Table of Contents
In 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 created the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to oversee the employment provisions prohibiting discrimination, which were embedded in Title VII of the Act. The Commission, however, had no ability to enforce these provisions until Congress amended Title VII in 1972 and authorized the EEOC to file suit in federal court. At the same time, Congress created the position of General Counsel, responsible for conducting the Commission's litigation. The General Counsel is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a four year term.
As the EEOC's statutory duties have grown, so has the litigation responsibility of the General Counsel. In 1979, a Presidential Order transferred the enforcement functions for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Equal Pay Act (EPA) from the Department of Labor to the EEOC. In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), vesting authority for the enforcement of the employment provisions with the EEOC.
Title VII and the ADA cover employers with 15 or more employees; the ADEA covers employers with 20 or more employees; and the EPA covers all private employers. Although the Department of Justice brings suits against state and local governments under Title VII and the ADA, the Commission files suits against state and local governments under the ADEA and the EPA.
Litigation Management Services (LMS) manages and oversees the Commission's court enforcement program in the Commission's 24 District Offices. Also, in conjunction with the Office of Field Programs (OFP), LMS oversees the interaction of District Office legal units with the investigative enforcement units within those offices.
LMS is directed by an Associate General Counsel who supervises three Assistant General Counsels responsible for field oversight. Each Assistant General Counsel directs a staff of attorneys and is responsible for liaison functions with the District Office legal units in one of OGC's three geographic areas. The Assistant General Counsels oversee litigation activity as well as legal unit interaction with investigative enforcement units. In complex District Office litigation, this responsibility includes monitoring expert procurement and evaluating case prosecutions and settlements.
LMS staff provide specific litigation assistance to District Offices as needed and maintain litigation guidance on the Commission's internal web site as a brief bank, expert listings, jury instructions and other trial practice information. LMS prepares weekly and monthly reports on current litigation as well as quarterly reports for distribution to the Commission. LMS also provides annual updates of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cases, which describe all active and resolved EEOC litigation under the ADA, including appellate and amicus matters, and which is indexed by both issue and impairment. This "ADA Docket" is distributed within the agency and to interested outside individuals and organizations, and is available on the EEOC webpage.
In addition to overseeing field litigation and district office legal unit operations, Litigation Management Services provides ongoing support for the field's litigation activities.
LMS also has an Assistant General Counsel for Technology responsible for providing technical guidance, oversight and training to OGC headquarters and field offices on the use of technology in litigation. This AGC also consults with staff on statistical and technical issues in litigation, coordinates field training on data analysis and statistics, and develops OGC's computer systems. The Assistant General Counsel for Technology also serves as OGC's representative to the Commission's Technology Steering Committee.
The Office of General Counsel's systemic enforcement program has two components. Systemic Litigation Services (SLS) conducts litigation on behalf of the EEOC in cases alleging patterns or practices of employment discrimination or involving complex legal or factual issues. SLS's responsibilities include evaluating and preparing litigation recommendations in complex cases, litigating those cases, and providing legal advice to the other service component, Systemic Investigations and Review Program (SIRP), during the investigation and conciliation of systemic charges.
Systemic Investigations and Systemic Litigation develop and litigate complex cases involving egregious discrimination against numerous individuals
Headquarter's SIRP investigates pattern and practice systemic charges. Although SIRP uses the same case processing procedures as those in the field, its focus differs from that of a field office systemic unit. SIRP's primary function is to administratively process Commissioner charges that are regional or nationwide in scope, focusing specifically on novel issues with significant complexity or sensitive areas of concern to the Commission. SIRP also develops standards, policies and procedures for conducting systemic investigations for both headquarters and the field offices.
An Associate General Counsel oversees both SLS and SIRP. SLS is staffed with two Assistant General Counsels who each supervise a team of trial attorneys, paralegal specialists and clericals. SIRP is staffed with one Assistant General Counsel who supervises a staff of lawyers, investigators and one program analyst.
Litigation Advisory Services analyzes cases from the field and recommends whether they should be litigated
Litigation Advisory Services (LAS) evaluates legal unit recommendations for litigation in cases that the General Counsel or the Commission must approve. LAS also drafts litigation recommendations to the General Counsel for approval or submission to the Commission. LAS represents OGC during Commission meetings discussing cases under consideration for litigation. In addition, LAS responds in writing to Commissioner inquiries on those cases. In responding to such inquiries, LAS acts as OGC's liaison and contact point between the Commission and the field legal units or Systemic Litigation Services. Lastly, LAS performs special assignments as requested by the General Counsel.
LAS is under the supervision of an Assistant General Counsel who reports directly to the Deputy General Counsel.
Appellate Services conducts all appellate litigation where the Commission is a party. Also, Appellate Services participates as amicus curiae in both appellate and district court cases involving novel issues or developing areas of the law. Appellate Services also represents the Commission in the United States Supreme Court through the Solicitor General.
Appellate Services conducts the EEOC's litigation on appeal and files amicus briefs on cutting-edge issues.
In every adverse judgment received by the EEOC, Appellate Services submits a written recommendation to the General Counsel whether to appeal. In amicus cases, Appellate Services drafts memoranda recommending Commission participation which, if approved by the General Counsel, are submitted to the Commission for authorization under a notice and hold procedure.
Appellate Services also offers comments, subject to General Counsel review, to the Department of Justice and Solicitor General on all cases arising under the statutes EEOC enforces in which the federal government is a defendant. In addition, Appellate Services reviews EEOC policy matters, such as proposed policy statements, regulations, etc., from the Office of Legal Counsel to determine the effect of such proposals on litigation.
Appellate Services is directed by an Associate General Counsel, who oversees three Assistant General Counsels, each supervising a team of attorneys.
Research and Analytic Services (RAS) provides expert and analytic services to attorneys and investigators on cases and charges of employment discrimination. RAS also conducts general social science research on issues related to civil rights enforcement.
The Office of General Counsel has an in-house staff of experts to assist in litigation and investigation.
RAS is headed by a director who reports to the Deputy General Counsel. The professional staff of RAS consists of experts in social science research, economics, statistics, and psychology, all with advanced degrees. OGC has estimated that RAS saves the Commission at least two million dollars each year in expert service costs and other types of contract costs. In addition to providing expert services for class cases in litigation, RAS provides expert and analytic support to field staff investigating charges in the administrative process and on special research projects within the Agency. Other primary functions of RAS include providing expert and technical advice in implementing the Uniform Guidelines on employee Selection Procedures (UGESP); developing and maintaining special Census files by geography, race/ethnicity and sex,and detailed occupations; developing labor market availability estimates; constructing large employer personnel data files and work history records by coding and converting paper records into computer files; and conducting statistical analyses of complex employment practices.
During Fiscal Year 2002, staff from RAS were retained as consulting witnesses in 25 cases in various stages of litigation and provide hands-on technical assistance to headquarters and field offices on many matters not yet in litigation.
The Administrative and Technical Services Staff (ATSS) have two main functions. ATSS serves in several administrative capacities, acting as the liaison between OGC and EEOC's service organizations such as the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Administrative Services on financial concerns and the Office of Human Resources on personnel matters. ATSS also prepares the OGC budget request to the Commission for OMB and Congress and handles various budget execution duties such as monitoring financial obligations.
Administrative and Technical Services Staff provide financial, budgetary and personnel services as well as data on cases in litigation
ATSS also manages numerous technical functions. It maintains the General Counsel Data Base, which contains the database on the Commission's litigation activity. To enable OGC managers to assess various aspects of EEOC's nationwide litigation activity, ATSS prepares periodic reports on the number and types of lawsuits filed and resolved as well as the monetary and injunctive relief obtained through litigation. ATSS also provides information from the General Counsel Data Base to the Office of Research, Information and Planning and responds to inquiries from OGC managers, other offices within EEOC, members of Congress, other governmental agencies, and the media, including requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Located throughout the country, the EEOC's District Office Legal Units help investigate discrimination charges and litigate cases filed in court.
The Commission currently has 24 District Offices, each, except for Albuquerque, containing a legal unit which conducts Commission litigation. The legal units also provide advice and other legal support to the District Office enforcement units, which are responsible for investigating charges of discrimination. Thus, in addition to litigating cases, legal unit attorneys work closely with the enforcement units in the intake and investigation of charges and responding to Freedom of Information Act requests.
Each District Office legal unit is under the direction of a Regional Attorney. The Regional Attorneys manage staffs of one to two supervisory trial attorneys and five to fifteen trial attorneys, as well as support staff. Since 1999, the Regional Attorneys also manage trial attorneys stationed in approximately twenty-one local and area offices as well as in the Washington Field Office. Additionally, many Regional Attorneys supervise a Hearings Unit, composed of administrative judges who conduct hearings on claims of discrimination in federal employment.
In FY 2002, the Office of General Counsel obtained over $52 million for persons who had been harmed by discrimination
In FY 2002, the Office of General Counsel(OGC) filed 332 merit suits: 326 direct suits, one intervention and five suits to enforce administrative settlements.1
Of the 332 merits suits filed, 246 were filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 41 under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 28 under the Age Discrimination in employment Act (ADEA), two under the Equal Pay Act(EPA), and 13 under more than one statute ("concurrent" suits).
The Office of General Counsel resolved a total of 345 suits: 340 direct suits, two interventions and three suits to enforce administrative settlements.2 Of the 345 merits suits resolved, 247 were Title VII suits, 61 were ADA suits, 20 were ADEA suits, three were EPA suits and another 14 suits were filed under more than one statute. Through these resolutions, OGC obtained more than $52 million in monetary relief for individuals who had experienced discrimination.
During FY 2002, OGC conducted an extensive five-year study, examining the EEOC's litigation program in both the district and appellate courts. The study revealed that over 90% of all EEOC suits were resolved successfully, i.e., resolved by consent decree, settlement agreement or favorable court order, resulting in some form of relief for individuals who have experienced discrimination, such as monetary relief, placement in a job, changes in discriminatory policies or practices, a reasonable accommodation for a disability or for religious beliefs and training for employees.
Some of the highlights of the study include:
From Fiscal Years 1997-2001, over 90% of EEOC's lawsuits were successfully resolved; over 60% of trials were won
In reflecting on the results of the litigation study, EEOC Chair Cari M. Dominguez stated, "The EEOC must make the greatest impact possible in the workplace using all the resources at its disposal. While proactive prevention of discrimination is our first priority, we will not hesitate to use litigation when necessary and appropriate."
The complete report is available on the EEOC web site at www.eeoc.gov.
During FY 2002, attorneys in the field legal units participated in more than 600 events designed to educate employers, employees, civil rights lawyers, other federal and state agencies as well as the general public about the federal employment discrimination laws and the EEOC charge filing process. These efforts reached over 36,000 individuals. Examples of these activities include:
EEOC field attorneys participated in more than 600 events to inform the public about EEOC procedures and employment discrimination issues
Eagle Global Logistics settles race, national origin and gender discrimination suit for $8.5 million
In EEOC v. Eagle Global Logistics, the company, an air freight forwarder, provided $8.5 million to resolve allegations that it discriminated against African Americans, Hispanics, women and older workers in hiring and promotion; and paid African Americans, Hispanics and women less than white male employees doing similar work and subjected them to a hostile work environment. The monetary relief will be distributed through a claims procedure. The company also agreed to establish a $500,000 Leadership Development Program to prepare women and minorities for leadership positions.
Manufacturer of fiber optic cable settles claims of race discrimination in hiring and sex discrimination in assignments for $1 million
Hiring issues were also the focus in EEOC v. Optical Cable Corp., which alleged that the company failed to hire African Americans, denied training to one black employee and then fired him because of his race. The suit also alleged that the company assigned female production department employees to the lowest paying jobs because of their sex. The settlement provided $75,000 in monetary relief to the discharged employee, $850,000 to the African American applicants and female employees, and $75,000 for training and recruitment efforts.
EEOC v. Crest Discount Foods, Inc., was brought on behalf of a black man who had been refused an entry level grocery store position because of his race. The applicant received $50,000 in relief. In another hiring case, EEOC v. Greensheet, Inc., the Commission alleged that an advertising newspaper failed to hire black applicants for press helper jobs, filling those positions only with Hispanics. The company agreed to pay $135,000 to rejected black applicants and hire qualified blacks for press helper jobs.
The Commission also settled a case on behalf of an employee denied a promotion to a yard master position because of his race (African American). The employee received $250,000. See EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad.
EEOC v. Sterling McCall Lexus alleged that a car dealership promoted a white employee to sales manager over a more qualified black salesman because of race. The company provided the employee over $23,000 in back pay and nearly $47,000 in compensatory damages. See also EEOC v. Enterprise Leasing Co. (black male management trainee who was repeatedly denied advancement received over $100,000).
In EEOC v. McKesson Water Products Co., the Commission alleged that the company discriminated against African American employees by assigning them to routes in minority and low income neighborhoods where they earned less than drivers assigned to more affluent routes. The suit included claims that the company denied commission increases to black employees, denied them promotions, disciplined them more severely and subjected them to racially derogatory comments.
Drinking water processing and distribution company paid over $1.2 million to black drivers assigned to lower paying distribution routes
The employees received a total of $1,245,000 in monetary relief as well as extensive affirmative relief, including an objective system for determining route assignments, compensation, promotions and performance evaluations.
In EEOC v. Spirtas Wrecking Co., the Commission alleged that a wrecking company paid black laborers a lower hourly rate to do the same salvage work as white employees; refused to hire a black applicant who would not accept the lower wages; and fired two black workers for complaining about the pay disparity. This case was resolved through a settlement providing $135,000 to the laborers who were discharged and $5,000 to two other claimants.
African American workers paid less than white employees doing the same work receive monetary relief
Discriminatory wages were also an issue in EEOC v. PSE&G Power, LLC. The utility company allegedly paid an African American environmental health and safety coordinator less than non-black employees. The suit also claimed that the company assigned the coordinator to a lower job classification and grade, and failed to promote him on 16 separate occasions because of his race. The company agreed to promote the coordinator, increase his salary by $10,000 and pay him $120,000 in damages.
In EEOC v. Keane, Inc., the Commission alleged that the company, a national information technology firm, treated black employees unequally in bonuses, project assignments and client development, and subjected them to a racially hostile environment. Seven African American current and former employees received $350,000 in monetary relief.
The Commission also obtained $60,000 in monetary relief for an African American woman who had been demoted and denied the same schedule accommodations given white employees. When she complained about being treated discriminatorily, her hours were cut. EEOC v. Nuero-Restorative Associates, Inc., d/b/a/ Timber Ridge University Medical Center.
African American employees continue to encounter racial harassment on the job, including hangmen's nooses and racial slurs
Of particular note among suits alleging racial harassment is EEOC v. Pipefitters Ass'n., Local 597, which involved a union that contributed to the racially hostile environment at a construction job site. Several black union members had complained about racial graffiti, including swastikas, which was present at almost all of the portable toilets at the site. The union argued that racial graffiti was common at all construction sites and that the black pipefitters could not have been offended by the graffiti because they did not complain immediately.
Court holds union responsible for allowing racially hostile graffiti at construction job site
Agreeing with the Commission, the court found that the union had a duty to report or remedy the racially hostile work environment. The court ordered the union to pay $155,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to eight black workers and also permanently enjoined the union from allowing such conduct at any job site.
In FY 2000, in a separate action against the general contractor at the job site, the Commission had obtained $1.325 million in compensatory damages for approximately 100 people and an injunction permanently barring the employer from discriminating on the basis of race and sex. EEOC v. Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc.
In an innovative case resolution, the company in EEOC v. Scientific Colors, Inc., d/b/a/ Apollo Colors not only agreed to inspect and remove any racial graffiti, derogatory references, images and photographs on a daily basis, but also to install video cameras in an effort to identify culpable employees. The racial harassment had included graffiti and hangmen's nooses. The company, a printing ink manufacturer, paid $1.45 million to private litigants in a consolidated suit and an additional $375,000 for 23 workers included in the EEOC's case.
A Commission suit against a nationwide cable TV company alleged that a technical operations manager subjected black employees to racial epithets, placed a noose in his office and on a company-sponsored "bring your child to work day," hung the noose over his office door, where it was clearly visible to black employees and their children. Six employees received $1.05 million in damages. EEOC v. Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P., d/b/a Adelphia Cable.
Nationwide cable TV company provides over $1 million in damages to black employees after a manager hung a noose over his office door
In EEOC v. Bauer Built Tire & Battery, Inc., the coworkers of a black driver allegedly displayed a hangman's noose, "joked" by saying "your turn next" to the driver and then tried to place the noose around his neck. The driver's supervisor participated in the incident, which resulted in the driver resigning. The company paid the driver $193,000 in damages.
In another case, the Commission alleged that a major retailer tolerated coworkers'constant use of racial slurs and derogatory terms when talking to a black employee. EEOC v. Best Buy Co. The suit also claimed that the company falsely accused the employee of theft because of his race. The company provided the employee with $250,000 in monetary relief.
In EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. the Commission alleged that black employees at Ford's New Model Development Center were racially harassed, including by the display of nooses. Twenty-three black employees received $300,000 in monetary relief. Ford also agreed to establish a toll free hotline for employees to report any further incidents of harassment.
In yet another case, a black maintenance mechanic was allegedly subjected to displays of Ku Klux Klan symbols, nooses and threats of violence. EEOC v. Celanese Acetate, LLC. The mechanic received $75,000 in damages. In EEOC v. Dana Corp. and Spicer Mfg., Inc., the Commission obtained $430,000 in damages for 14 African American employees who were subjected to racial harassment, including a hangman's noose.
In EEOC v. Colonial Management Group, L.P., d/b/a St. Louis Metro Treatment, a black dependency counselor at a methadone clinic alleged that she was the target of frequent comments about her race as well as racial aspects of her speech. She further claimed the clinic director threatened her verbally and physically because of her race. The counselor received $150,000 in damages to resolve her claims.
Other cases involving racial harassment include EEOC v. Transit Mix Concrete and Materials Co. ($150,000 in damages for harassment) and EEOC v. Val Ward Cadillac, Inc. ($80,000 in damages for harassment).
In a case involving the discharge of a black female assistant store manager, an upscale women's clothier agreed to resolve the allegation of race discrimination by paying the former manager $100,000 in monetary relief. EEOC v. C.P. Shades, Inc.
In EEOC v. WFC L.P., d/b/a World Finance Corp., the Commission claimed that a loan company discriminated against a black male employee and a white female supervisor by discharging them because they were dating. No other employees had ever been fired for dating a coworker or supervisor. The case was settled when the employer agreed to pay the two individuals $119,000 in damages.
In another case, EEOC v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., the Commission obtained $45,000 in damages on behalf of a black nurse who was discharged during a reduction-in-force, despite having greater seniority and a better work record than her white coworkers.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks, EEOC filed suit against companies who fired Muslim employees with no previous problems
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, several employers fired Muslim employees with no previous problems. The EEOC filed two suits in fiscal year 2002 to address these issues. For example, in EEOC v. Worcester Art Museum, the Commission alleged that the museum fired a security guard because of his religion (Muslim) and his national origin (Afgan). After 9/11, the guard was ostracized by his coworkers; one coworker falsely reported him to authorities as a suspected terrorist. The guard had worked at the museum since 1994; he had emigrated to the United States with his parents in the early 1980s to escape the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
In a second backlash case, EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, the company refused to allow a customer service representative to cover her head with a scarf during the holy month of Ramadan, consistent with her beliefs as a Muslim. Although she had been allowed to wear a scarf during Ramadan in 1999 and in 2000, Alamo fired her for failing to remove her scarf during the holy month in December 2001.
Both suits were pending in court at the end of FY 2002. See also National Origin, 9/11 Backlash Suits, infra.
In EEOC v. Harbor Hospital Center, new management withdrew permission for a cafeteria employee to attend church on her Sabbath and subsequently fired her for refusing to work on Sundays. Previous management had allowed the worker, who had been with the company for 19 years, to attend Sunday services after she became a devout Christian. The company paid the former employee $112,500 in damages.
Title VII requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for the religious beliefs of employees, unless an undue hardship would result
In another case, the Commission alleged that a telecommunications equipment provider refused to accommodate the religious practices of two customer service representative trainees who were practicing Muslims. The company denied their request to attend prayer services at a Mosque for a short period on Friday afternoons and then fired them when they left work to attend the services. The two individuals received $60,000 in monetary relief. EEOC v. Motorola, Inc.
In a similar case, EEOC v. Rekrem, the Commission alleged that a natural foods store refused to allow Muslim employees to pray at work during their lunch hour and discharged Muslim employees because of their religion. The case resolution provided $715,000 to 11 individuals.
EEOC settles suit with natural foods store that fired Muslim employees who prayed at work during their lunch hour
See also EEOC v. Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Seventh Day Adventist fired from her line packing position because she could not work on Saturday, her Sabbath, received $40,000 in monetary relief); EEOC v. Ford Motor Credit Co. ($70,000 in settlement for failure to accommodate Seventh Day Adventist through modified schedule).
In EEOC v. Preferred Management Corp., a jury reached a verdict for the Commission, awarding seven employees $20,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. The owner of the home health care company had required all employees to conform to her fundamentalist religious beliefs and practices, including six Catholics and a Unitarian, who objected.
The owner refused to hire the Unitarian. She required one employee to implement a self-improvement plan requiring daily bible readings. The jury agreed that the owner's attempts to impose her beliefs on her employees violated Title VII.
Other cases involve an employer's hostility towards a particular religious belief. For example, in EEOC v. University of Chicago Hospitals, the Commission alleged that the hospital forced a personnel recruiter to resign because of her Evangelical Christian Baptist religious beliefs. The hospital allegedly told the recruiter not to hire "church people" and to remove religiously oriented accessories on her desk. The hospital settled the case by providing the employee with $60,000 in monetary relief.
In EEOC v. Friglebert Koch Architects, Inc., the Commission alleged that an architectural firm created a religiously hostile environment when the company president and a supervisor made derogatory remarks about a project architect's Jewish religion. When the architect complained to the human resources department about the anti-Jewish remarks, he was fired. The architect received $100,000 in damages.
See also EEOC v. U.S. Airways (employee discharged because of his religion (Rastafarian) and national origin (Jamaican) received $50,000 in monetary relief).
EEOC resolved suits against companies that refused to hire applicants because of their religious beliefs about wearing dread locks or head coverings
The Commission alleged that a bus company refused to hire an applicant as a driver because he wouldn't cut his dread locks, in keeping with his Rastafarian religious beliefs. The company agreed to provide the applicant with $33,000 in compensatory damages. EEOC v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
In EEOC v. American Airlines, the employer rejected a Muslim woman who had applied to be a passenger service agent, allegedly because she wore a hijab (head covering), as required by her religion. After the charge was filed, the company changed its uniform policy to allow accommodations for the religious practices of its employees. The applicant received $45,000 in relief.
EEOC obtains agreement to provide $47 million to more than 5,000 women discriminated against in hiring and discharge
The Commission filed a ground-breaking $47 million consent decree in a suit against Rent-a- Center, alleging that the nationwide rent-to-own company discriminated against women in hiring, in terms and conditions of employment and in discharge. The decree, which is subject to court approval, provides monetary relief to a class of over 5,000 female applicants and employees. In addition, the decree requires the company to make wide-ranging institutional changes, including creating a Human Resources Department to be headed by a vice president reporting directly to the CEO. The company also agreed to seek qualified women to serve on its all-male Board of Directors and to offer jobs to women denied employment or discharged.
In EEOC v. Heil Trailer Int'l, the Commission alleged that a trailer manufacturer failed to hire female applicants for entry level factory positions and otherwise assigned, segregated and limited the job opportunities of female employees because of their sex. The company agreed to provide $250,000 to women harmed by these practices.
In another case involving a traditionally male job, the Commission obtained $50,000 in relief for a female cement finisher. EEOC claimed that the company failed to recall her after a seasonal layoff because of her sex. EEOC v. Anthony Allega Cement Contractor, Inc.
Since 1979, discrimination against women because they are pregnant has been illegal. Pregnancy discrimination can take many forms: firing a woman, altering her assignments or providing lesser benefits.
Court preliminarily approves multi-million dollar settlement of major class suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in calculations of pension benefits
For example, EEOC v. Bell Atlantic and NYNEX (Verizon) alleged that the companies unlawfully denied female employees service credit for pregnancy and maternity leaves of absence taken prior to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in calculating their eligibility for and benefits under new retirement programs. The court preliminarily approved a settlement of this major class suit, pending a fairness hearing scheduled late in the fiscal year. The precise size of the class and value of the benefits will be determined through a claims procedure; however, thousands of current and former female employees are anticipated to receive millions of dollars in lost pension benefits.
In EEOC v. Delta Airlines, the Commission alleged that an airline discharged one ramp agent and required another to take unpaid medical leave because they where pregnant. The case settlement provided the discharged agent with $60,000 in back pay and $50,000 in compensatory damages; the second ramp agent received $15,000 in back pay and $25,000 in compensatory damages.
In EEOC v. Bean Lumber Co., the Commission alleged that the company refused to promote a employee and then discharged her because of her pregnancy. Additionally, the company's maternity leave policy placed restrictions on pregnant employees who attempted to work past their fourth month. The discharged employee received $45,000. The company also agreed to eliminate the restrictions on pregnant women continuing to work.
EEOC v. Marchfirst,Inc. alleged that a management and technology consulting firm demoted an employee from her position as an executive assistant to the chief financial officer because of her pregnancy. Subsequently, the company placed the employee on indefinite probation, resulting in her constructive discharge. The company agreed to pay the individual $120,000 in damages.
The EEOC claimed that a food and facilities management company unlawfully discharged a day porter in her sixth month of pregnancy. The company provided the employee with $50,000 in monetary relief. EEOC v. Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc.
In EEOC v. SuperValu Holdings, Inc., the Commission alleged that a wholesale grocery warehousing business paid women less than men doing the same work. Twenty-two women received a total of $400,000 in back pay and damages.
Warehousing business provided $400,000 to 22 women who were paid less than men for the same work
In a case involving a unique kind of work, the Commission alleged that an entertainment company providing trick horse riders, subjected female riders to a hostile work environment and paid them less than the male trick riders. The company agreed to pay the women $135,000 in monetary relief. EEOC v. Dixie Stampede Dinner Attractions, Inc.
In EEOC v. Phoenix Management Limited Co., the Commission recovered $120,000 on behalf of a female comptroller who was paid less by a management and financial services company than the man who previously held her position. See also EEOC v. Four Corners, Inc. d/b/a/ Key Energy Services, Inc., Four Corners Division (female controller paid less than male predecessor receives $25,000 and an increase in salary to $80,000).
Women at all levels of employment still encounter sexual harassment. Sexual harassment involves abusive and offensive behavior, sexually derogatory language or other unwelcome sexual conduct that rises to the level of a hostile environment in the workplace.
Video and DVD processing plant to provide $875,000 in damages to 18 women affected by pervasive sexually derogatory slurs, pornographic materials and unwelcome touching
For example, EEOC v. Technicolor, Inc. involved harassment consisting of sexually derogatory slurs, lewd graffiti and pictures, obscene language, sexually charged conduct and unwelcome physical touching. The defendant, a video and DVD processing plant, is owned by the leading global supplier of DVDs, CDs and videos.
The Commission alleged that women who worked as video cassette duplicators in the plant were sexually harassed by male coworkers and supervisors. Many women who complained were disciplined, demoted and even fired. At least half of the women who were targeted are Hispanics with limited English proficiency. The company agreed to resolve the suit by paying $875,000 in damages to 18 women. Additionally, the company agreed to hire a consultant to implement anti-harassment training, complaint procedures and centralized monitoring.
In EEOC v. Hanson Motors, Inc., the Commission alleged that a car dealership subjected three saleswomen to a sexually hostile work environment primarily through the conduct of the general manager and other male supervisors. The conduct included physical assaults and threats of violence. When the women complained, they were forced to quit. The case was resolved when the company agreed to pay the women $670,000 in damages and to hire a monitor to oversee its compliance with the law prohibiting sexual harassment.
In EEOC v. American Home Products Corp. d/b/a Fort Dodge Animal Health and Fort Dodge Laboratories, Inc., the Commission claimed that the company unlawfully fired two human resources managers whose investigative report confirmed that sexual harassment was occurring at the Fort Dodge facilities. The suit further alleged that the harasser had been promoted to the top executive position at those facilities and continued to sexually harass female employees after his promotion.
Sexual harassment continues to pervade the workplace, aimed at women of all races, ethnic backgrounds and job levels and sometimes even aimed at men
EEOC obtained $487,500 on behalf of six sexually harassed female employees and the two discharged human resource employees. Additionally, the facilities extensively revised their complaint procedures; American Home Products, their parent company, will monitor all sexual harassment complaints and will report each to EEOC.
In EEOC v. Danka Office Imaging Co., the Commission obtained $375,000 on behalf of black females who were subjected to a racially and sexually hostile environment and were assigned the least desirable jobs when they complained.
In yet another case, EEOC v. Lagadinos, Inc. d/b/a Double T Diner, the Commission uncovered widespread sexual harassment by male staff members directed at female food servers, including abusive sexual language and inappropriate touching. A settlement provided $300,000 in monetary relief to 12 women affected by these practices.
In EEOC v. Ray Ramon d/b/a Casa del Sol, the owner of a nursing care service company subjected a woman employee to offensive and vulgar comments, requested sexual favors, threatened bodily harm and assaulted the employee during a job interview. The case was resolved when the company agreed to pay her $225,000 in damages.
See also EEOC v. River Oaks Diagnostic Center ($275,000 in damages to five women subjected to a sexually hostile environment and then fired or forced to resign for complaining about the conduct); EEOC v. Sandman, Inc., d/b/a/ Star Concrete (female employee harassed by owner's son and retaliated against for complaining received $250,000 in damages); and EEOC v. Good Samaritan Community Healthcare d/b/a/ Good Samaritan Surgery Center (nurses subjected to sexually hostile environment and reduced hours when they complained received $170,000 in damages).
Harassment because of sex is unlawful under Title VII regardless of the gender of the offender or the victim. Sometimes the typical case of a male harassing a female is reversed. For example, in EEOC v. Blue Dot Services Co., the Commission alleged that a male employee was sexually harassed by his female supervisor and was subsequently discharged for complaining. The company agreed to pay the employee $75,000 in damages.
Sometimes the genders of the harasser and the victim are the same. One such case involving allegations of "same sex" sexual harassment occurred in EEOC v. Spitzer Management, Inc. and Spitzer Autoworld Monroeville, LLC., which alleged that a male supervisor and a male coworker engaged in crude and hostile sexual aggression towards a male employee. Working conditions became so intolerable that the employee resigned. The male employee received $70,000 in monetary relief.
In a cutting-edge case dealing with insurance coverage of oral contraceptives, EEOC contended that UPS's Flexible Benefits Plan discriminated against women unlawfully. EEOC v. United Parcel Service. Under the Plan, female employees and the spouses of male employees were denied coverage for oral contraceptives prescribed to treat female hormonal disorders. The Plan did not exclude any prescription treatments for male hormonal disorders.
In cutting-edge case, UPS agrees to cover oral contraceptives for women
To resolve the suit, UPS agreed to change the Plan to provide coverage for oral contraceptives prescribed for birth control or for other medical reasons on the same terms as other prescription drugs. The company also agreed to pay the cost of oral contraceptives for three years to 36 employees affected by the policy.
In an action brought against a trucking company, the Commission alleged that the company discharged a female driver from her over-the road truck driver position because of her sex. The female driver had driven for the company both as a team driver with her husband and as a solo driver. When her husband resigned, the company discharged her. The case was resolved through a settlement providing her with $80,000 in damages. EEOC v. Samuel J. Piazza & Son, Inc., d/b/a Piazza Trucking.
EEOC obtains compensation for women fired from traditionally male jobs because of gender
And in another case dealing with a traditionally male job, an asbestos removal company discharged two Hispanic female workers because of their sex. In that case, a high level manager allegedly ordered a subordinate manager to fire the two women because he did not want women working as asbestos abatement workers. The company agreed to settle the case for a payment of $47,000 to the discharged employees. EEOC v. Project Development Group, Inc.
Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Commission held a public meeting to focus on employment discrimination in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Of particular concern were issues of workplace bias and harassment in a backlash against employees and job applicants who are, or are perceived to be, of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian national origin. The hearing also discussed Muslim and Sikh employees and applicants who were targeted by employers because of their religious beliefs. Subsequently, the Office of General Counsel filed three lawsuits related to "backlash" discrimination.
In EEOC v. Chromalloy Castings Tampa Corp., the Commission alleges that a manufacturer of castings for the aerospace industry singled out and discharged a naturalized American citizen of Palestinian descent within days of the September 11 attacks, for no reason other than his national origin.
Another suit, EEOC v. Worcester Art Museum, alleges that the museum fired a security guard on the basis of his national origin (Afghan) and religion (Muslim). See discussion, supra, in Religious Discrimination, 9/11 Backlash Suits. See also EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car (Muslim employee fired for refusing to remove head covering during holy week of Ramadan), supra.
Workers receive monetary relief for supervisors' ethnically derogatory remarks
In EEOC v. Roquemore, Pringle & Moore, Inc., the Commission alleged that a law firm's managing partner subjected two Hispanic paralegals to derogatory remarks about their national origin and fired one of them because she complained about the harassment. The case, which also included claims of sexual harassment, was resolved for $135,000 in monetary relief.
In EEOC v. Gaming Entertainment, the employer allegedly required Asian employees working at its Chinese buffet to work more hours than their non-Asian counterparts. The complaint also claimed that Asian employees were harassed and disparaged because of their national origin. For example, the sous chef, who is Chinese, was harassed by his supervisor and demoted to the position of cook. The settlement included $45,000 in damages to the sous chef and $5,000 in monetary relief to other employees. It also required that the company provide translators for all employee meetings; provide translators for employees not proficient in English, and provide copies of all employment policies in the employees' native language.
See also EEOC v. Kmart Corp. (Hispanic employee allegedly subjected to ethnically derogatory comments by his supervisor received $50,000 in compensatory damages); EEOC v. Sam's Club, a division of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (employee of British national origin allegedly subjected to derogatory names by a supervisor, given less desirable work schedule and denied full time hours, received $65,000 in damages); EEOC v. Northwest Airlines ($280,000 in damages for disparate treatment, including work assignments, directed against black and foreign-born Senegalese, Nigerian, Pakistani and Ethiopian ramp workers).
EEOC v. Ferasa, Inc., d/b/a/ Gauchos Restaurant involved allegations that a restaurant refused to hire dark skinned Hispanics and blacks and that the restaurant's manager was forced to resign because he opposed this policy. When the restaurant failed to respond to discovery or comply with scheduling orders, the court found it in default and ordered it to pay $100,000 in damages and court costs.
Tomato processing plant failed to recall black and Haitian employees after a layoff; 23 former employees receive $397,500 in monetary relief
In EEOC v. Sun-Rich of Immokalee, Inc., the Commission alleged that the company failed to rehire its former Haitian and black employees after a company-wide layoff. The company, which grades, packs and ships tomatoes, agreed to provide $210,000 to nine former employees. In an earlier settlement, 14 individuals had received $187,500 in damages, making a total of $397,000 recovered by EEOC.
The Commission filed a preliminary injunction to preserve the jobs of Filipino employees who allegedly were fired and replaced with workers from Nepal because their employer believed they were less likely to support unions. EEOC v. Asia Pacific Hotels. The suit also alleged that the company refused to promote the Filipino employees because of their non-Japanese national origin and fired a chef because he filed a charge alleging national origin discrimination. The hotel agreed to reinstate two discharged employees and preserve the jobs of 22 others who had been reinstated under a prior action by the National Labor Relations Board.
An Hispanic worker, allegedly discharged from his job operating a conveyor because of his national origin, received $80,000 in monetary relief in EEOC v. Vulcan Materials Co. The Commission obtained $125,000 in damages for a Mexican program assistant allegedly fired because she complained about coworkers' derogatory remarks about ethnic minorities. EEOC v. Minnesota Valley Action Council.
In a case involving discrimination against West Africans, the Commission alleged that a wire and cable manufacturer disciplined them more harshly and subjected them to adverse terms and conditions of employment because of their race and national origin. The Commission also alleged that two West African machine operators were fired because of their race and national origin and in retaliation for complaining about racist treatment by their shift supervisor. The two machine operators received $75,000 in monetary relief. See EEOC v. BICC General Cable Industries, Inc., et al.
Often employers engage in national origin discrimination when taking an adverse employment action against an individual because of a foreign accent. For example, in EEOC v. Innovative Medical Research, the Commission alleged that the medical research firm discriminated against applicants with foreign accents for Medical Recruiter/ Interviewer positions. Individuals in these positions conduct telephone interviews of potential participants in medical research projects. Twenty-two applicants, including the Nigerian charging party, received a total of $200,000 in damages.
When job safety requires clear communication, employers may lawfully require that their employees speak only English. However, employers may not prohibit employees from speaking other languages when their job duties are unaffected and the policy is not required for safety.
Nationwide chain of hair salons paid $240,000 in damages to Hispanic hair stylists after ordering them not to speak Spanish at work
For example, EEOC v. Regis Corporation alleged that a nationwide chain of hair salons discriminated against Hispanic employees by requiring employees to speak only English at all times. The case also involved allegations that the company assigned Hispanic hair stylists to workstations away from the front of the salon, gave them additional janitorial duties, and fired them when they complained about the discriminatory treatment. Six Hispanic employees received $240,000 in damages. The salon also agreed to rescind its policy unless it can establish a business necessity.
In EEOC v. A.T.M.I. Precast Inc. and Waubonesee Development Co., Inc., the Commission alleged that a prefabricated concrete construction company paid a group of Hispanic workers lower wages than non-Hispanic workers and discharged two of the employees because they complained. The case settlement provided four Hispanic employees a total of $132,500 in damages. The company also agreed to post wage information on job vacancies in both English and Spanish.
In EEOC v. Pabst Brewing Co., the beer company allegedly refused to hire a 54-year-old applicant as a quality assurance supervisor because of his age. The Commission obtained $37,000 in monetary relief for the individual.
Older worker received $70,000 in monetary relief after car dealership refused to promote him because of his age (72)
In EEOC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., the Commission alleged that a car dealership refused to promote an employee to the position of National Customer Assistant representative because of his age, 72. The case was resolved in a settlement providing the employee with $70,000 in monetary relief.
In another case involving promotion, the Commission claimed that a bank refused several times to promote an employee to a telephone bank unit manager position because of his age (47). The bank agreed to settle the case by providing the individual with $80,000 in damages. See EEOC v. Bank One Arizona.
The Commission alleged in EEOC v. Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc., that a nationwide manufacturer of power transmission equipment and other industrial items laid off a sales manager and a customer service representative because of their ages (47 and 57). Other employees allegedly discharged because of their ages were included in the suit. The company agreed to provide $600,000 to ten former workers.
Nationwide manufacturer of auto transmission equipment paid $600,000 to a group of older workers laid off or discharged because of their age
In EEOC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., the Commission recovered $200,000 in back pay and pension credits for a systems application manager who was allegedly fired from her job because of her age (50). An unlawful termination was also the focus in EEOC v. Kraft Foods North America. The company, a successor to Nabisco, Inc., allegedly discharged an account manager during a reorganization because of his age, 48. The former manager received $275,000 in monetary relief.
Although the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act provides safe harbors for voluntary early retirement incentive plans, some employers fail to structure their plans to conform with the law.
For example, in EEOC v. Orleans Central Advisory Board of School Directors, a district court ruled that the school district discriminated against older teachers by treating them differently depending upon their age when they retired. The early retirement incentive plan expressly linked increasing age with decreasing benefits. The court agreed with the Commission that this plan was facially discriminatory and awarded two older teachers the same benefits that a person age 55 would have received ($10,000 and $5,000). The court set a later date for a hearing on the issue of liquidated damages.
Court finds school district violated the ADEA by decreasing early retirement incentives as age of teachers increased
Similarly, EEOC v. Coatesville Area School District and Coatesville Area Teacher's Ass'n, involved an early retirement incentive plan that offered teachers aged 53 to 60 cash payments which declined as the age of the individual increased. The plan offered no cash payments to individuals 61 and older.
The case was resolved by a settlement providing $476,672 in back pay and interest to 71 teachers and four other school district employees. The settlement also enjoined the school district from limiting benefits under early retirement plans on the basis of age. The union agreed to notify the Pennsylvania State Education Association about the settlement and request that the Association inform its approximately 900 affiliated unions about the problems with such incentive plans.
See also EEOC v. Averill Park Central School District (nine teachers and administrative employees whose incentive benefits were reduced based on age received $106,517).
Burlington Northern agrees to end genetic testing and pay more than $2 million in relief to adversely affected employees
In a ground-breaking preliminary injunction action filed last fiscal year, the Commission sought to stop a railroad company from requiring employees to submit to medical examinations that included genetic testing. EEOC v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company. The railroad targeted workers who had filed injury reports of work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Without informing them of the purpose of the examinations or obtaining their consent, the company required them to give blood samples, which were then submitted to a lab for genetic analysis.
The court granted the preliminary injunction. The company agreed to stop gathering blood samples and refrain from using any previously obtained genetic analyses, pending a final resolution of all employee charges that such testing is discriminatory.
The parties resolved the charges through mediation which took place over several months in fiscal year 2002. The railroad agreed to provide over $2 million in monetary relief to 36 individuals as well as eliminate its program of genetic testing.
EEOC wins bench trial in case of truck driver where company refused to provide him with reasonable accommodation for disability incurred on the job
The district court found for the EEOC in a suit filed on behalf of a truck driver with a permanent back injury that had occurred on the job. EEOC v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. The driver could not sit longer than 45 minutes without significant pain. As a reasonable accommodation, the trucker had requested a transfer to a job as yard jockey, which required driving only short distances.
The company, however, rejected that option, suggesting instead that he pull his truck off the road and stretch "every so often." When the driver pointed out that he would not be able to make deliveries on time, he was fired.
In the bench trial, the court determined that the company's proposed accommodation was neither reasonable nor effective and awarded the driver $156,867 in back pay and $50,000 in punitive damages.
Many reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities are inexpensive, such as a designated parking space for a wheelchair user or time off for medical treatment
In EEOC v. Institute for Child and Family Development, the Commission alleged that the institute refused to provide an administrative assistant with a designated parking space and an accessible work area for her wheelchair as accommodations for her disability (multiple sclerosis). She was subsequently fired because she missed work when she couldn't find a place to park in the institute's lot. The assistant received $50,000 in monetary relief.
In EEOC v. Temcor, Inc., the Commission contended that a company which makes aluminum geodesic domes discriminated against a deaf employee. When the employee, who worked as a fabricator/helper, attempted to discuss reasonable accommodations to assist him in performing his job, the company failed to follow through and fired him instead. The Commission obtained $135,000 in back pay and damages on his behalf.
In EEOC v. East Northport Residential Health Care Facility, an employee requested a reasonable accommodation of three days off to receive treatment for her infertility. The health care facility responded by firing her. The case resolution provided the former employee with $135,000 in monetary relief.
In EEOC v. Frisch's Restaurants, Inc., the Commission contended that a restaurant failed to reasonably accommodate a management trainee who was severely hearing impaired. She had requested a headset to assist her in understanding take-out orders from customers but was fired rather than accommodated. The case was settled when the restaurant agreed to provide the trainee with $60,000 in damages.
In EEOC v. GMRI, Inc., d/b/a The Olive Garden, the Commission alleged that a nationwide restaurant chain allowed coworkers to physically and verbally abuse a dishwasher who was mentally retarded. The abuse included putting him in a headlock, pulling down his pants in front of coworkers, and calling him offensive names. When he began to have difficulty on the job because of the abuse, he was fired.
The dishwasher received $115,000 in monetary relief in settlement of the case. The restaurant also agreed to discuss employment related problems with the guardian or job coach of mentally retarded employees. Additionally, the restaurant will post a revised and expanded anti-harassment policy in all of its 478 restaurants located throughout the United States.
Wal-Mart agrees to discontinue questionnaire that screened out applicants with disabilities and to pay $6.8 million to compensate those applicants and other victims of disability discrimination
Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, agreed to pay $6.8 million and change its hiring practices in EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which alleged that the company systematically discriminated against job seekers with disabilities. The Commission contended that in its facilities throughout the country, the company used an unlawful pre-employment screening device, called the "Matrix of Essential Job Functions," which asked applicants about disabilities and medical conditions. Pursuant to the settlement, the company agreed to discontinue using the matrix and institute new hiring procedures that comply with the ADA.
The monetary relief was divided into two funds: $3 million to compensate individuals who were denied employment because of the pre-employment screening device; and $3.8 million to compensate individuals included in the Commission's 13 pending ADA suits against Wal-Mart.
For example, one individual who was denied a reasonable accommodation worked as a "loader/scanner" at a distribution center. Because of a hearing impairment, he was unable to hear the scanner's beeping sound signaling that a product's bar code had been read. Rather than provide him with adaptive equipment or transfer him to another job, Wal-Mart fired him. As a result of the settlement, the individual will receive a job and more than $200,000 in back pay and compensatory damages.
Wal-Mart agreed to notify potential "matrix" claimants through postings at Wal-Mart hiring locations, web sites and print media, including notices in People, USA Weekend, and Parade magazines. Individuals who file claims and who are determined to be eligible for relief will share in the $3 million fund and be given hiring preference at the company's distribution centers.
In another case involving pre-employment medical inquiries, the Commission alleged that an auto manufacturer unlawfully asked applicants about medical conditions before extending job offers. After making job offers, the company conducted physical examinations and then used the information to revoke job offers rather than assessing each applicant's ability to perform the job. EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. and Visteon Corp., Eleven applicants received a total of $415,000.
In EEOC v. Windmill Inns of America, the Commission alleged that a hotel refused to hire an applicant as a receptionist because she is blind. The applicant had worked five years in a similar position for an international hotel chain. Additionally, the Oregon Commission for the Blind had offered to provide a technical consultant, adaptive equipment and any training required to help her do the job. The hotel agreed to pay the applicant $35,000 in compensatory damages.
In another case, the Commission alleged that an airline failed to hire an applicant as a reservations agent because of his disability (quadriplegia). The company agreed to change its policy regarding reasonable accommodation requests and to pay the applicant $150,000 in back pay and damages. See EEOC v. American Airlines, Inc.
Company compensates applicant with multiple sclerosis for refusing to hire her after it learned about her disability
The company in EEOC v. Bath & Body Works learned that an applicant had multiple sclerosis through a reference check with the applicant's former employer and allegedly refused to hire her as a store manager as a result. The EEOC recovered $30,000 in monetary relief on her behalf.
See also EEOC v. Houston Area Sheet Metal Joint Apprenticeship Committee (deaf and mute applicant denied admission to an apprenticeship program received $30,000 and admission to program); EEOC v. Oak Brook Hills Hotel & Resort ($40,000 obtained for a deaf applicant denied a position as a sous chef); and EEOC v. Routh Packing Co. (meat processor withdrew offer for cutter position to applicant with epilepsy; paid $25,000 in compensatory damages).
UPS rescinds its policy requiring employees to return to work without medical restrictions and agrees to assess need for reasonable accommodations instead
In EEOC v. United Parcel Service, the Commission alleged that the nationwide package delivery service discriminated against a class of employees who tried to return to work after taking medical leave. UPS required all employees to obtain a "full medical release" before it allowed them to resume work, rather than assessing whether the employees could perform their jobs with or without reasonable accommodations. Under this policy, UPS fired a package car driver after an isolated nocturnal seizure, without considering the possibility of accommodation. The case was resolved for $375,000, including $48,000 in compensatory damages for the former driver and a total of $327,000 in compensatory damages to eight others.
In EEOC v. The Red Wing Company, Inc., the Commission alleged that a manufacturer of jams and condiments refused to permit a quality assurance inspector to return to her job after she injured her back at work. She was diagnosed with disc dessication and herniation, which significantly restricted her ability to lift. The former employee received $65,000 in damages.
In EEOC v. Trader Joe's Co., the Commission obtained $50,000 in monetary relief for a part-time crew member who was fired because she could not lift her arm. Her mobility was limited as a result of nerve damage from a spinal cord injury. The settlement also provided for a $10,000 donation to the Christopher Reeves Spinal Injury Research Foundation.
In EEOC v. Jetson Midwest Mailers, Inc., the Commission argued that the company regarded a mail sorter as disabled when it fired her after she suffered a mild stroke. She received $32,500 in damages. In another discharge case, EEOC v. Schofield Foods, Inc., d/b/a/ Quality Foods IGA, a grocery store fired a 15-year-old part-time bagger and stock person because she was HIV-positive. The former employee received $1,000 in lost wages and $89,000 in compensatory damages.
Jury finds car repair company wrongfully fired mechanic because he had insulin-dependent diabetes
In EEOC v. Greenville Ford-Mercury, Inc., a jury found for the Commission and awarded a mechanic $85,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission had alleged that the auto repair/sales company fired the mechanic because he had insulin-dependent diabetes. Only two days after the employee fainted as a result of low blood sugar, the company discharged him.
Pursuant to the statutory cap on damages, the court reduced the award to $50,000. The mechanic, who found a higher paying job shortly after losing his job, also received $526 in back pay and $949 for his medical expenses.
Employees who complain about or oppose employment discrimination are protected against retaliation under the laws enforced by the Commission. Retaliation can take many forms, including discharge, harassment, demotion, reduction in pay or other action that adversely affects employment. Because retaliation discourages individuals from asserting their rights, cases involving this issue are a priority in the Commission's enforcement program.
In EEOC v. Red River Beverage Co., the jury returned a verdict, finding that a country and western dance hall fired an employee in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge alleging the dance hall discriminated against her because she was pregnant. The jury awarded her $155,000 in damages.
In Crest Discount Foods, Inc., a grocery business allegedly fired a white woman when she complained to the NAACP about being treated differently because she was married to a black man. To resolve the case, the company agreed to pay $75,000 in monetary relief.
Company compensates manager who was demoted after protesting policy that prohibited hiring too many blacks for store in predominantly white community
The Commission contended that a white customer service manager was demoted in retaliation for complaining about the company's hiring policy. Eighty percent of the applicants she hired were black, in contravention of the policy to hire individuals who "reflect the community," which was predominantly white. When counseling didn't work, the company demoted her from her managerial position to a job with no hiring authority. The EEOC obtained $105,000 in monetary relief on her behalf. Additionally, the company agreed to eliminate any policy of hiring to mirror the community. See EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In EEOC v. Nanticoke Health Services, Inc., the Commission obtained $50,000 in monetary relief for a male registered nurse whose work was excessively scrutinized and then was discharged because he complained about the sexual harassment of female nurses by a male staff physician.
EEOC settles case against medical research center accused of retaliating against a Sri Lankan physician by questioning his visa status in letter to INS
In another case, the Commission alleged that a medical center retaliated against a Sri Lankan medical research physician when he claimed he was being discriminated against on the basis of his national origin. Shortly after the physician lodged an internal complaint, the medical center contacted the Immigration and Naturalization Service to retract its support for his permanent visa application. The INS initiated a hearing into his immigration status, requiring him to hire a lawyer to defend his lawful resident status. He received $150,000 for emotional distress damages in the case resolution. EEOC v. The Queen's Medical Center, Inc.
In EEOC v. Renter's Choice, Inc., the Commission alleged that a furniture and appliance rental company demoted a group of black and Pakistani managerial employees in retaliation for their claims of race and national origin discrimination. The company agreed to provide the employees with $250,000 in back pay and damages.
After a receptionist complained that a female coworker was sexually harassing her, the company allegedly retaliated against her by disciplining her, eliminating her job duties and transferring her to another work area. EEOC v. Central Bucks Specialists. After she filed a complaint with the EEOC, she was fired. The receptionist received $50,000 in a settlement with the employer.
Witnesses are also protected against retaliation. For example, in EEOC v. United Engines, Inc., a diesel engine company allegedly fired a service manager in retaliation for supporting a coworker's sexual harassment claim. Not only was he identified as a witness to the discriminatory treatment but he also provided information to assist in her lawsuit against the company. The Commission obtained $125,000 in damages on his behalf.
On October 1, 2001, the start of fiscal year 2002, there were 523 merit cases in active litigation. (Direct suits, interventions and suits to enforce conciliation agreement are "merit" suits.) In FY 2002, OGC filed 332 merit suits for a total litigation workload of 855. OGC also resolved 345 merit cases throughout this year. At the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2002), there were 510 cases in active litigation. The 345 merit resolutions yielded a total of $52,845,499 in monetary relief.
In FY 2002, the field legal units filed 332 merit lawsuits; 327 direct suits and interventions and five suits to enforce conciliation agreements. 4
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | 326 | 98.2% |
| Intervention | 1 | 0.3% |
| Administ. Enf | 5 | 1.5% |
| Total | 332 | 100.0% |
The FY 2002 litigation workload (cases active at the start of the fiscal year plus merit cases filed during the fiscal year) remained substantial with 855 suits in total. In FY 2001, the workload reached 842 suits.
| Active | Filed | Workload | |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY 2001 | 457 | 385 | 842 |
| FY 2002 | 523 | 332 | 855 |
Of the 332 merit suits filed, 109, or 32.8%, were class cases; 223, or 67.2%, were individual cases. A "class" case is : (1) a case challenging a policy that applies to a group of similarly situated individuals; or (2) a case challenging a practice that affects a group of similarly situated individuals.
Approximately 77% of the cases filed were authorized by the Regional Attorneys under their delegated authority.
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Commission | 58 | 17.5% |
| General Counsel | 17 | 5.1% |
| Regional Attorney | 257 | 77.4% |
Cases approved for litigation by the Regional Attorneys constituted a substantial proportion of all suits filed (77.4%), an increase over the percentage approved by the Regional Attorneys in FY 2001. (See below).
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Commission | 76 | 19.6% |
| General Counsel | 39 | 10.1% |
| Regional Attorney | 270 | 70.4% |
Of the 332 merit suits filed, 74.1% were filed to enforce Title VII, 12.3% were filed under the ADA, 8.7% were filed under the ADEA, 0.6% under the EPA, and 4.2% were filed under more than one statute.
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Title VII | 246 | 74.1% |
| ADA | 41 | 12.3% |
| ADEA | 29 | 8.7% |
| EPA | 2 | 0.6% |
| Concurrent | 14 | 4.2% |
| Total | 332 | 100.0% |
As indicated in the table below, discharge was an issue in over 63% of the merit cases filed when constructive discharge is included. Harassment of all varieties was involved in 44.6% of suits filed. Note: Total count exceeds suits filed (332) because suits often contain more than one issue.
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| All Harassment | 148 | 44.6% |
| Sex Harassment | 111 | 33.4% |
| All Discharge | 211 | 63.6% |
| Discharge | 150 | 45.2% |
| Const. Discharge | 67 | 20.2% |
| Hiring | 42 | 12.7% |
| Promotion | 20 | 6.0% |
| Wages | 21 | 6.3% |
| Reas. Accom. (Disability) |
22 | 6.6% |
| Reas. Accom. (Religious) |
16 | 4.8% |
| Invol. Retirement | 4 | 1.2% |
| Language | 2 | 0.6% |
As shown in the next table, Sex discrimination (38.8%) and Retaliation (35.8%) were the most often alleged bases for suits filed on the merits. Race (15.4%) and Disability discrimination (12.1%) were the next most frequently alleged bases. Note: Total count exceeds suits filed (332) because suits often contain multiple bases.
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex (Female) | 129 | 38.8% |
| Sex (Pregnancy) | 16 | 4.8% |
| Sex (Male) | 20 | 6.0% |
| Race | 51 | 15.4% |
| National Origin | 26 | 7.8% |
| Disability | 40 | 12.1% |
| Age | 34 | 10.2% |
| Religion | 20 | 6.0% |
| Equal Pay | 6 | 1.8% |
| Retaliation | 119 | 35.8% |
As shown below, 72.7% of cases with sex as a basis alleged some form of harassment; 68.3% of cases with sex as a basis alleged sexual harassment.
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| All Harassment | 117 | 72.7% |
| Sexual Harassment | 110 | 68.3% |
| Discharge | 57 | 35.4% |
| Const. Discharge | 56 | 34.8% |
| Wages | 13 | 8.1% |
| Hiring | 9 | 5.6% |
| Promotion | 5 | 3.1% |
As shown below, cases with race alleged as a basis had a higher percentage of discharge alleged (37%) than any other issue; race cases alleging harassment ran second (34.3%).
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Discharge | 26 | 37.1% |
| Const. Discharge | 6 | 8.6% |
| Harassment | 24 | 34.3% |
| Promotion | 9 | 12.9% |
| Hiring | 7 | 10.0% |
| Wages | 7 | 10.0% |
As the table below indicates, discharge also figures prominently in suits with disability as a basis - again, it was the most frequently alleged issue (60% of all suits filed). Reasonable accommodation was the issue next most often alleged (55%).
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Discharge | 24 | 60.0% |
| Const. Discharge | 2 | 5.0% |
| Reas. Accom. | 22 | 55.0% |
| Hiring | 6 | 15.0% |
| Terms & Cond. | 2 | 5.0% |
| Promotion | 2 | 5.0% |
| Wages | 2 | 5.0% |
As shown below, reasonable accommodation was the issue most often alleged in religious discrimination suits, with discharge a close second.
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Reas. Accom. | 16 | 88.9% |
| Discharge | 13 | 72.2% |
| Hiring | 5 | 27.8% |
| Harassment | 3 | 16.7% |
Discharge was the most frequently alleged issue in age discrimination suits (41.2%). Unlike all other bases, hiring was the second most frequently alleged issue in age cases (38.2%); harassment was the least frequently alleged issue (2.9%).
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Discharge | 14 | 41.2% |
| Const. Discharge | 1 | 2.9% |
| Hiring | 13 | 38.2% |
| Invol. Retirement | 4 | 11.8% |
| Promotion | 2 | 5.9% |
| Harassment | 1 | 2.9% |
Harassment was the most frequently alleged issue in national origin suits (61.9%), followed by discharge with 57.1% of the suits.
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Harassment | 13 | 61.9% |
| Const. Discharge | 7 | 33.3% |
| Discharge | 12 | 57.1% |
| Hiring | 4 | 19.1% |
| Terms & Cond. | 3 | 14.3% |
| Promotion | 3 | 14.3% |
| Wages | 2 | 9.5% |
| Language | 2 | 9.5% |
In FY 2002, the Office of General Counsel resolved a total of 345 merit lawsuits (direct suits, interventions and suits to enforce administrative settlements). 5 These 345 resolutions yielded a total of $52,845,499 in relief.
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | 340 | 98.5% |
| Intervention | 2 | 0.6% |
| Administ. Enf. | 3 | 0.9% |
| Total | 345 | 100.0% |
As shown in the table below, the number of merit resolutions was up in FY 2002 compared with FY 2001. Similarly, the total monetary relief was up by $1.6 million.
| FY 2001 | FY 2002 | Change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Merit Suits | 319 | 345 | + 8.2% |
| Relief (in millions) | $51.2 | $52.8 | + 3.1% |
The number of merit resolutions in FY 2002 was greater than the average of the last five fiscal years (see table below).
| Average FYs 1997-2001 |
FY 2002 | |
|---|---|---|
| Merit Suits | 310.4 | 345 |
As the next table indicates, of the 345 resolutions of merit suits, 69.3% were resolved by consent decree; 16.8% by settlement agreement; 5.5% by favorable court order, 5.5% by unfavorable court order and 2.9% were voluntarily dismissed.
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Consent Decree | 239 | 69.3% |
| Settlement Agreement | 58 | 16.8% |
| Favorable Court Order | 19 | 5.5% |
| Unfavorable Court Order | 19 | 5.5% |
| Vol. Dismissal | 10 | 2.9% |
| Total | 345 | 100.0% |
The rate of merit suits successfully resolved in FY 2002 is 91.6% (includes consent decrees, settlement agreements and favorable court orders). This success rate is slightly higher than the five year average from FYs 1997-2001 (see table, below).
| Average FYs 1997-2001 |
FY 2002 | |
|---|---|---|
| Merit Suits | 90.7% | 91.6% |
Of the 345 merit resolutions, 113 had been filed as class cases compared with 232 filed as individual cases. The class cases averaged $267,784 in relief; the individual cases averaged $59,714 (see table on next page).
| Type | Count | Total Relief | Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class | 113 | $38,991,862 | $345,060 |
| Individual | 232 | $13,853,637 | $59,714 |
Of the 345 merit suits resolved, the Commission had approved 59 or 17.1% for filing, the General Counsel had approved 41 or 11.9% for filing under his authority delegated by the Commission, and Regional Attorneys had approved another 245 or 71% for filing under their authority redelegated from the General Counsel. Because those suits authorized directly by the Commission generally involve major class cases, the monetary relief obtained by them is significantly higher on average ($323,235) than those approved by either the General Counsel ($224,284) or the Regional Attorneys ($100,322).
| Count | Total Relief | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commn. | 59 | $19,070,876 | $323,235 |
| GC | 41 | $9,195,639 | $224,284 |
| RA | 245 | $24,578,984 | $100,322 |
| Total | 345 | $52,845,499 | $153,175 |
Of the 345 merit suits resolved during the fiscal year, 71.6% were filed to enforce Title VII, 17.7% were filed under the ADA, 5.8% were filed under the ADEA, 0.9% under the EPA, and 4.1% were filed under more than one statute (concurrent cases).
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Title VII | 247 | 71.6% |
| ADA | 61 | 17.7% |
| ADEA | 20 | 5.8% |
| EPA | 3 | 0.9% |
| Concurrent | 14 | 4.1% |
| Total | 345 | 100.0% |
As shown below, Title VII suits accounted for more than half of all relief obtained. Except for concurrent suits, ADA suits obtained the highest average monetary relief ($197,213); EPA averaged the lowest ($56,666).
| Statute | Relief (millions) |
Relief (Percent) |
Relief (per Suit) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII | $28.95 | 54.8% | $117,206 |
| ADA | $12.03 | 22.8% | $197,213 |
| ADEA | $1.39 | 2.6% | $69,500 |
| EPA | $0.17 | 0.3% | $56,666 |
| Concurrent | $10.3 | 19.5% | $735,714 |
| Total | $52.84 | 100.00% | $153,175 |
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| All Harassment | 140 | 40.6% |
| Sex Harassment | 86 | 24.9% |
| Discharge | 118 | 34.2% |
| Const. Discharge | 62 | 18.0% |
| Hiring | 51 | 14.8% |
| Reasonable Accom. (Disability) |
27 | 7.8% |
| Promotion | 26 | 7.5% |
| Wages | 20 | 5.8% |
| Reasonable Accom. (Religious) |
16 | 4.6% |
| Language | 2 | 0.6% |
The issues alleged in the suits resolved follow a distribution pattern similar to those alleged in the suits filed. The most frequent issue alleged in suits resolved involved some form of harassment (40.6%), similar to the percentage in suits filed (44.6%). Resolved suits alleging discharge, however, were a significantly lesser percentage (34.2%) than those filed alleging discharge (45.2%). The issue of hiring was involved in 14.8% of suits resolved and in 12.7% of suits filed. Reasonable accommodation (disability) was an issue in 7.8% of all suits resolved and an issue in 6.6% of all suits filed. Note: Total count exceeds suits resolved (345) because suits often contain multiple issues.
The bases alleged in the suits resolved are largely the same as those alleged in the suits filed. Sex (female) was alleged in 33.9% of suits resolved and in 38.8% of suits filed; race was alleged in 22.6% of suits resolved compared with 15.4% of suits filed. Retaliation was represented almost equally in suits filed (35.8%) and suits resolved (32.5%), while the percentage of National Origin suits filed (7.8%) was exactly the percentage resolved (7.8%). The percentage of resolved suits alleging disability discrimination (17.7%) was higher than the percentage of filed suits alleging disability discrimination (12.1%). Note: Total count exceeds suits resolved (345) because suits often contain multiple bases.
| Count | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex (Female) | 117 | 33.9% |
| Sex (Pregnancy) | 16 | 4.6% |
| Sex (Male) | 7 | 2.0% |
| Retaliation | 112 | 32.5% |
| Race | 78 | 22.6% |
| Disability | 61 | 17.7% |
| National Origin | 27 | 7.8% |
| Age | 24 | 7.0% |
| Religion | 17 | 4.9% |
| Equal Pay | 7 | 2.0% |
As the following table indicates, during the past five fiscal years, cases alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (female)ranged from about 30% to about 40% of cases filed each year by the EEOC. In four of those years, cases on the basis of sex (female)represented the highest percentage of cases filed. However, in FY 2001, suits alleging retaliation topped the list. In the other four years, retaliation suits represented the second highest percentage of cases filed. Roughly 20% of all cases filed over the period alleged race discrimination while allegations of national origin discrimination were present in approximately 10% of all suits filed. Suits filed on the basis of pregnancy represented less than 2% of all cases filed in two years but reached a high of 4.8% in FY 2002. Cases filed on the basis of sex (male) rose to a five-year high of 6% in FY 2002. Of all the bases presented, cases filed on the basis of age have fluctuated the least over the five year period, with a maximum fluctuation rate of only 1.5 percentage points. Cases filed on the basis of religion also fluctuated very little, with a maximum rate of only 1.8 percentage points. Conversely, disability cases fluctuated the most, from a low of 9% to a high of 27.8%.
| Bases Alleged in Cases Filed FY 1997 - 2002 | ||||||||||
| Percent Distribution | ||||||||||
| FY | Sex(F) | Sex(P) | Sex(M) | Disab. | Age | Retal. | Relig. | NO | Race | |
| 1997 | 39.5% | 1.3% | 2.7% | 27.8% | 14.7% | 26.1% | 5.7% | 11.7% | 13.4% | |
| 1998 | 37.7% | 0.0% | 2.4% | 23.2% | 11.3% | 28.3% | 5.9% | 10.2% | 17.0% | |
| 1999 | 38.7% | 3.7% | 4.3% | 12.4% | 10.5% | 35.6% | 6.2% | 6.6% | 20.6% | |
| 2000 | 42.4% | 3.1% | 2.4% | 9.0% | 11.0% | 26.6% | 5.9% | 13.4% | 20.0% | |
| 2001 | 30.4% | 1.0% | 2.1% | 16.5% | 9.8% | 32.7% | 4.4% | 7.5% | 20.9% | |
| 2002 | 38.8% | 4.8% | 6.0% | 12.1% | 10.2% | 35.8% | 6.0% | 7.8% | 15.4% | |
| Total | 38.8% | 2.9% | 3.4% | 15.5% | 11.0% | 30.8% | 5.7% | 9.3% | 18.4% | |
| Count | ||||||||||
| FY | Sex(F) | Sex(P) | Sex(M) | Disab. | Age | Retal. | Relig. | NO | Race | Total |
| 1997 | 118 | 4 | 8 | 83 | 44 | 78 | 17 | 35 | 46 | 299 |
| 1998 | 140 | 0 | 9 | 86 | 42 | 105 | 22 | 38 | 63 | 371 |
| 1999 | 169 | 16 | 19 | 54 | 46 | 153 | 27 | 29 | 90 | 437 |
| 2000 | 123 | 9 | 7 | 26 | 32 | 77 | 17 | 39 | 58 | 290 |
| 2001 | 143 | 16 | 8 | 40 | 34 | 119 | 17 | 29 | 81 | 388 |
| 2002 | 129 | 16 | 20 | 40 | 34 | 119 | 20 | 26 | 51 | 332 |
| Total | 822 | 61 | 71 | 329 | 232 | 651 | 120 | 196 | 389 | 2117 |
From FY 1999 through FY 2001, OGC experienced a significant increase in the number of field employees -- from 308 to 383, an addition of 75 staff. In FY 1999, trial attorneys were assigned to area offices to increase attorney/investigator interaction in investigating charges. In FY 2001, OGC was provided additional staff to enhance the litigation program, raising the number of field staff to 383 on board. Since that high, however, OGC staff on board in the field decreased a total of 30 employees -- from 383 to 353.
Headquarters staffing has declined each year in the last five years - from a high of 102 in FY 1998 to a low of 79 in FY 2002, representing a decrease of 22.5%. In addition, of the 79 employees at headquarters OGC, 42 were in line services: 19 in Systemic Litigation Services and 23 in Appellate Services.
| Year | HQ | All Field | Field Attorneys* |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 102 | 308 | 195 |
| 1999 | 98 | 365 | 248 |
| 2000 | 89 | 359 | 226 |
| 2001 | 81 | 383 | 248 |
| 2002 | 79 | 353 | 229 |
* - Includes Regional Attorneys and Supervisory Trial Attorneys
The litigation support budget for FY 2002 was $2.86 million, down about 17% from the $3.45 million spent in FY 2001.
| Year | Funding |
|---|---|
| 1998 | $2.19 |
| 1999 | $2.88 |
| 2000 | $3.75 |
| 2001 | $3.45 |
| 2002 | $2.86 |
EEOC Litigation: 1993 - 2002
| FY 93 | FY 94 | FY 95 | FY 96 | FY 97 | FY 98 | FY 99 | FY 00 | FY01 | FY02 | |
| ALL SUITS FILED | 481 | 425 | 373 | 193 | 330 | 411 | 464 | 328 |