©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION | 74 73 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2025 EDITION ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP • Mandatory Anti-Discrimination Training: Most Decrees also include mandatory EEO training programs. The programs most often consist of diversity, racial/gender sensitivity, and nonharassment training. Training of senior executives and management is nearly always required, but an employer also may be directed to train nearly all of its employees. The scope and cost of such training can be substantial. • Reporting and Monitoring: Virtually all Decrees have some ongoing reporting and monitoring requirements. At a minimum, an employer ordinarily will be required to notify the EEOC when it has complied with certain provisions (e.g., a report on when payment was issued, when training has been conducted, the timing of policy revisions, etc.). The reporting provisions, however, can be far more invasive, requiring employers to update the EEOC on any similar internal claims of discrimination and how they were resolved, providing applicant flow and hiring data in a recruiting case, and detailed reports of any discipline that has been administered if discipline was at issue in the underlying case. The Decree often includes a commitment that the employer will retain and produce documents concerning Decree compliance, will make employees available for interviews, and could even allow the EEOC to access the employers worksites. • Posting: In almost all cases, the employer is required to post a notice visible to all employees that the EEOC brought a lawsuit, that it was resolved via a Consent Decree, explaining that the employer is forbidden from violating certain EEO laws, and providing contact information for the EEOC. There are, of course, other more “exotic” forms of relief found in Decrees, including set hiring efforts, public statements by company leadership encouraging diversity, letters of apology to alleged victims, the hiring of outside experts to guide policy review, the formation of new internal organizations and positions to ensure Decree compliance, and so on. All terms of a Consent Decree are subject to negotiation, and employers are not compelled to agree to any provision. As will be discussed below, the terms the EEOC demands in settlement are often far broader than injunctive relief that is typically ordered by a District Court even when the EEOC is successful a trial. NOTABLE FY 2024 RESOLUTIONS THROUGH CONSENT DECREES EEOC v. Aaron Thomas Co. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02599 (W.D. Tenn.) A national contract packaging company agreed to pay $450,000 to settle an EEOC suit claiming the company failed to select or retain Black workers for placement at its worksites in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). According to the EEOC, the company utilized multiple secret phrases and techniques when it requested temporary employees from a staffing agency, including requesting Spanish-speaking employees when their language skills were not required for the job. The company allegedly segregated employees by race and generally provided Latino workers with better pay, conditions, and financial opportunities than their Black counterparts. In addition to monetary damages, the company signed a 2-year Consent Decree that requires it to create an anti-discrimination policy and develop a plan designed to recruit diverse applicants. It must also provide specialized anti-discrimination training to managerial employees and provide the EEOC with periodic reports of any future employee complaints of discrimination. EEOC v. ACARE HHC d/b/a Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care, 23-cv-5760 (E. D. N. Y.) A New York City based company agreed to pay $400,000 to a class of home health aides and provide significant non-monetary relief when it allegedly agreed to patients’ racial preferences when making home health aide assignments, in violation of Title VII. According to the EEOC, Black and Hispanic aides would be transferred to a new assignment or, if no other assignment was available, lose their employment altogether. In addition to the monetary payment, defendants signed a Consent Decree that includes an injunction prohibiting the company from making home health aide assignments based on clients’ race- and/or national origin-based preferences. The company must also update its internal policies, report complaints and provide mandatory training for management employees on the law. EEOC v Monson Fruit, Co. LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03133-MKD (E.D. Wash.) A produce company agreed to pay $250,000 and provide injunctive relief to resolve a sexual harassment action brought under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that an agricultural worker encountered sexual harassment including repeated unwelcome advances and requests for sex from her manager. After rejecting the manager’s propositions and reporting the conduct, the worker’s husband who also worked for the company was fired. Management had also allegedly failed to act on reports of the female worker’s harassment. The company agreed to a three-year consent decree that requires implementation of additional policies and procedures designed to increase compliance with Title VII, including a new reporting hotline and trainings for supervisors and managers on investigative techniques for sexual harassment investigations. EEOC v. Asphalt Paving Systems, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-2169-JLB-UAM (M. D. Fla.) An asphalt paving company with locations in Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Tennessee, agreed to pay $1.25 to settle a race discrimination action. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the company subjected 12 Black former employees and a class of other Black employees, to frequent, severe harassment based on race that subjected them to degrading and humiliating conditions such as being required to work in pouring rain while white workers watched, and being forced to relieve themselves outdoors while white employees were taken to indoor restrooms. The Black employees often were subjected to racial slurs and epithets. The company resolved the Title VII action by agreeing to a three-year decree to provide specialized training on race discrimination to human resources officers and managers. The decree also requires the company to appoint an outside monitor to review complaints of race-based harassment and provide EEOC with reports of harassment complaints. EEOC v. J.A. Croson, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00435 (M. D. Fla.) A Florida-based plumbing and HVAC contractor agreed to pay $1.6 million to settle a race and national origin harassment and retaliation lawsuit. In a Title VII complaint, the EEOC alleged the company subjected a 17 Black and Hispanic employees to a work environment with open use of racial slurs and derogatory language, displayed the Confederate flag, and distributed of humiliating and degrading assignments based on their race and national origin. Two former Black employees were also allegedly terminated for reporting complaints of the work environment. Under the three-year consent decree the company agreed to, it will pay monetary damages and designate an employee relations hotline for employees to submit harassment and retaliation complaints. The company will also assign an investigator address harassment and retaliation complaints. Training employees to recognize workplace harassment will also be required. EEOC v National Telecommuting Institute, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-01210-XR (W.D. Tex.) A Massachusettsbased staffing support firm agreed to pay $1.25 million to resolve an ADA disability discrimination action. The EEOC alleged the company failed to pursue the placement or referral of visually-impaired applicants as telephone-based customer service agents after learning the applicants used accessibility tools like screen readers to convert computer text to speech, and it also denied request for accommodations during the application process. The company paid monetary damages and agreed to a three-year consent decree requiring internal training on applicants’ and employees’ rights and responsibilities under the ADA. The decree also required revision of company policies and practices concerning the provision of reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities, including blindness. It also had to appoint an internal ADA coordinator and external monitor to ensure compliance.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4