Golf International, an Arizona-based golf course and restaurant, has agreed to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.  The suit alleged that Golf International violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it fired Jeffrey White one day after he complained that several female employees thought a co-worker had sexually harassed them.  Title VII prohibits both sexual harassment and retaliation against employees who complain about harassment.

After White filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, Golf International offered to rehire him if he dropped his EEOC charge.  White accepted the rehiring offer but Golf International fired him several weeks later.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona after failing to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the EEOC’s conciliation process.  The consent decree settling the suit requires Golf International to pay $25,000 to White and to provide ongoing training to its employees regarding unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation.  Golf International is also required to review and revise its discrimination policies, and must post notices at the worksite that explain federal civil rights protections.

According to EEOC Phoenix Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill:

The law’s protections against retaliation are absolutely critical to enforcement of employees’ civil rights.  We are pleased that Golf International worked cooperatively with us to resolve this case and that they will train their current and future employees that discrimination and retaliation are unlawful and will not be tolerated.  We are hopeful that this agreement will help promote a discrimination-free workplace going forward.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive discrimination practice and has broad experience fighting for the rights of employees who have been victims of discrimination and retaliation by their employers.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that the Minnesota Board of Public Defense (BOPD) has agreed to pay $53,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit.

BOPD allegedly denied four former employees employer contributions for retiree health and dental insurance because they were over the age of fifty-five when they retired. Under BOPD’s former incentive plans, employees were required to retire by age fifty-five in order to receive employer health and dental contributions.  If they retired after age 55, they forfeited the benefits.

EEOC Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said:

Paying benefits for younger retirees while not paying the same benefits for other retirees — merely because the latter were older at the time of retirement — is pure and simple age discrimination, and it is unlawful.  But the situation has now been corrected, and we commend the state of Minnesota for working with the EEOC to resolve these cases.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive discrimination practice and has broad experience fighting for the rights of employees who have been victims of discrimination and retaliation by their employers.

A Jackson County, Missouri jury awarded Susann Bashir, a Muslim-American, $120,000 in lost wages and other damages, plus $5 million in punitive damages after finding that Jackson Southwestern Bell, a subsidiary of AT&T, discriminated against her based on her religion.

According to the suit, Bashir endured years of religious discrimination after converting to Islam in 2005. When Bashir converted, her work environment became hostile, and her co-workers started to make harassing comments about her religion. Bashir’s co-workers left Bible verses on her desk and asked her if she planned to blow up the building.

In 2008, Bashir filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), but eventually dropped the complaint after the EEOC conducted an investigation. Bashir asked to be relocated to either a different department or city, but the company refused because it claimed that would violate union rules. Finally, in 2009, Bashir’s boss snatched off Bashir’s head scarf (hijab), exposing her hair. Following this incident, Bashir refused to return to work unless she was transferred or the company removed her manager. The company failed to take corrective action and terminated Bashir when she did not return to work for nine months.

Following the jury’s verdict, Bashir’s attorney, Luke Hertenstein, commented, “I think that the jury today sent a very loud message that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in the workplace in this community.”

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive discrimination practice and has broad experience fighting for the rights of employees who have been victims of discrimination and retaliation by their employers.

The Justice Department recently filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the city of Jacksonville, Florida’s Fire and Rescue Department, challenging the fire department’s use of written examinations for the promotion of firefighters to Lieutenant, Captain, District Chief, and Engineer.  The Justice Department alleges that the written examination discriminates against African-Americans and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to the Justice Department, the fire department’s examinations are discriminatory in nature because African-American candidates pass the examinations at significantly lower rates than their white counterparts.  The African-Americans who pass are rarely promoted because candidates are promoted in descending rank-order based on written examination scores, and African-American candidates score significantly lower than white candidates.

Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, states:

“At best, these tests measure only a slice of what is necessary to be a supervisor, but they stand in the way of qualified African-Americans advancing in the fire department.  The Justice Department will take all necessary action to ensure that such discriminatory practices are eliminated and that the victims of such practices are made whole.”

The Justice Department is seeking a court order that would ban the city from using this written examination, and instead, develop a new procedure for promotions that complies with Title VII. Additionally, they are asking for “make-whole relief,” which would include promotions, back pay, and retroactive seniority to African-Americans harmed by the city’s allegedly discriminatory written examination.

Perez said, “This complaint should send a clear message to all public employers that employment practices that have the effect of excluding qualified candidates on account of race will not be tolerated.”

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive discrimination practice and has broad experience fighting for the rights of employees who have been victims of discrimination and retaliation by their employers.

In June 2011, the Justice Department sued Waupaca County, Wisconsin, alleging the County violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it failed to promote Julie Thobaben, a female patrol officer in the County’s sheriff’s department, because of her gender.  The County, by consent decree, agreed to settle the suit for approximately $142,000.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion.

In its complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Justice Department alleged that the County promoted a male patrol officer to detective sergeant instead of Ms. Thobaben even though he was not eligible for promotion due to prior disciplinary actions.  The County claimed that it denied Ms. Thobaben the promotion because it would have required her to supervise her husband, who was also a patrol officer in the sheriff’s department.  But the County had failed to apply this same anti-nepotism policy to eight male employees who supervised immediate family members.

According to the consent decree, the County must promote Ms. Thobaben to detective sergeant within three years and increase her current pay rate to that of a detective sergeant.  The County must also pay her $141,641 in monetary relief, including backpay with interest, attorney’s fees, and compensatory damages.

“Title VII ensures that women in the workplace have the right to be considered for promotion without regard to their sex, and the Department of Justice will not tolerate discrimination in employment on the basis of sex,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division is pleased that Waupaca County will review and amend its policies, provide training to its employees regarding the requirements of Title VII, and provide Ms. Thobaben with the relief to which she is entitled.”

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive discrimination practice and has broad experience fighting for the rights of employees who have been victims of discrimination and retaliation by their employers.

On April 17, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it filed suit against a Wendy’s franchisee, CTW L.L.C, for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying employment to a hearing-impaired applicant. The EEOC charges that the general manager of a Wendy’s in Kileen, Texas refused to hire Michael Harrison Jr. for a cook position because he was hearing-impaired.

The EEOC sued in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.  The suit claims that Harrison was well-qualified for the position because he had over two years of similar experience at a different fast-food franchise.  Harrison stated that after he successfully interviewed with the Wendy’s shift manager, he interviewed with Wendy’s general manager via Texas Relay, a telephone system used by people with hearing impairments.  During the interview, the general manager allegedly told Harrison that there was “really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

The EEOC sued after CTW refused to agree to a pre-litigation settlement. The suit seeks lost wages, compensatory damages for Harrison, and punitive damages against CTW.  In addition, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief that includes policies to prevent
further violations of the ADA.

“The ADA requires companies to treat disabled persons the same as all other applicants for a job,” said  Joel Clark, trial attorney for the EEOC.  “This company automatically refused to consider Mr. Harrison for employment solely because of his hearing impairment. Wendy’s should not have relied on its own negative, generalized assumptions about his ability to communicate.”

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive discrimination practice and has broad experience fighting for the rights of employees who have been victims of discrimination and retaliation by their employers.

In a landmark decision released on Monday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled for the first time that workplace discrimination against transgender individuals constitutes sex discrimination and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case, Macy v. Holder, involves allegations by a former police detective and U.S. Army veteran, Ms. Mia Macy, who claims that she was denied a contractor position with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) after the contractor learned that she had been undergoing a gender transition.

Ms. Macy applied for a position as a ballistics technician at the ATF’s Walnut Creek laboratory while presenting as a male and claims she was told that she was qualified for the position.  Ms. Macy claims that after informing the contractor that she was transitioning from male to female gender, the contractor told her that funding for the job has been cut.

After learning that another applicant had been hired for the position, Ms. Macy filed an equal opportunity complaint with the ATF.  Ms. Macy then appealed the ATF’s decision when the agency separated her sex discrimination claims for separate processing from her gender identity discrimination claims.

In its recent decision, the EEOC sided with Ms. Macy, concluding that the sex and gender identity discrimination claims may be processed together and clarified that:

“…claims of discrimination based on transgender status, also referred to as claims of discrimination based on gender identity, are cognizable under Title VII’s sex discrimination prohibition…”

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.  The EEOC’s decision noted that following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which held that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex as well as gender stereotyping, a “steady stream” of U.S. district and appellate courts have extended Title VII protections to transgender employees.  Additionally, last December, in Glenn v. Brumby, the Eleventh Circuit held that discrimination because of gender identity is sex discrimination.

According to the EEOC’s decision, “when an employer discriminates against someone because the person is transgender, the employer has engaged in disparate treatment related to the sex of the victim.”  Furthermore, the EEOC stated:

”This is true regardless of whether an employer discriminates against an employee because the individual has expressed his or her gender in a non-stereotypical fashion, because the employer is uncomfortable with the fact that the person has transitioned or is in the process of transitioning from one gender to another, or because the employer simply does not like that the person is identifying as a transgender person.”

The EEOC’s recent decision marks the first time that the federal agency tasked with enforcing employment discrimination law has decided that the law provides transgender employees with protection.

The EEOC issued its decision without objection from its five-member bipartisan commission.  The decision will apply to all enforcement and litigation activities by the EEOC, all of the commission’s 53 field offices throughout the U.S., and will also be binding on federal agencies and departments.

The ruling did not determine the merits of Macy’s discrimination claims, but decided that she can bring a charge of discrimination under the law.  The EEOC has remanded Macy’s complaint to the ATF for further processing in light of the decision.  If Macy requests a final decision without a hearing, the ATF must issue a decision within 60 days of the receipt of her request.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has represented clients who have brought claims of sexual harassment and gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other claims of gender-based discrimination under various state and local laws, including a $650,000 award in a gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.

On April 10, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that Resources for Human Development (RHD), an Indiana treatment facility for chemically dependent women and their children, will pay $125,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit. The settlement will resolve allegations that RHD violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it fired Lisa Harrison, a prevention and intervention specialist, because she had severe obesity.

The EEOC claims that RHD fired Harrison despite the fact that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job.  Before the EEOC filed suit, Harrison died.  During the litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied RHD’s motion for summary judgment and rejected its claim that severe obesity did not qualify as a disability under the ADA. The court ruled that regardless of its cause, severe obesity is protected by the ADA.

“All people with a disability who are qualified for their position are protected from unlawful discrimination,” said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez.  “Severe obesity is no exception.  It is important for employers to realize that stereotypes, myths, and biases about that condition should not be the basis of employment decisions.”

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive discrimination practice and has broad experience fighting for the rights of employees who have been victims of discrimination and retaliation by their employers.

Kelley Drye & Warren, a law firm with over 300 attorneys in New York, has agreed to pay $574,000 to settle an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of Eugene T. D’Ablemont.

D’Ablemont claimed that Kelley Drye violated the ADEA by requiring partners who reached the age of seventy to give up equity in the firm if they continued working.  D’Ablemont claimed that, because of this policy, he had been significantly under-compensated since 2000 when he turned seventy and continued working full-time.

Jeffrey Burstein, EEOC Trial Attorney in the EEOC’s New York District Office, commented:

“As Kelley Drye has recognized by its policy change, it simply does not make business sense to arbitrarily force out attorneys with the skill and energy to continue to practice law at a high level even though they are over 70 years old.  I urge other law firms to assess their retirement policies.”

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive discrimination practice and has broad experience fighting for the rights of employees who have been victims of discrimination and retaliation by their employers.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment last week, asking an Ohio federal judge to hold JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. liable for “creating, fostering, and subjecting several female mortgage consultants within its Home Loan Direct department to sex-based disparate terms and conditions of employment, including a sex-based hostile work environment.”

The EEOC sued JPMorgan in September 2009 on behalf of mortgage consultant Aimee Doneyhue, alleging that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit alleged an office culture that created an uncomfortable work setting for female employees who had to choose between accepting abuse or facing reprimand.  The EEOC alleged that Cyndi Ray, the unit’s head, encouraged inappropriate sexual behavior and the men serving as managers below Ray followed her lead.

The EEOC claims that in addition to creating and permitting the uncomfortable and sexually charged work environment, JPMorgan purposely gave the female consultants fewer opportunities than their male counterparts; and provided little help when the female employees complained to Human Resources.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive discrimination practice and has broad experience fighting for the rights of employees who have been victims of discrimination and retaliation by their employers.