Home » Archives by category » EEOC
Sprouts Farmers Market to Pay $280,0000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suits

Sprouts Farmers Market to Pay $280,0000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suits

DENVER, Colo. – SFM, LLC, doing business as Sprouts Farmers Market — which operates grocery stores in Colorado and other states — will pay $280,000 to three Deaf injured parties and provide other significant relief to settle lawsuits filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Raymond Clark, the federal agency announced today. The lawsuits charged that Sprouts denied employment to applicants because of their disabilities and that Sprouts denied them reasonable accommodation in the application and hiring process.According to the lawsuits filed by the EEOC and Clark, after Sprouts managers contacted the applicants to interview them for available positions in Colorado, the applicants requested the assistance of an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter for their interviews. The EEOC alleged Sprouts managers failed to make any arrangements for ASL interpreters and ignored the applicants when they followed up about their requests for an accommodation and the interviews.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability and also requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to applicants with disabilities unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer.

The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02600 NYW, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process and continued negotiations prior to filing suit. Clark joined in the EEOC’s lawsuit, which sought relief for the other two charging parties, and was represented by his own attorney. Under the three-year consent decree settling the suit, Sprouts will pay a total of $280,000 to resolve the claims in these lawsuits. The decree enjoins Sprouts from engaging in discrimination based on disability in the future; requires that Sprouts review and revise its ADA policies; adopt written guidance on reasonable accommodations; and provide ADA training. Sprouts will also send a letter of apology to each of the charging parties.  

 “We appreciate Sprout’s agreement to resolve this case without protracted litigation,” said Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “This consent decree compensates the charging parties, and it will help build policies and practices that will ensure Sprouts affords equal employment opportunities to Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, including by providing reasonable accommodations during the hiring process and throughout the course of employment.”   

Field Director Amy Burkholder of the EEOC’s Denver Field Office said, “Deaf and hard-of-hearing people face barriers to employment not encountered by other applicants and employees. This settlement highlights the EEOC’s commitment to breaking down those barriers and ensuring Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals are afforded equal employment opportunities.”   

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

EEOC Adds Seven New Translations for its Website

Comments Off on EEOC Adds Seven New Translations for its Website
EEOC Adds Seven New Translations for its Website

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that key online resource documents have been translated into seven additional languages and are now available to help improve access for people with limited English proficiency.In addition to the existing Spanish translations, the EEOC provides key documents, fact sheets, and publications in Arabic, simplified Chinese, Haitian Creole, Korean, Russian, Tagalog and Vietnamese on eeoc.gov.

“The United States is growing ever richer in its diversity,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. “The EEOC is committed to ensuring that all workers and job seekers understand their right to be free from illegal harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Providing EEOC resources in additional languages reflective of our national diversity is critical to that commitment.”

In its governing statute, the EEOC has a mandate to conduct educational and outreach activities targeted to individuals who historically have been victims of employment discrimination, including those employees who read and speak in languages other than English.

The seven new languages were selected based on needs identified by EEOC’s field offices, as well as data from the U.S. Census Bureau on populations with limited English proficiency.  In the future, the agency will continue to identify additional languages which should be made available in order to better serve the public.  

The EEOC has long recognized the importance of educating workers who speak languages other than English about their rights and how to reach the EEOC for assistance – and that these protections apply regardless of a person’s immigration or citizenship status.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Continue reading …

Club Demonstration Services to Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Comments Off on Club Demonstration Services to Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Club Demonstration Services to Pay $50,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

JUNEAU, Alaska – Club Demonstration Services, Inc., the in-house event marketing provider whose sales advisors demonstrate products in Costco warehouses throughout Asia, Australia, Europe and North America, will pay $50,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal civil rights agency announced today.According to the EEOC’s suit, the employee was working for Club Demonstration Services as a sales advisor at the Costco Warehouse in Juneau when, in June 2017, her manager informed staff they were not permitted to use the bathroom during their six-and-a-half-hour shift except during their two scheduled breaks. The employee, who had a bladder condition requiring more frequent use of the restroom, promptly submitted a doctor’s note requesting that she be allowed additional bathroom breaks. Despite her repeated efforts to communicate her needs, Club Demonstration Services denied her requests and never provided her with additional bathroom breaks, the EEOC said.

Failure to accommodate a qualified employee with a disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To ensure they meet this requirement, employers are expected to engage in an interactive process, a good-faith effort to discuss with the employee what reason-able accommodations would enable them to fulfill their essential job duties. After first attempting to reach pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process, the EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for Alaska in Juneau (EEOC v. Club Demonstration Services, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00007-HRH).

Under the consent decree settling the suit, Club Demonstration Services agrees to pay $50,000 in monetary relief, implement policies to ensure compliance with laws prohibiting disability discrimination and requiring reasonable accommodation, provide anti-discrimination training with an emphasis on disability and reasonable accommodation, and report to the EEOC all complaints of disability discrimination it receives from its employees in Alaska for the next two years.

“The EEOC is committed to enforcing the ADA’s requirement of reasonable accommodation,” said Nancy Sienko, acting district director for the EEOC’s San Francisco District, which includes Washington state. She added, “This case demonstrates how important it is for employers to engage in good faith in the interactive process to accommodate employees with disabilities.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Amos Blackman said, “The ADA was designed to eliminate the unnecessary and counterproductive barriers that keep Americans with disabilities from finding and keeping their jobs. We are encouraged, however, that Club Demonstration Services has made a genuine commitment to remedying what happened here and taking meaningful steps designed to ensure that it does not happen again.”

According to its website, Club Demonstration Services is the preferred in-house event marketing provider to Costco, had 31,000 associates worldwide as of 2019, and has brand partners including ConAgra Foods, Foster Farms, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Duracell, McCormick, Pepsi, Tyson, Unilever, Bibigo, Kraft Foods, and Pfizer Consumer Healthcare. It is a subsidiary of Advantage Solutions.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Continue reading …

Telecare Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination

Comments Off on Telecare Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
Telecare Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination

SEATTLE – Mental health and psychiatric treatment provider Telecare Mental Health Services of Washington, Inc. violated federal law when it withdrew a job offer because of a qualified applicant’s disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed on Sept. 30.According to the EEOC’s suit, after a successful interview in which the job applicant disclosed a leg injury that prevented him from prolonged walking, sitting or standing, Telecare offered the highly experienced registered nurse a job at its Shelton, Washington facility, contingent on successful completion of a pre-employment medical examination. Telecare’s contract medical examiner and the applicant’s primary doctor both deemed the applicant medically qualified for the position.

In addition, the applicant explained that he could accomplish the work as long as he could periodically use a chair. The EEOC’s investigation also found that Telecare nurses had flexibility to sit or stand during their shifts. However, despite both medical certifications and the applicant’s assurances, Telecare withdrew its job offer and refused to hire the applicant.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from refusing to hire qualified applicants and employees due to an actual or perceived disability. The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (EEOC v. Telecare Mental Health Services of Washington, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01339) on Sept. 30 after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through conciliation. The EEOC’s lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.

“The ADA prohibits employers from rejecting applicants because of a perceived medical condition or disability that in no way impacts their performance,” said Nancy Sienko, acting district director for the EEOC’s San Francisco District, which includes Washington State. “Eliminating barriers in hiring, especially hiring practices that discriminate against people with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the Commission’s 2017-21 Strategic Enforcement Plan.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney May Che explained, “The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted to protect people with disabilities from discrimination based on unfounded prejudices and stereotypes. Telecare officials discriminated when they substituted their assumptions about this applicant’s abilities for sound medical conclusions, and closed the door on a highly capable nurse who could have been a valuable and loyal employee.”

According to its website, Telecare Mental Health Services of Washington, Inc. is an affiliate of Telecare Corporation, an Alameda, California-based health care organization with 132 programs across five states, providing acute, crisis, residential, and longer-term recovery programs for people with serious mental illnesses.
 
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Continue reading …

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington Sued by EEOC for Race Discrimination

Comments Off on Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington Sued by EEOC for Race Discrimination
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington Sued by EEOC for Race Discrimination

TACOMA, Wash. – Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington (KFHPW) violated federal law when it tolerated repeated use of a racial slur over the objections of an African American employee at its Tacoma Medical Center, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.According to the EEOC’s suit, for several months, Darlene Hayden, an African American laboratory assistant, endured a co-worker’s use of racial slurs. On the first occasion, Hayden informed her non-Black co-worker that the term, a version of the N-word, was offensive and discriminatory, and the co-worker apologized. However, when the co-worker continued to use the epithet despite her objections, Hayden took steps to alert managers, then notified the Human Resources Service Center and finally reported to KPHPW’s compliance hotline, all to no avail.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits harassment due to race and requires employers to take prompt action to investigate and stop the misconduct after they receive notice of it. After first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through conciliation, the EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington, Case No. 2:21-cv-01338-RSL) on Sept. 30. The EEOC’s lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.

“Whether a racial slur is aimed at the employee reporting it or not, employers must act to stop such workplace conduct immediately,” said Nancy Sienko, acting district director for the EEOC’s San Francisco District, which includes Washington State. “It is unacceptable and against the law for employers to fail to intercede when their employees report racial epithets, particularly those associated with such historical weight and injury.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Carmen Flores noted, “All employees have the right to work in a setting free from harassment, including ongoing use of offensive racially charged language. The EEOC will aggressively investigate, and, if necessary, prosecute employers that violate the law.”

KFHPW serves Northwest Washington, Central Washington, Eastern Washington, the Coastal and Olympic region, and the Puget Sound and is an affiliate of Kaiser Permanente, headquartered in Oakland, California. According to its website, Kaiser Permanente is one of the nation’s largest not-for-profit health plans, with an $88.7B operating budget and over 216,000 employees serving 12.5 million members.
 
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Continue reading …

Chicago Meat Authority to Pay $1.1 Million to Settle EEOC Racial Discrimination and Retaliation Suit

Comments Off on Chicago Meat Authority to Pay $1.1 Million to Settle EEOC Racial Discrimination and Retaliation Suit
Chicago Meat Authority to Pay $1.1 Million to Settle EEOC Racial Discrimination and Retaliation Suit

CHICAGO – Chicago Meat Authority, a Chicago meat processing plant, will pay $1.1 million and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that Chicago Meat Authority discriminated against Black applicants in hiring, subjected African American employees who were in the workforce to racial harassment, and fired a Black employee because of his race and in retaliation for complaining about racial harassment.

The EEOC’s investigation revealed that the company favored hiring Hispanic employees over African American employees, even though the company is located in a largely Black neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side. The investigation further revealed that African American employees who were hired were subjected to repeated racial slurs by both co-workers and managers.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC brought its lawsuit, EEOC v. Chicago Meat Authority, N.D. Illinois, No. 18-cv-01357, on Feb. 22, 2018 after the agency first attempted to reach a pre-litigation conciliation with the company.

The consent decree settling the suit was entered this morning by Judge John Kness of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. In addition to providing $1.1 million in monetary relief to the discrimination victims, the decree requires significant injunctive relief. The decree prohibits the company from discriminating in the future; mandates the hiring of rejected applicants who still want jobs at the company; requires the company to make good faith efforts to reach hiring goals for Black employees; and mandates implementation of anti-harassment training and policies.

“Stopping race discrimination in hiring is one of the fundamental objectives the EEOC was created to address more than 50 years ago,” said EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney Gregory Gochanour. “Unfortunately, there is a continuing need for law enforcement work in this area. The consent decree in Chicago Meat Authority makes a very important contribution to that work by providing job opportunities to qualified applicants who were denied them in the past, and requiring that the company take steps to reform its hiring practices in the future.”

Julianne Bowman, director of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, said, “We are pleased that we were able to resolve this case with Chicago Meat Authority. The consent decree will ensure that the federal laws against discrimination and harassment are followed, that all future applicants, regardless of their race, will be given the consideration that they deserve, and that racial harassment will not be tolerated.”

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.  Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Continue reading …

American Piping Inspection Sued by EEOC for Racial Harassment and Retaliation

Comments Off on American Piping Inspection Sued by EEOC for Racial Harassment and Retaliation
American Piping Inspection Sued by EEOC for Racial Harassment and Retaliation

HOUSTON – American Piping Inspection, Inc. (API), an Oklahoma-based oil and gas inspection services company doing business in Texas, violated federal law when its supervisors created and condoned a hostile work environment for an African American employee and retaliated against him for complaining about the harassment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed on September 30, 2021.According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a supervisor at API’s Midland facility began harassing the employee on his first day at work and the conduct continued throughout his employment. The supervisor referred to him and other black workers by a racial slur. The supervisor would also openly make racially offensive remarks he called “jokes” in the presence of employees under his supervision.  

Offended, the employee told the supervisor to stop engaging in the offensive conduct, and when he did not, the employee complained to API’s vice-president. However, the supervisor continued making racial comments, often while mocking the employee in front of his peers for being offended. Following a gathering at which the supervisor and other employees were present, the supervisor made other racist jokes while looking directly at the employee and using his hand to pretend to shoot a gun at him. Feeling threatened, the employee again complained to API’s vice-president. Shortly thereafter, API supervisors began to scrutinize and discipline the employee more harshly than his white colleagues and ultimately fired him about a month later.  

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-03187) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process. The EEOC’s suit seeks backpay, compensatory and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief intended to prevent any future discrimination in the workplace.  

Rayford Irvin, director of the EEOC’s Houston District Office, said “Employers have a legal duty to take prompt corrective action if such race-based conduct arises in a workplace. Employers should ensure supervisors are held accountable and are properly trained to handle complaints of harassment.”

“Using racial epithets and other racially insulting language has no place in the American workplace.  It is the employer’s responsibility to providing their employees workplaces free of racial discrimination,” said Rudy Sustaita, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Houston District Office.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.  Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Continue reading …

Spike Electric and Controls, LLC to Pay $85,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Comments Off on Spike Electric and Controls, LLC to Pay $85,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Spike Electric and Controls, LLC to Pay $85,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

HOUSTON – Spike Electric and Controls, LLC, located in Houston, will pay a former employee $85,000 to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, an outside sales representative employed by Spike Electric was diagnosed with liposarcoma, a form of cancer, and subsequently scheduled to have surgery to remove a tumor. The employee notified the company of his diagnosis and the vice president of sales attempted to reduce the employee’s pay by almost half two days later. Approximately one month later, and one day prior to the employee’s surgery, the employee was informed he was being terminated. The company also interfered with the employee’s subsequent efforts to find employment in the same industry.

Such alleged conduct violates Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees with a disability and from engaging in interference, coercion or intimidation because the employee exercised rights protected by the ADA. The EEOC filed its suit (Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-03370) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.

Under a two-year consent decree entered on Sept. 29, Spike Electric will pay the employee $85,000 in compensatory damages and will also conduct training regarding the ADA’s prohibition against disability discrimination; update its disability accommodation policies; post a notice prohibiting discrimination in the workplace; and provide regular reports to the EEOC concerning complaints of disability discrimination and retaliation.

“The ADA protects workers who have a disability, ensuring they will not be fired or otherwise subjected to adverse employment actions after disclosing it to their employer,” said Rudy Sustaita, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Houston District Office.

“Interference with employees’ rights under the ADA is unlawful,” said Lloyd Van Oostenrijk, the EEOC trial attorney in charge of the case. “The Commission aggressively investigates, and, when necessary, prosecutes employers who interfere with their employees’ exercise of their rights under the ADA.”

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.  Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Continue reading …

EEOC’s Sex Discrimination Claims Against the University of Miami to Proceed to Trial

Comments Off on EEOC’s Sex Discrimination Claims Against the University of Miami to Proceed to Trial
EEOC’s Sex Discrimination Claims Against the University of Miami to Proceed to Trial

MIAMI – A federal judge has ordered a sex and wage discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the University of Miami (UM) to proceed to trial, the federal agency announced today.In its lawsuit, filed on July 29, 2019, the EEOC charged that UM paid a female professor in its political science department $28,000 per year less than a male professor in the same department.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

On April 19, UM filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it was entitled to an immediate judgment in its favor and without trial because, it contended, the female professor was not similarly situated to the male professor and the differences in pay could be explained away by factors such market forces and differences in publications. UM admitted, however, that the female professor is paid less than the male professor.

On Sept. 29, Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. issued an order denying in its entirety UM’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Scola further granted summary judgment in favor of the EEOC on two of UM’s affirmative defenses. The court held that a jury must decide whether the two professors hold substantially equal positions. The court noted that both professors are tenure-track full professors, within the political science department, and that they teach the same number of courses at the introductory and upper-class levels.

The court also rejected the notion that UM had shown that other factors, such as the market, could explain away the pay differential. According to the court, “[T]here is no evidence that in 2009, [the male professor] had received any competing offers for employment or had tested the market by any means other than simply asking the University for a higher offer.”

Finally, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the EEOC on UM’s conciliation and laches defenses. The court noted that EEOC has full discretion over the pace and duration of its conciliation efforts, and that the EEOC did not delay in bringing the lawsuit where it was filed approximately one year after the charge of discrimination.

Judge Scola’s decision denying UM’s motion for summary judgment clears the way for trial, which is currently scheduled for Dec. 6.

The Miami District Office’s jurisdiction includes Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Continue reading …

AZ Metro to Pay $300,000 to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Comments Off on AZ Metro to Pay $300,000 to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit
AZ Metro to Pay $300,000 to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

NEW YORK – AZ Metro Distributors, LLC, a distributor of Arizona Iced Tea products, will pay $300,000 and furnish other relief to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that the company willfully discriminated against two sales employees by discharging them because of age, and, in September 2019, a jury agreed. After the EEOC declined to accept a lesser award of monetary relief proposed by the court, the parties entered into the settlement agreement in lieu of conducting a second trial on damages.At trial, the EEOC presented evidence that AZ Metro discharged Cesar Fernandez and Archibald Roberts — the two oldest sales employees in their department — at the ages of 64 and 66. On the day the employees were fired, a supervisor at AZ Metro’s Brooklyn location said that the company wanted to hire younger workers and move the sales force in a “different direction,” according to trial testimony.

Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits age discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. AZ Metro Distributors, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-05370) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the agency’s conciliation process. The case was litigated by EEOC Trial Attorney Kirsten Peters and Supervisory Trial Attorney Justin Mulaire.

The consent decree settling the suit provides a total of $300,000 in lost wages and liquidated damages, along with significant non-monetary relief designed to prevent further discrimination. These provisions include a five-year injunction prohibiting AZ Metro from discharging employees because of their age, updates to the company’s internal policies, and training for the company’s Brooklyn and Queens branch employees about federal anti-discrimination law. The company must also report to the EEOC any internal complaints of age discrimination or retaliation it receives in the next two years.

“Age discrimination is still far too common in the workplace,” said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the New York District Office. “Our agency will continue to fight to protect the rights of workers through litigation when necessary, especially when a recalcitrant employer refuses to accept responsibility.”

EEOC New York District Director Judy Keenan added, “An employee should only be judged by performance and not his or her age. The EEOC will continue to work conscientiously to identify employers who discriminate on the basis of age and take the appropriate steps ensure that such unlawful conduct stops.” 

Peters, who led the agency’s litigation effort, said, “AZ Metro’s decision to fire these hard-working employees because of their age impacted the employees’ lives in ways that cannot fully be repaired. I respect and applaud their decision to come forward and report AZ Metro’s discriminatory behavior to our agency.”

The EEOC’s New York District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, northern New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont. The New York District Office, located in Manhattan, conducted the investigation resulting in this lawsuit.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Continue reading …
Page 1 of 13123Next ›Last »