systemic discrimination issues through class-based litigation," said EEOC General Counsel C. Gregory Stewart. "EEOC is investigating and litigating issues involving sex discrimination on a number of fronts and intends to ensure that women who take pregnancy leave are accorded their rights under the law."
In a joint statement, EEOC's Cleveland District Director Michael C. Fetzer and C. Larry Watson, Regional Attorney of EEOC's Cleveland District Office, who was responsible for prosecuting the case, said: "This is a significant settlement that will benefit hundreds of current and former female workers at Cincinnati Bell. This case sends a clear message to employers in Ohio and across the country that they are not free to discriminate against employees who take maternity leave."
Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. In addition to prohibiting sex-based discrimination, Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. EEOC also enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal government; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Press Releases on Settlements
Joint Statements
Add recipients
Suggested