©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | 42 41 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP KEY SETTLEMENTS SECURED IN FY 2024 EEOC v. Nat’l Telecomm. Inst., Inc., 5:23-cv-01210 (W.D. Tex.) The EEOC and a staffing support firm agreed to settle a disability discrimination suit. The EEOC claims that when the company learned that applicants used accessibility technologies such as screen readers to convert computer text to speech, it declined to pursue placement or referrals for blind and low-vision applicants. The company assumed that its clients would not be able to support the required accommodating technology at the time. The practice, according to the EEOC, amounted to unnecessary and exclusionary barriers to employment opportunities in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The company agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle the suit and must revise its policies regarding accommodations for those with disabilities and appoint an internal ADA coordinator to monitor compliance measures to prevent any future similar practices. KEY CASES FILED IN FY 2024 EEOC v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 4:24-cv-00125 (S.D. Tex.) According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, since at least February 2019, the school district paid lower wages to a class of female senior program specialists than it paid to their male counterparts performing equal work in a job requiring substantially equal skill. The EEOC further claimed that the district implemented a stringent interpretation of its compensation manual for female senior program specialists that limited their ability to qualify for a higher starting salary based on their previous work experience. This resulted in male senior program specialists being compensated at higher rates than their female colleagues who sometimes had as much or more related experience. EEOC v. Minden Seafood LLC, Dorcheat Seafood LLC, 2:24-cv-2360 (E.D. La.) The EEOC alleges that the employer subjected a female employee to a sexually hostile work environment, discharged her because of her sex, and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity in violation of Title VII. According to the lawsuit, the female employee, a cashier at the restaurant, was persistently subjected to unwelcome sexual advances by a coworker, including unwanted and inappropriate comments about her body, sexual propositions, and being followed into a bathroom where a coworker exposed himself to her. The employee complained to the owner, who permitted the coworker to continue working with her. Finding conditions intolerable, the employee resigned. When she asked to return to work, her request was denied as well. EEOC Houston District Office DISTRICT PROFILE Director: Rayford O. Irvin Regional Attorney: Rudy L. Sustaita Merit Cases Filed in FY 2024: 8 Average Days Between Determination Letter & Failure to Conciliate: 78 Average Days Between Failure to Conciliate & Complaint: 391 Average Days Between Determination Letter & Complaint: 470 TX LA Houston ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP KEY SETTLEMENTS SECURED IN FY 2024 EEOC v. Gracious, LLC d/b/a Gracious Bakery + Café, 1:24-cv-418 (E.D. La.) According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the employer violated federal law after firing an employee for missing two shifts in order to obtain medical treatment related to her pregnancy. Although she returned to work in a few days and satisfactorily performed her duties, she was fired because, according to her managers, her pregnancy complications posed a reliability issue. The EEOC filed suit, though the parties ultimately resolved the matter. Under a three-year consent decree, the employer must conduct annual training for its employees, pay monetary damages, revise its policies, provide regular reports to the EEOC on certain workers, and post a notice concerning its obligations under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. KEY CASES FILED IN FY 2024 EEOC v. Ephraim McDowell Health, Inc., 5:24-cv-00084 (E.D. Ky.) As described by the EEOC, the company violated federal law after denying a female employee a promotion because of her sex and retaliated against her after she filed a charge of discrimination. The EEOC further claims that the employee was told by the company’s CEO that she would not be selected for an administrator position because of her sex due to the CEO’s belief that men work better with men. Ultimately, a male employee who did not possess the educational requirements was promoted to the position. The female employee, who met all requirements for the position, was instead elevated to a lower-paying position reporting to the newly promoted male. The EEOC further charged that after the female employee filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, the company retaliated against her and fired her. EEOC v. Pace Se. Mich., 2:24-cv-12424 (E.D. Mich.) The EEOC charges that PACE maintained a policy which treated any employee unable to return to work following the expiration of FMLA leave as a “voluntary resignation” resulting in termination. One disabled employee with pseudotumor cerebri requested a brief extension of leave until her new specialty contact lenses arrived. She explained the lenses would arrive within 30 days of her FMLA leave expiration date, and possibly as soon as three days. Another employee with severe anxiety and bipolar disorder requested 30 more days of unpaid leave and provided medical documentation supporting her request. PACE did not consider either request and terminated both employees pursuant to the policy though it could have easily accommodated both. Moreover, it did not hire replacements for either until months later. EEOC Indianapolis District Office DISTRICT PROFILE Director: Michelle Eisele Regional Attorney: Kenneth Bird Merit Cases Filed in FY 2024: 10 Average Days Between Determination Letter & Failure to Conciliate: 51 Average Days Between Failure to Conciliate & Complaint: 147 Average Days Between Determination Letter & Complaint: 199 MI OH IN KY MI Indianapolis ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4