©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | 44 43 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP KEY SETTLEMENTS SECURED IN FY 2024 EEOC v. Houchens Food Grp., d/b/a Hometown IGA, 6:22-cv-00235 (E.D. Ky.) Houchens, an owner and operator of retail grocery, convenience and hardware stores agreed to pay $40,000 in monetary damages and to other equitable relief to settle a lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the lawsuit, the company subjected a Spiritualist Rastafarian to discrimination when it refused to hire him for a position because he needed a religious accommodation to the company’s personal appearance policy. The applicant’s religious beliefs require that he wear his hair in dreadlocks, a style prohibited under the company’s personal appearance policy. When the applicant expressed his inability to cut his hair due to his religious beliefs, the company did not consider possible accommodations and denied him employment outright. In addition to the monetary relief, the company must train, post notices, and revise its policies to prevent future violations of Title VII and report to the EEOC for three years to ensure compliance. EEOC v. Keystone RV Co., 3:22-cv-00831 (N.D. Ind.) According to the EEOC’s suit, the company failed to accommodate a former painter after he requested an accommodation under the company’s attendance policy in relation to his need for disability-related leave. The EEOC also argued that the company failed to fulfill its obligations to engage in the interactive process with the painter when initially assessing the employee’s request. To resolve the suit, the company agreed to pay $96,460 and will provide management trainings and revise its policies to prevent future violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. KEY CASES FILED IN FY 2024 EEOC v. Techstyle, Inc. et al., Does 1-10, Inclusive, 2:24-cv-07239 (C.D. Cal.) As described by the EEOC, the company violated federal law after failing to file EEO-1 reports in prior reporting years, including 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, despite written notice from the EEOC. The Complaint was filed on August 26, 2024 and the parties entered into a Consent Decree on September 20, 2024. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the company will file all past due reports, and for a five-year period will timely file all EEO-1 reports as required, obtain an EEO-1 Reporting Monitor and the EEOC is entitled to monitor for compliance with the Consent Decree. EEOC v. Good Health Manufacturing, Inc. 2:24-cv-01679 (D. Ariz.) The EEOC charged that the employer violated Title VII when it failed to address multiple instances of sexual harassment against its female employees by other workers and supervisors since at least 2018. The EEOC filed its Complaint on July 9, 2024, and the parties entered into a Consent Decree on August 1, 2024. The company is required to pay $20,000 in monetary damages, and agreed to substantial injunctive relief, including, removing negative references for personnel files and providing neutral references, reinstate eligible employees, appoint an NV CA Los Angeles Hawaiian Islands American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Wake Island NV CA Los Angeles Hawaiian Islands American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Wake Island EEOC Los Angeles District Office DISTRICT PROFILE Director: Christine Park-Gonzalez Regional Attorney: Anna Y. Park Merit Cases Filed in FY 2024: 3 ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Internal EEO Coordinator, conduct EEO compliance and complaint audits, revise relevant policies, provide training to employees, establish a complaint log and toll-free complaint hotline and compile reports on its activities under the Consent Decree. KEY SETTLEMENTS SECURED IN FY 2024 Charge v. Scripps Clinical Medical Group. The company agreed to pay $6.875 million to settle and age and disability discrimination Charge filed against it. The charge alleged the company subjected a class of physicians to a mandatory retirement age, regardless of the individuals’ abilities to do the job. The company entered into a four-year conciliation agreement with the EEOC. In addition to the monetary damages, the company has rescinded its mandatory retirement policy based on age and its Board of Directors will reaffirm this recission. The company will inform employees of the recission and clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment. The company will also review its policies and procedures against discrimination based on age and disability, and it will provide training on the ADEA and ADA to division heads, department heads, executive leadership, and members of human resources. The EEOC will monitor for compliance. EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp., BaronHR, LLC, et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-06517 (C.D. Cal.) A temporary staffing company, agreed to pay $2.2 million in monetary damages and other equitable relief to settle a lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the lawsuit, since at least 2015, the company failed to recruit and refer workers for low-skill positions based on their race (Black, Asian and white) and national origin (non-Hispanic), and illegally steered candidates to certain positions based on their sex. The lawsuit also said the company screened out individuals with disabilities and perceived disabilities by only hiring and referring supposedly physically fit candidates with no history of injury. In addition to monetary relief, which will be paid out through a claims process, the company entered into a consent decree, which requires the company to change its employment practices to prevent future discriminatory hiring nationally. This includes hiring a third-party monitor, significant training and robust reporting mechanisms to ensure applicants and employees can report discrimination and updating the company’s antidiscrimination policies to prohibit discrimination in hiring.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4