518-373-4111
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws that protect job applicants and employees from discrimination because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. The EEOC frequently enforces these laws through lawsuits and other legal action.
EEO laws cover most employers with at least 15 employees (20 employees in age discrimination cases), labor unions, and employment agencies. Employers not complying with EEO laws can find themselves in complicated legal situations or on the hook for significant monetary penalties. Therefore, employers must understand how their workplace actions may apply to EEO laws.
This case study report provides real-world examples of employers found to violate EEO laws. It includes snapshots of violations and guidance for how those employers could have prevented them. By examining these case studies, employers can learn from the mistakes of others in similar industries and avoid EEOC violations.
Real-world Case Studies of EEOC Violations
1. Chicago, IL
A delivery company will pay $8.7 million in compensation to 83 workers and be subject to the oversight of a court-appointed monitor to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.
What Went Wrong:
- The delivery company assigned Black employees to routes in neighborhoods with higher crime rates compared to those assigned to white drivers, gave Black employees heavier dock work, made Black employees move heavy packages while white workers sorted letters, and segregated its Black and white employees.
- The employer’s actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employers from discriminating based on race in the terms and conditions of employment and engaging in racial segregation.
2. Cleveland, OH
A group of trucking companies will pay $460,000 and provide other equitable relief to settle a sexual orientation and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC.
What Went Wrong:
- Workers and supervisors harassed two mechanics because they were gay. The harassment included the use of slurs and other derogatory comments, physical violence and other inappropriate contact, defacement of uniforms, and other hostile behavior.
- After reporting the harassment, HR and management officials took no action to stop it; instead, the mechanics suffered additional harassment and retaliation, including being fired or forced to quit.
- These actions violated Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating against or harassing employees based on sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for opposing discrimination.
3. Baltimore, MD
A hospitality company will pay $150,000 and provide other equitable relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC.
What Went Wrong:
- The hospitality company failed to provide accommodations to an employee for a pregnancy-related disability.
- The company fired the employee days after she disclosed having suffered a miscarriage.
- This conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII, which prohibit disability discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation.
Avoiding EEOC Violations
As illustrated by the case studies in this report, complying with the varied and complex requirements of EEO laws can be difficult. Therefore, employers must understand their obligations under these laws and how they can prevent similar violations. Below is general guidance on the issues addressed in these case studies, categorized by violation type.
Race Discrimination
In the Chicago, Illinois, case study, the delivery company incurred significant penalties, almost $9 million, for discriminating against its employees based on race. Title VII prohibits employers from using race as a factor in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, fringe benefits, or any other term or condition of employment. In addition to policies or practices that overtly discriminate against employees based on race, policies that are neutral on their face but that have a disparate impact on members of a certain race may still constitute illegal discrimination.
Race discrimination is a frequently alleged basis of discrimination in charges filed with the EEOC. In fiscal year 2023, race discrimination claims were alleged in nearly 34% of all charges filed with the EEOC.
Employers may implement measures to prevent race discrimination, including training employees, managers, and HR on EEO laws, promoting an inclusive workplace culture, fostering open communication, and establishing neutral and objective criteria to avoid subjective employment decisions.
Sex Discrimination and Harassment
In the Cleveland, Ohio, case study, the trucking companies were required to pay $460,000 to settle claims of discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee based on sex. The EEOC has clarified that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Under Title VII, unlawful discrimination includes subjecting an employee to workplace harassment that creates a hostile work environment based on an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Harassment can include offensive or derogatory remarks about sexual orientation (e.g., being gay or straight) or about a person’s transgender status or gender transition.
Sex discrimination is also a frequently alleged basis of discrimination in charges filed with the EEOC. Sex discrimination claims were alleged in over 31% of all charges filed with the EEOC in fiscal year 2023. To prevent sex discrimination and harassment claims, employers can ensure that employees, managers, and HR are properly trained to respond to such claims and promote respectful and inclusive work environments.
Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination
In the Baltimore, Maryland, case study, the hospitality company was required to pay $150,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees due to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. The ADA requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s disability (including disabilities caused by pregnancy) unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Disability discrimination is another frequently alleged basis of discrimination in charges filed with the EEOC. In fiscal year 2023, this type of discrimination was alleged in 36% of all charges filed with the EEOC.
In addition, although the Baltimore, Maryland, case addressed in this report did not fall under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)—which went into effect on June 27, 2023—this law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to workers for pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions (including abortion and contraceptive care), regardless of whether the pregnancy or condition constitutes a “disability” under the ADA unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.
Employers may take steps to prevent pregnancy discrimination and properly address requests for reasonable accommodations. These may include implementing compliant practices for responding to requests for disability and pregnancy accommodations and training managers and HR on their obligations under Title VII, the ADA, and the PWFA.
Retaliation
The Baltimore, Maryland, and Cleveland, Ohio case studies in this report also involve allegations of employer retaliation. EEO laws prohibit employers from retaliating against employees, which generally means punishing a job applicant or employee for asserting their right to be free from employment discrimination. Such punishment can take various forms, including denial of promotion, refusal to hire, denial of job benefits, demotion, suspension, discharge, threats, negative performance evaluations, and job transfers.
Retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in charges filed with the EEOC. Retaliation claims under all EEO laws were alleged in almost 57% of all charges filed with the EEOC in fiscal year 2023, and retaliation claims under just Title VII were alleged in almost 40% of all charges filed with the EEOC in the same year.
Employers may take several measures to prevent retaliation, such as informing employees that retaliation is prohibited; assuring employees that they will not be punished for taking actions protected by law; responding to employee complaints promptly and effectively; ensuring that managers understand their responsibility to stop, address and prevent retaliation; and holding employees accountable for complying with and enforcing discrimination rules and policies.
Conclusion
These case studies demonstrate how easy it can be for employers to violate EEO laws. Employers must seek professional guidance before making potentially costly decisions. By learning from these employers’ mistakes, others in similar industries can avoid major violations and prevent EEOC lawsuits.
© 2024 Zywave, Inc. All rights reserved.
Hire an HR Expert to Help Avoid EEOC Violations
If you don’t have enough HR staff to help you stay on top of compliance issues like these, outsourcing to experienced HR professionals may be a good solution. GTM’s HR consultants can review your current policies and practices and make recommendations to help you comply with wage and labor laws. We can provide consulting regularly or with occasional check-ins. Fill out the brief form below to learn more.
