OSHA Opens New Regional Office in Southeast

This isn’t the most earthshatteritng news for a Monday morning, but on the other hand depending on where you are located in the U.S. this will be of interest. It’s important to know which regional offices you’ll be hearing from when safety inspectors drop by to do their inspections.

The Department of Labor today announced strategic changes to the structure of its Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s regional operations designed to direct its resources effectively and make the agency more resilient.

The changes include the creation of a new OSHA regional office in Birmingham, Alabama, overseeing agency operations in the state, and those in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee as well as the Florida Panhandle. The Birmingham Region will address the area’s growing worker population and the hazardous work done by people employed in food processing, construction, heavy manufacturing and chemical processing.

OSHA is also planning to merge Regions 9 and 10 into a new San Francisco Region to improve operations and reduce operating costs.

As part of the changes, the agency will also rename its regions to associate them by geography, rather than its current practice of assigning numbers to regions. As such, the area OSHA calls Region 4 will be renamed the Atlanta Region with jurisdiction over Florida, excluding the Panhandle; Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. The current Region 6 will be renamed the Dallas Region and have jurisdiction over workplace safety issues in New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

The composition of OSHA’s other regions will remain the same. When completed, the agency’s regions will be renamed as follows:

View a map of OSHA’s new regional structure and boundaries.

“The changes reflect the nation’s demographic and industrial changes since the passage of the OSH Act and will allow our professionals to better respond to the needs of all workers, including those historically underserved,” explained Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Doug Parker. “With a stronger enforcement presence in the South and more consolidated state oversight and whistleblower presence in the West — an area dominated by states that operate their OSHA programs — we can direct our resources where they’re needed most.”

OSHA plans to fully transition to its new regional structure later in fiscal year 2024. Once implemented, the agency’s regional maps and contact information online will be updated publicly.

Wire Down: Montana Utility Pays $50K Punitive Damages to Settle EEOC Harassment Lawsuit

Bad enough in this case that it was the company’s GM that engaged in this misconduct. Worse still, that the employer backed him up in making him the only person to whom the victim could report the matter.

NorVal Electric Cooperative, Inc., a utility serving Northeast Montana, agreed to pay $50,000 to a former employee and provide other injunctive relief to resolve a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced May 9.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, NorVal’s office manager faced unwelcome sexual comments and physical touching from her direct supervisor, the utility’s then-general manager. The conduct escalated during a business trip when he suggested that they meet in his hotel room, which she adamantly refused. When she sought to report his conduct, he made escalating threats against her job, and NorVal blocked her from complaining to anyone other than her harasser, the EEOC said.

Such conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace as well as retaliating against an employee for opposing harassment. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. NorVal Electric Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-00071-BMM) in U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

Under the three-year consent decree settling the suit, NorVal will pay $50,000 in punitive damages – the maximum available by statute for an employer of NorVal’s size – to the former employee. The decree also requires that the company retain an independent consultant to assist NorVal in developing anti-discrimination policies and procedures, receive and independently and confidentially investigate any complaints of sexual harassment and/or retaliation, and recommend appropriate corrective action to remedy any complaints of discrimination or retaliation.

In addition, NorVal must designate multiple points of contact for complaints and implement companywide anti-discrimination training. It is further barred from employing the harasser in any capacity.

“Forcing a person to report harassment to her harasser runs contrary to business sense and best practice,” said Elizabeth M. Cannon, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “It is vital for employers to have robust policies and procedures that provide employees safe options to report harassment without fear of retaliation. This settlement sends a clear message that employers must protect their employees from harassment.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Amos Blackman said, “This harasser tried to put himself above the law, and it took incredible courage for this employee to come forward. I hope this settlement brings her some measure of relief.”

For more information on sexual harassment, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment .

The EEOC’s Seattle Field Office has jurisdiction over Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana.

Heat Exposure Rulemaking Gets Bump Forward

Rulemaking is the sausage making of enforcing the laws on the books. Not always pretty to watch, often plodding, but vitally important for an effective final product. (Actually, for all I know, sausage making is a quick one-to-three process, but you get the analogy I hope)

The Department of Labor has taken an important step in addressing the dangers of workplace heat and moved closer to publishing a proposed rule to reducing the significant health risks of heat exposure for U.S. workers in outdoor and indoor settings.

On April 24, 2024, the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration presented the draft rule’s initial regulatory framework at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health. The committee, which advises the agency on safety and health standards and policy matters, unanimously recommended OSHA move forward expeditiously on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. As part of the rulemaking process, the agency will seek and consider input from a wide range of stakeholders and the public at-large as it works to propose and finalize its rule.

In the interim, OSHA continues to direct significant existing outreach and enforcement resources to educate employers and workers and hold businesses accountable for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1) and other applicable regulations. Record-breaking temperatures across the nation have increased the risks people face on-the-job, especially in summer months. Every year, dozens of workers die and thousands more suffer illnesses related to hazardous heat exposure that, sadly, are most often preventable.

“Workers at risk of heat illness need a new rule to protect workers from heat hazards. OSHA is working aggressively to develop a new regulation that keeps workers safe from the dangers of heat,” explained Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Doug Parker. “As we move through the required regulatory process for creating these protections, OSHA will use all of its existing tools to hold employers responsible when they fail to protect workers from known hazards such as heat, including our authority to stop employers from exposing workers to conditions which pose an imminent danger.”

The agency continues to conduct heat-related inspections under its National Emphasis Program – Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards, launched in 2022. The program inspects workplaces with the highest exposures to heat-related hazards proactively to prevent workers from suffering injury, illness or death needlessly. Since the launch, OSHA has conducted nearly 5,000 federal heat-related inspections.

In addition, the agency is prioritizing programmed inspections in agricultural industries that employ temporary, nonimmigrant H-2A workers for seasonal labor. These workers face unique vulnerabilities, including potential language barriers, less control over their living and working conditions, and possible lack of acclimatization, and are at high risk of hazardous heat exposure.

By law, employers must protect workers from the dangers of heat exposure and should have a proper safety and health plan in place. At a minimum, employers should provide adequate cool water, rest breaks and shade or a cool rest area. Employees who are new or returning to a high heat workplace should be allowed time to gradually get used to working in hot temperatures. Workers and managers should also be trained so they can identify and help prevent heat illness themselves.

“No worker should have to get sick or die because their employer refused to provide water, or breaks to recover from high heat, or failed to act after a worker showed signs of heat illness,” Parker added.

As always, OSHA will share information and coordinate enforcement and compliance assistance efforts with states operating their own occupational safety and health programs. At the same time, the agency’s compliance assistance specialists regularly meet with employer associations, workers and their advocacy groups and labor unions to supply information and education on heat hazards.

Learn more about OSHA. Learn more about working in outdoor and indoor heat environments.

Chipotle Serves up $50K Settlement in EEOC Lawsuit Brought on Behalf of Harassed Employee

Sadly, this happens all too often in the restaurant industry. One hopes that these businesses get the message with each lawsuit filed that this type of behavior must be rooted out before it becomes ingrained.

Chipotle Services, LLC will pay $50,000 to a former crew member at its Prattville, Alabama restaurant location and will provide other relief to resolve a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced May 1.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, beginning in October 2019, a male restaurant manager at the Prattville Chipotle Mexican Grill sexually harassed the employee daily through unwanted sexual advances, sexual comments and sexually offensive conduct, including sexual contact. Chipotle failed to investigate complaints against the manager or take steps that would have stopped the sexual harassment, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits a sexually hostile environment in the workplace. The EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., and Chipotle Services, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00326-MHT-SMD) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Under the two-year consent decree settling the case, Chipotle will also review, revise as necessary, and implement its anti-discrimination policies that prohibit sexual harassment. Employees at Chipotle’s Alabama restaurants in Prattville and Montgomery will receive in-person training on sexual harassment, and the managers and human resources personnel with authority over those restaurants will receive additional sexual harassment training.

“In short, sexual harassment is illegal,” said EEOC Birmingham district director Bradley Anderson. “As we see in this instance, failure to enforce anti-harassment policies can embolden sexual harassers, especially ones who are in a position of authority, and multiply the number of victims. The consent decree in this case provides the opportunity for Chipotle to develop a culture in its restaurants where employees can work free of sexual harassment.”

Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District, added, “Even when a victimized employee is not fired or disciplined, employers can be complicit with sexually harassing managers when the proper procedures for prevention and correction are not in place or are easily thwarted by the chain of command. The EEOC will hold employers accountable under federal law when they fail to protect their workers from a sexually hostile work environment.”

For more information on sexual harassment, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment.

The EEOC’s Birmingham District Office has jurisdiction over Alabama, Mississippi (except 17 northern counties) and the Florida Panhandle.

Settlement Wraps up EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit

Todays topic: Retaliation.

And why it’s counterproductive to engage in it.

When an employee complains about discrimination, take it seriously, investigate, and move on.

Barrett Distribution Centers, LLC will pay $60,000 and furnish other relief to settle a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit for unlawful retaliation against an employee, the federal agency announced April 30.

The EEOC suit alleged Barrett, along with Supreme Staffing, retaliated against a former employee by removing him and ultimately firing him because he spoke out about national origin discrimination at Barrett’s Memphis facilities.

Such alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation against those who complain about discrimination. The EEOC sued in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, EEOC v. Supreme Staffing, LLC and Barrett Distrib. Centers, LLC, 2:23-cv-02507-SHL-tmp, after first seeking to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The three-year consent decree settling the suit, entered by U.S. District Judge Sheryl Lipman, requires several actions from Barrett, including creation of an anti-retaliation policy and distribution to all staffing agencies it uses for temporary workers. Barrett must also conduct annual training designed to prevent retaliation and provide semi-annual records to the Commission on any employee who complains about discrimination in placement, referral or selection.

“As retaliation claims continue to rise, we applaud those are who are willing to bravely step up and report discriminatory treatment,” said Faye Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office. “We also commend Barrett for its commitment to reaching an early resolution that will compensate the affected former employee as well as ensuring that all staffing agencies Barrett works with are aware of Barrett’s pledge to combat unlawful discrimination and retaliation in its workspace.”

Edmond Sims, Jr., acting district director of the Memphis District Office, said, “Memphis is one of the top distribution centers for America. It is important that employees know their federally protected rights and that they can freely report suspected violations free from fear of retaliation.”

For more information on retaliation, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation. For more information on national origin discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination.

The EEOC’s Memphis District Office has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee, and 17 counties in Northern Mississippi.

Home-Based Care Provider Fined $163K Following Death of LPN at Patient’s Hand

For licensed practical nurses the workplace often is a patient’s home. This case is a warning to the health care agencies that employ them that they must take steps to make sure working in a patient’s home is safe. This includes protecting them from patients’ aggressive behavior.

A federal workplace safety investigation following the death of a licensed practical nurse during an Oct. 28, 2023, home visit in Willimantic, Connecticut, found one of the nation’s largest home-based care providers did not provide adequate safeguards to protect the nurse, Joyce Grayson, and other employees from the dangers of workplace violence.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration determined that on or about Oct. 28, 2023, and at times prior, Elara Caring exposed home healthcare employees to workplace violence from patients who exhibited aggressive behavior and were known to pose a risk to others.

Following its investigation, OSHA cited Jordan Health Care Inc. and New England Home Care Inc., both doing business as Elara Caring, for one willful violation under the agency’s general duty clause. OSHA cited the employer for not developing and implementing adequate measures to protect employees from the ongoing serious hazard of workplace violence. The agency also cited the employer for one other-than-serious violation for not providing work-related injury and illness records to OSHA within four business hours, as required.

Elara Caring faces $163,627 in proposed penalties. View the citations.

“Elara Caring failed its legal duty to protect employees from workplace injury by not having effective measures in place to protect employees against a known hazard and it cost a worker her life,” said OSHA Area Director Charles D. McGrevy in Hartford, Connecticut. “For its employees’ well-being, Elara must develop, implement and maintain required safeguards such as a comprehensive workplace violence prevention program. Workplace safety is not a privilege; it is every worker’s right.”

To address workplace violence, employers should have in place a comprehensive workplace violence prevention program. Elements of a plan should include management commitment and employee involvement; implementation of a written program including the establishment, membership and role of a Workplace Violence Safety Committee; analysis of home environments upon new patient admission; hazard prevention and control; training and education, including resources for impacted employees; recordkeeping; and solicitation of employee feedback during the review process.

OSHA also found that Elara Caring could have reduced the hazard of workplace violence by, among other ways, performing root cause analyses on incidents of violence and near misses, providing clinicians with comprehensive background information on patients prior to home visits, providing emergency panic alert buttons to clinicians and developing procedures for the use of safety escorts for visits to patients with high-risk behaviors.

Elara Caring provides home-based care with over 200 branches in 17 states, including five branches in Connecticut. Its services include skilled home health, hospice care, personal care service, palliative care and behavioral health.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 849 U.S. workers died in workplace violence incidents in 2022. Learn more about OSHA and protecting employees against workplace violence, including Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Healthcare and Social Service Workers, Workplace Violence in Healthcare: Understanding the Challenge and Preventing Workplace Violence: A Road Map for Healthcare Facilities.

EEOC Alleges Amputee’s ADA Rights Violated

When evaluating whether an applicant is suitable for the job, the question is what they can do in spite of any limitations they may have, not what they can’t do. That’s what federal disability rights legislation requires.

Reliable Maintenance Solutions, Inc., which provides quarry services for mine sites in Georgia, violated federal law when it refused to hire an applicant because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit recently filed.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the applicant sought to work for Reliable as a dump truck operator in March 2021. The applicant is a right-arm amputee with years of work experience operating dump trucks, and he was working as a dump truck operator at the time of his application to Reliable. The company interviewed the applicant for the position and assured him that his status as an amputee would not be an impediment to his hiring. Although the applicant then successfully completed safety training, Reliable claimed at least one of its clients was uncomfortable with an amputee being employed as a dump truck operator and the applicant was not hired.

Such alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Reliable Maintenance Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-RWS-JCF) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

“At its core, the ADA prohibits employers from refusing to hire a qualified individual because of a disability,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “Reliable Maintenance Solutions initially determined that the applicant was qualified for the position he sought. But then the employer subjected the applicant to additional layers of review and violated the ADA when it refused to hire him because of his disability.”

Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office, said, “The ADA requires employers to remove barriers to employment for qualified individuals with disabilities — not create them. The EEOC is committed to enforcing the ADA and ensuring that Americans with disabilities have equal access to employment.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

The EEOC’s Atlanta District Office has jurisdiction over the State of Georgia and the Counties of Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Georgetown, Hampton, Jasper, and Williamsburg in the State of South Carolina.

ADA Settlement Reached in Case Involving Employee With Lupus, the EEOC Announces

This employer committed a two-for violation of disability rights law, the government charged.

And considering the sequence of events, the employer’s decision to settle the lawsuit for a nominal awards looks like the smart move.

Lubin Logistics Company, which operates as a package delivery contractor for the international shipping brand FedEx, violated federal law when it fired an employee because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit recently filed.

According to the lawsuit, Lubin Logistics hired a package delivery driver in November 2021. At that time, the employee told his supervisors that he suffered from lupus, an autoimmune disease that can cause pain and inflammation throughout the body. The employee successfully completed multiple training shifts as a “jumper” who delivered packages on a truck driven by another driver.

Approximately two weeks later, the employee was assigned to a Lubin Logistics truck without a working door, working heating system, or functional passenger seat. The employee suffered a rare lupus “flare-up,” causing severe pain in his legs and feet. The employee requested and received permission to return to the delivery terminal prior to the end of his shift.

Before his next shift, however, a company supervisor sent a text message to the employee stating that he could no longer work for them because of his medical condition. Although the employee insisted that he could continue to perform his duties or could work as a package loader, the company ignored his pleas and fired him, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination and retaliation against an employee for requesting or receiving a reasonable accommodation for their disability. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Lubin Logistics Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01911-JPB-LTW) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

“The ADA prohibits the termination of an employee because of a disability, actual or perceived,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “Additionally, the ADA prohibits employers the termination of an employee because of their request for an accommodation related to a disability. Lubin Logistics violated both rules when it fired an employee because of his medical condition and his one-time request, when he had otherwise been capable of performing the essential functions of his job.”

Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office, said, “Employees have a right to be evaluated based on their ability to perform the essential functions of their job — not based on their medical conditions or their requests for reasonable accommodations related to those conditions. The EEOC is committed to enforcing the ADA to protect the rights of employees with disabilities.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

The EEOC’s Atlanta District Office has jurisdiction over the State of Georgia and the Counties of Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Georgetown, Hampton, Jasper, and Williamsburg in the State of South Carolina.

Crushed: OSHA Hits Automotive Supplier With $314K Fine Over “Preventable” Worker Fatality

The feds continue to be the cop-on-the-beat when it comes to policing the workplace for safety violations. Ideally employers would police themselves, but here the employer fanned on that obligation.

An Ohio subsidiary of one of the world’s largest automotive suppliers could have prevented a 26-year-old employee in Franklin from being fatally crushed in October 2023 if the company had provided proper machine guarding.

Investigators with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration responded after being informed of the incident by Faurecia Emissions Control Systems NA LLC, one of 29 facilities operated by Faurecia North America to manufacture components in the U.S. OSHA learned the worker, on the job for about a year, was placing cardboard under a machine that bends vehicle exhaust pipes when the incident happened.

OSHA issued 10 instance-by-instance citations after finding the company did not properly train employees — including temporary workers under Faurecia’s control — in lockout/tagout procedures. OSHA also issued a machine guarding violation. Investigators determined the employer failed to include detailed steps for lockout/tagout procedures, test its safety procedures annually and guard machines adequately. Based on these alleged violations, Faurecia exposed machine operators to struck-by and caught-between hazards.

In 2022, the agency cited the company for similar violations at the same location. The company faces $314,555 in proposed OSHA penalties for its recent infractions.

“Faurecia Emissions Control Systems could have prevented this tragedy by having proper machine guarding that would have protected employees from contact with moving machine parts,” said OSHA Area Director Ken Montgomery in Cincinnati. “Safety requirements are just that, required. This company failed in its legal responsibility to ensure workers were protected from workplace hazards.”

Since 2019, OSHA has opened nearly 1,700 Ohio inspections related to machine hazards. “Safety must never be an afterthought, Montgomery added. “Safety has to be a core company value, especially in the manufacturing industry.”

Faurecia Emissions Control Systems NA LLC is part of Faurecia North America based in Auburn Hills, Michigan. In 2022, Faurecia and Hella combined to form Forvia, one of the world’s top 10 largest automotive suppliers with more than 150,000 workers in more than 40 countries.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Learn more about OSHA, lockout/tagout procedures and the National Emphasis Program on Amputation Hazards.

Construction Co. Pays $99K to Exit Harassment Lawsuit Arising From Playing of “Sexist Music”

I never much liked piped-in music in the workplace. Sometimes you just have to put up with it. But not where it creates or feeds into unlawful working conditions, as the government alleges happened here.

Erie Construction Mid-West, LLC, a construction company headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, and doing business in Dallas, Texas, agreed to pay $99,000 and provide other relief to settle claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced April 30.

According to the lawsuit, Erie subjected a female sales representative to a sexually hostile work environment by playing music with sexually derogatory slurs throughout its Dallas facility. The agency claims that the sales representative opposed the sexist music to no avail. The EEOC claims that Erie then terminated the sales representative because of her sex and her opposition to the hostile work environment.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination because of sex and requires employers to prevent and remedy unlawful harassment because of sex. Title VII also prohibits retaliation for opposing unlawful harassment because of sex. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Erie Construction Mid-West LLC, case no. 3:23-cv-02060-K) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process. Shortly after filing the lawsuit, the EEOC worked with Erie to reach an early settlement of the litigation.

“The prolonged playing of music containing lewd and misogynistic lyrics in the workplace can constitute harassment  even if not directed at a particular employee,” said EEOC Birmingham District Director Bradley Anderson.  Employers should take complaints of harassment seriously when confronted by employees to stop the music or risk a valid complaint of retaliation as was the case here.

Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District, said, “Under Title VII, employers must ensure that their workplaces are free from unlawful harassment because of sex—whether that harassment takes the form of physical aggression, unwanted comments, or derogatory music. The EEOC will continue its work to ensure that all workplaces are inclusive and free from unlawful harassment.”

For more information on sex discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/sex-based-discrimination. For more information on retaliation, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation.

The EEOC’s Birmingham District consists of Alabama, Mississippi (except 17 northern counties) and the Florida Panhandle.