Clueless: Housekeeping Firm Violated ADA in Firing Employees Who Failed Test, EEOC Alleges

What counts is being able to do the job–not passing a test.

Hospital Housekeeping Services (HHS) violated federal law when it terminated employees who failed its Essential Functions Test (EFT) because of their disabilities, despite their ability to perform their job, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged in a lawsuit filed yesterday. The lawsuit alleges the EFT screened out individuals with  disabilities.  
              
According to the EEOC’s suit, around 2015, HHS began requiring its employees to take the EFT at hire, annually, and upon the return from a medical leave of absence.  When the employees failed any portion of the EFT, HHS terminated their employment. In all cases, the employees had successfully performed the essential functions of their jobs even though they failed to pass the EFT, the EEOC said.
              
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-02134, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit seeks monetary relief in the form of back pay and compensatory damages, as well as an injunction against future discrimination.
                             
“Terminating employees with disabilities who can perform the essential functions of their job violates the ADA.  The EEOC will aggressively defend the rights of employees with disabilities to successfully work in an environment that promotes the work abilities of that employee,” said Edmond Sims, acting district director of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi. “Employees with disabilities make up a vital portion of the workforce.”
                             
Headquartered in Dripping Springs, Texas, HHS operates in hospitals in approximately thirty States throughout the United States to provide housekeeping services, maintenance services, and dietary services. Additionally, HHS operates housekeeping services at facilities in Fort Smith, Helena-West Helena, Forrest City, and Little Rock, Arkansas and in Memphis, Dyersburg, and Clarksville, Tennessee, and Olive Branch, Mississippi.

EEOC: Warehouse Condoned Racial Harassment

This Hawaiian workplace was no paradise for its African American workers.

Suisan Company, Limited (Suisan), a food distributor on the Big Island of Hawaii, violated federal law when its supervisors created and condoned a hostile work environment riddled with racial slurs and racist references to slavery and retaliated against an employee for complaining about racial harassment, the U.S. Equal Employ¬ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Sept. 24.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, supervisors at Suisan’s Hilo warehouse repeatedly used racial slurs involving the n-word and made racist references to slavery directed at an African American warehouse employee and then downplayed the harassment.  When the employee complained about the hostile work environment, he was suspended and then abruptly terminated the next day.     

“Race harassment remains prevalent in today’s workplaces,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, which includes Hawaii in its jurisdiction. “Employers should be vigilant in ensuring proper training and handling of complaints of harassment.”

Such alleged conduct violates the provisions against racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The EEOC filed its suit the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (EEOC v. Suisan Company, Limited, Case No: 1:21-cv-00397-DKW-KJM) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC’s suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the African American warehouse employee, as well as injunctive relief intended to prevent any future discrimination in the workplace.

Raymond Griffin, Jr., director of the EEOC’s Honolulu local office, added, “Employees have the right to protest against workplace discrimination without the fear of reprisal. Terminating an employee for speaking up about racial harassment is illegal and sends a message to others that may chill them from reporting incidents of discrimination or harassment.”

The Los Angeles District resolved three racial harassment lawsuits this year, providing more than $4 million dollars in compensation to victims of racial harassment.

According to its website, www.suisan.com, Suisan is the largest food distribution facility on the Big Island of Hawaii.

EEOC: Cancer Was Reason for Employee’s Firing

Is this a case of a disability-based firing or a mere reduction in force?

Pilot Freight Services, Inc., an international freight shipping and logistics company based in Atlanta, unlawfully fired its international manager because of his cancer, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it recently filed.

According to the EEOC’s suit, on or about June 7, 2019, Thomas Hunt informed his manager that he needed to request leave to see his doctor about some biopsy results. About 10 days later, Hunt was terminated by Pilot, allegedly as a result of a reduction in force. Pilot claimed that Hunt was laid off because he had less tenure than other employees and his position was eliminated. However, in the months leading up to and following Hunt’s discharge, Pilot hired several employees who were not discharged based on tenure and hired an employee in a position very similar to the one that Hunt previously held, and with a higher salary.

Such conduct violates the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-3936-MLB-LTW) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement via its conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for Hunt, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.

“The ADA prohibits employers from terminating their employees because of a disability and denying them equal employment opportunities,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “As it is in this case, a reduction in workforce is often a facade for discrimination and employers will not be shielded by it.”

Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office, said, “Cancer is a big enough catastrophe for anyone without an employer piling on and firing him or her because of the disease. It’s cruel and unlawful. The EEOC is committed to enforcing the ADA to protect the rights of such aggrieved employees.”

EEOC: Store Permitted Harassment by Customer

Allowing customer harassment of employees is just as bad as permitting harassment by one’s co-workers.

Houchens Food Group, Inc., owner and operator of Pic-N-Sav grocery stores in several states and headquartered in Bowling Green, Kentucky, violated federal anti-discrimination laws by tolerating a hostile environment of sexual harassment by a customer, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Sept. 21.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, from at least 2015 until 2020, female employees at the Pic-N-Sav grocery store in Evergreen, Alabama were subjected to frequent, unwelcome sexual touching by a regular customer of the store. Although female employees repeatedly complained to store supervisors, the company failed to take prompt corrective action to prevent or stop the harassment. After repeated complaints went unheeded, on June 5, 2020, one female employee called the police, who came to the store and issued the customer a trespass notice signed by the store manager. Nevertheless, the customer was still allowed to enter the store until at least September 2020, according to the suit.

“Subjecting employees to frequent or serious sexual harassment is illegal,” said Bradley Anderson, district director of EEOC’s Birmingham district. “When an employer knows of the ongoing sexual harassment, an employer has a duty to protect its employees even when the offending person is a customer.”

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits a hostile environment based on sexual harassment in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Houchens Food Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00408) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process. The EEOC seeks monetary damages for the victims, including compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief against the company to prevent such unlawful conduct in the future.

Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham district, said, “An employer cannot bury its head in the sand when faced with complaints of sexual harassment by its customer. Title VII requires employers to take prompt, remedial action when they become aware of sexual harassment by customers and other third parties against their employees.”

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

One of the six national priorities identified by the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan is to address eliminating systemic harassment.

Light Duty, Stat: Medical Response Cos. Settle EEOC Suit Alleging Bias Against Pregnant EMT

Why employers resist light-duty assignments for pregnant workers who request them is beyond me.

Orlando-based Rural/Metro Corporation of Florida, doing business as American Medical Response, Rural/Metro Corporation, and Lifefleet Southeast, Inc., who provide emergency medical services (EMS), have agreed to pay $55,000 to settle a pregnancy and disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Sept. 22

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the defendant companies violated federal law when they refused to provide a pregnant emergency medical technician with a pregnancy-related disability with a reasonable accommodation such as light duty, even though such accommodations were provided to other employees similar in their ability or inability to work.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibit discrimination based on an employee’s sex, including pregnancy, or an employee’s disability, including pregnancy-related disabilities. The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division (EEOC v. Rural/Metro Corporation of Florida, d/b/a American Medical Response, et al, Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-1678-Orl-40EJK), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The three-year consent decree resolving the EEOC’s lawsuit has been approved by the federal court. In addition to paying the $55,000 in monetary relief, the defendant companies will adopt a policy making pregnant employees who are unable to work at their position due to medical restrictions based on their pregnancy eligible for a light duty position at the Orlando facility. The companies will also provide training on Title VII and the ADA to human resources personnel, managers and employees, and report to the EEOC on future complaints of sex or disability discrimination. In addition, the EEOC can conduct interviews of the defendants’ employees and request documents to ensure compliance with the decree.

“When employers provide light duty positions to employees unable to work at their position because of medical restrictions, but refuse to provide those accommodations to pregnant employees similarly unable to work at their present position, they violate federal law,” said EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Robert Weisberg. “The EEOC is pleased that, going forward, pregnant employees with lifting restrictions will be afforded the same opportunity to work at a light duty position as other employees.”

EEOC Miami District Director Paul Valenti added, “Employers must recognize that certain pregnancy-related conditions may rise to the level of disabilities covered by the ADA, which require a reasonable accommodation. Pregnant employees may therefore be protected by both the ADA and Title VII, and employers and human resources personnel should keep this in mind when evaluating requests from pregnant employees.”

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

Women Harassed at Gas Stations, EEOC Alleges

The EEOC is firing on all cylinders to combat sexual harassment.

McDonald Oil Company, a Georgia-based corporation operating gas stations and convenience stores in Orange Beach, Fairhope, and Spanish Fort, Alabama, subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, from at least June 2020 until late August 2020, the company allowed a male employee to subject multiple female employees to unwanted sexual touching and sexual comments about their bodies and questions about their sex lives. The male employee also solicited them for sex, disrobed at work, and circulated nude and semi-nude photos of himself that ultimately resulted in his criminal prosecution. The EEOC alleges that multiple supervisors ignored complaints from numerous female employees and customers. Rather than protect its employees and customers, McDonald Oil made excuses for the harasser and transferred him to another location where the harassment continued.

This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits an employer from permitting a hostile work environment based on sex. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. McDonald Oil Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00407) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama after its local Mobile office completed an investigation and first attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process. The EEOC seeks monetary damages for the victims, including compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief against the company to prevent such unlawful conduct in the future.

“Requiring employees to work in a sexually charged environment permeated with unwelcomed sexual touching, comments, and conduct violates Title VII,” said EEOC Birmingham district director Bradley Anderson. “The EEOC is committed to ensuring employers put on notice of sexual harassment promptly correct it.

Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District said, “McDonald Oil had ample opportunity to protect its employees, but multiple levels of management chose to ignore this harassment and allowed it to continue. The EEOC will aggressively pursue remedies for victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.”

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

EEOC: WalMart Store Let Harassment Continue

Sexual harassment allegedly reared its ugly head at this retail giant’s store.

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP violated federal law when it allowed a male employee at its Defuniak Springs, Florida, store to sexually harass at least three female employees, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed yesterday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, from at least July 2018 until late November 2018, at least three female employees were subjected to sexual harassment by a male co-worker. The abusive conduct included repeated instances of sexual comments and inappropriate touching. After one of the females complained to management, Walmart failed to stop the harassment and instead fired her four days later. The offending co-worker continued to harass other female employees, according to the EEOC.   

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walmart, Inc., d/b/a  Wal-Mart Stores East, LP,  Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-01051-TKW-HTC) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay and reinstatement for the terminated employee, compensatory and punitive damages for all the victims, and injunctive relief to remedy and prevent future workplace sexual harassment.

“This case serves as reminder that employers must take complaints of sexual harassment seriously and not retaliate against employees who assert their lawful rights,”  said Bradley Anderson, district director of the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office. “Employees should be applauded for standing up for their rights, not punished.”

Marsha Rucker, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office, said, “Retaliation against victims who complain of harassment is a violation of federal law. When employers punish victims instead of addressing the problem, the EEOC will hold them accountable.”

Walmart, founded in 1962 and headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, owns and manages a chain of over 11,000 largest grocery and retail stores globally. Walmart is the world’s largest company by revenue, and the largest private employer in the world.

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

Insecure: Guard Service Allowed Harassment of Female Officer, Ignored Complaints, EEOC Says

It was all downhilll for this female employee, starting with inappropriate behavior by a male co-worker, the feds allege.

American Security Associates, Inc., an Acworth, Georgia-based contract security guard service provider, violated federal law by subjecting a female security officer to a sexually hostile work environment and then retaliating against her for complaining about it, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it recently filed.

According to the EEOC’s suit, beginning in or about April 2017, Ambreia Chaney, a security officer working for American Security Associates at one of its client’s condominium communities, began to be sexually harassed by her male co-worker in the form of  unwelcome and inappropriate touching and lewd comments, including cornering Chaney in a closet and threatening to engage in sexual acts. Chaney reported the sexual harassment to her supervisor and the company’s regional manager.

After receiving her complaint, American Security Associates immediately moved Chaney to a less favorable position with a reduction in pay. American Security Associates also failed to investigate Chaney’s complaint, telling her that she should expect sexual harassment based on her appearance. After American Security Associates refused to address her complaint and return her to her previous position with the same pay, Chaney felt that she had no choice but to resign from her position.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and prohibits employers from firing, demoting, harassing or otherwise retaliating against employees because of complaints of discrimination or harassment. The EEOC filed suit against American Security Associates, Inc. (Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-3870-ELR-JSA) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement via its conciliation pro­cess. The EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future discrimina­tion.

“When a company learns of sexual harassment, it has a duty to protect its employee and correct any misconduct,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “Instead, this company penalized its employee for exercising her federally protected rights by moving her to a less favorable position and reducing her pay. The EEOC will fight to protect the victims of this unlawful and unacceptable maltreatment.”

Darrell Graham, district director of the EEOC’s Atlanta office, said, “Employees should not have to face sexual harassment from co-workers or fear retaliation for seeking protection from it. We at the EEOC will continue to enforce the rights of employees who speak out against this kind of abuse in the workplace.”

EEOC Says Racism Rampant at 4 Companies

Racism is alive and well at some employers in Appalachia, the feds charged.

Four companies, one in West Virginia and three in Pennsylvania, violated federal law by subjecting their Black employees to racially hostile work environments and other unlawful discrimination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in three separate lawsuits filed Sept. 14.

The EEOC filed the first racial harassment case against Coastal Drilling East, LLC (Coastal Drilling), a Pennsylvania-based company that provides geotechnical construction services in the natural gas industry. According to the lawsuit, an African American Rig Hand at Coastal Drilling’s Graysville, Pennsylvania, site was subjected to severe racial harassment by his coworkers, including being handed a noose, open display of nooses on other occasions, and persistent use of racial epithets such as “n****r” in reference to himself and other Black persons. A direct supervisor tolerated and participated in some of the racial harassment, the EEOC said. Coastal Drilling was aware of the racial harassment in its workplace but failed to take action to stop it from occurring, eventually forcing the Black worker to resign his employ­ment, the EEOC charged.   

The EEOC filed the second racial harassment case against Eureka Stone Quarry, Inc. and James D. Morrissey Inc. (JDM), affiliated Pennsylvania-based companies engaged in mining and sales of sand, stone and other materials and construction operations. According to the lawsuit, an African American heavy equipment operator at the companies’ quarry in Chalfont, Pennsylvania, was subjected to egregious racial harassment by coworkers for several years, including commonplace use of racial epithets such as “n****r,” threats of violence directed at the Black Lives Matter movement, and other offensive statements that reflected racial bias and stereotypes. The racial harassment became increasingly severe over time and eventually cul­minated in the Black worker being threatened with firearms, including an incident in which one of the harassers fired multiple shots from a rifle on company property while the African American worker was nearby and not long after the Black worker had driven past him, the EEOC charged. Eureka Stone and JDM were aware of the racial harassment but failed to take action to stop it from occurring, thereby forcing the African American worker to resign his employment, according to the lawsuit.    

The EEOC filed the third racial harassment case against UFP Ranson, LLC, a lumber manufacturer located in Jefferson County, West Virginia. UFP Ranson is a subsidiary of UFP Industries, Inc., a publicly traded corporation headquartered in Michigan with approximately 170 facilities worldwide. According to the lawsuit, UFP Ranson subjected a class of Black workers to severe racial harassment in the form of racial epithets such as “n****r,” other racially offensive statements, and, in at least one instance, threats of violence involving firearms. The EEOC also charged that a manager at UFP Ranson deliberately sought to force African American workers to quit their jobs, and the company created more onerous working con­ditions for Black workers relative to their White peers. One African American worker who is Muslim was also sub­jected to religious harassment and was eventually subjected to racially discriminatory and retali­atory discharge, according to the lawsuit. The EEOC said that UFP Ranson was aware of the racially hostile work environment at its facility but failed to take action to stop it. The EEOC’s lawsuit seeks relief for a class of current and former Black workers at Ranson’s West Virginia facility.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial harassment and other race discrimination in employment, as well as religious harassment and retaliation for opposing such practices or participating in Title VII proceedings. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (U.S. EEOC v. Coastal Drilling East, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-01220-JFC); U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (U.S. EEOC v. Eureka Stone Quarry, Inc. & James D. Morrissey Inc., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-04060); and U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (U.S. EEOC v. UFP Ranson, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-00149-GMG), after first attempting to reach pre-litigation settlements through its conciliation process.

“Some people say that workplace racism in the United States has become more subtle, more covert, and perhaps less common than it was in decades past,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. “But those of us who enforce federal anti-discrimination laws everyday know that on-the-job racial bigotry has not gone underground. Rather, it remains a pervasive problem that exists out in the open to be seen by anyone who bothers to look. The EEOC will not tolerate racial discrimination in employ­ment and will continue its efforts to uncover and eradicate that stain on our national conscience.”

EEOC Philadelphia District Director Jamie Williamson said, “We Americans have just observed Labor Day, our annual national holiday that honors the contributions and dignity of workers. But to truly honor our workers, we must respect their legal rights every single day, including their right to be free from racial harassment and other forms of job discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposes a duty upon employers to exercise care each day to ensure that workers can perform their labor in an environ­ment free from racial harassment, and the EEOC will be here to ensure that employers carry out that duty.” 

The lawsuits were commenced by the EEOC’s Pittsburgh Area Office, one of four component offices of the agency’s Philadelphia District Office. The Philadelphia District Office has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. Attorneys in the Philadelphia District Office also prosecute discrimination cases in Washington, D.C. and parts of Virginia.

New England Fall: OSHA Spotlights Injury Prevention in Tree Trimming and Landscaping

The region that launched the American Revolution needs one when it comes to keeping workers safe when working with trees.

In Connecticut, a tree branch contacted a live high-voltage power line as a worker in an aerial lift cut it, electrocuting him. In Massachusetts, a falling tree branch struck and killed a worker cutting down oak trees, while a falling tree limb struck an elevated bucket lift, ejecting the worker whose fall was fatal. In nearby Rhode Island, a log conveyor rolled over a worker performing repairs, crushing and killing him.

These are among the 31 worker deaths in the tree trimming and removal, landscaping and site preparation industries since 2016 that the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration New England region has investigated. To reduce the risks workers in these industries face, OSHA’s Boston regional office has established a Regional Emphasis Program that combines enforcement and outreach with employers.

“The number of fatalities, injuries and uncontrolled hazards in the tree and landscaping industries in New England is alarming and unacceptable. These incidents are preventable with proper training and effective safety procedures,” said OSHA Acting Regional Administrator Jeffrey Erskine in Boston. “We are taking this action to raise awareness and improve worker safety in these industries. The emphasis program will focus on the industry’s major hazards – falls, struck-by objects, electrocution, and vehicular and traffic hazards.” 

OSHA inspections have identified occurrences such as workers falling from trees and aerial lifts, being struck by falling trees and tree limbs, electrocution or shock from contact with live electrical wires, suffering lacerations caused by saws and other equipment, sustaining injuries from vehicle collisions and being struck by or caught between mechanical equipment.

The program’s initial phase includes outreach to employers, workers and stakeholder groups by each OSHA area office in New England prior to commencing enforcement activities in November 2021. This outreach can include presentations, informational mailings, articles in trade newsletters and other activities. OSHA will then conduct programmed inspections of tree, landscape and site preparation worksites. OSHA inspectors will also be able to open inspections on the spot if they observe hazardous conditions while traveling past worksites in the course of their duties.

OSHA encourages industry employers to take steps to identify, reduce and eliminate hazards related to tree trimming and site preparation and implement safety strategies during the REP’s initial phase.

The agency urges employers to use its free On-Site Consultation Program for advice on complying with OSHA standards.

Regional Emphasis Programs are enforcement strategies, designed and implemented at the regional and/or area office levels, to address hazards or industries that pose a particular risk to workers in the offices’ jurisdictions. This REP is in effect until Aug. 4, 2026.