Hairy Situation: Job Applicant Was Refused Hiring Because of Dreadlocks, EEOC Alleges

Closing 2022 with this lawsuit charging an employer with religious discrimination.

The Williamsburg Hometown IGA violated federal discrimination law by refusing to hire a job applicant because of his Spiritualist Rastafarian dreadlocks hairstyle, the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed on December 27.

The EEOC’s lawsuit (Case No. 6:22-cv-00235 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, London Division) alleges that Houchens Food Group, Inc. doing business as Hometown IGA, refused to hire Matthew Barnett because of his hairstyle. Barnett applied for a Hometown IGA Assistant Manager position, but when interviewed by Hometown IGA management staff, he was informed that he would need to cut his dreadlocks to work at the grocery. Barnett replied that his dreadlocks are worn for his religious beliefs and he would not cut them. The interview immediately concluded, and Hometown IGA refused to hire him. 

Religious discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to attempt to make a reasonable accommodation to sincere religious beliefs and practices. The EEOC filed suit after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

“No employee or applicant should have to choose between their religion and their job,” said EEOC Indianapolis District Director Michelle Eisele.

EEOC Regional Attorney Ken Bird added, “Employers must consider reasonable accommodations, as necessary, which allow employees and applicants to hold jobs without sacrificing their religious beliefs.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination. For more information on personal grooming as it relates to religious protections in the workplace, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/religious-garb-and-grooming-workplace-rights-and-responsibilities.

The case is being litigated by the Louisville Area Office, which is part of the EEOC’s Indianapolis District, with jurisdiction over Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and parts of Ohio.

Hospitable: Red Roof Inns Pays $43K to Extricate From ADA Suit Over Blind Employee’s Treatment

Telling any employee they are wasting their time by seeking a promotion–let alone a blind person–isn’t a good strategy.

Red Roof Inns, Inc. (Red Roof) will pay $43,188.00 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced December 27.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Red Roof failed to provide an employee who is blind working in its Contact Center in Springfield, Ohio, with a reasonable accommodation so that he could participate in an information seminar to learn more about a promotional opportunity in its Online Connectivity department. The lawsuit further alleged that Red Roof denied the employee the opportunity to compete for, or hold, the vacant position because of his disability or need for reasonable accommodation, telling the employee it would be a waste of his time to apply for the position because his visual impairment could not be accommodated.

Such conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations that enable disabled employees to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment and perform the essential functions of the job they hold or desire. The ADA also prohibits employers from failing to promote or hire disabled applicants or employees because of their disability or the need to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-381) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.

In addition to providing the now former employee $43,188 in monetary relief, the sixteen-month consent decree settling the suit permanently enjoins Red Roof from failing to provide reasonable accommodations that enable disabled employees to perform the essential functions of their jobs; failing to provide reasonable accommodations that enable disabled employees to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment; and failing to promote or hire disabled applicants or employees because of disability or the need to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Additionally, Red Roof must provide comprehensive ADA training to its vice president of Distribution Services, vice president of Human Resources, and managers, supervisors and human resources personnel who make employment decisions pertaining to the Online Connectivity department. Red Roof is also subject to notice posting, compliance monitoring and periodic reporting to the EEOC.

“It is essential that managers, supervisors and human resources personnel are properly trained regarding their obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including their duty to engage in the interactive process with their disabled employees about reasonable accommodation needs,” said EEOC Indianapolis District Director Michelle Eisele.

EEOC’s Indianapolis Regional Attorney, Ken Bird, added, “Employers have the duty under the ADA to reasonably accommodate disabled individuals. Employers may not refuse to hire an applicant for a job because of the need to provide a reasonable accommodation.”

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

The case was litigated by the Louisville Area Office, which is part of the EEOC’s Indianapolis District, with jurisdiction over Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and parts of Ohio.

Piping Inspection Co. Out $250K in Settlement With EEOC Over Harassment, Retaliation Lawsuit

A reminder that letting harassment go unchecked can come at a great cost.

American Piping Inspection, Inc. (API), an Oklahoma-based testing and piping inspection services company, agreed to pay $250,000 and to provide other substantial equitable relief to resolve a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced December 23.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a Black radiographer hired to work out of API’s Midland, Texas office was subjected to racist remarks by his supervisor, beginning his first day on the job and continuing throughout his employment at API. The supervisor, who was white, used the “N-word” to refer to the radiographer and to other minority employees. He also made highly offensive racist “jokes” in the presence of the radiographer and other employees. Despite the radiographer complaining to API’s vice president, the company took no corrective action. Instead, the defendant’s Midland management subjected the radiographer to harsher discipline compared to other non-Black radiographers. It then fired him, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race and retaliation. The EEOC filed suit (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Piping Inspection, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-3187) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, after first attempting to reach pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $250,000 in monetary relief, the three-year consent decree approved by the federal court requires API to revise its anti-discrimination policies and to distribute them to its employees and new hires. The decree requires API to provide all its managers and human resources personnel training on the prohibition of race discrimination and retaliation to ensure they know their legal obligation to prevent, address, and remedy workplace discrimination. The decree also requires API to post a discrimination notice and EEO posters at all its worksites and submit to the EEOC periodic compliance reports. The court will retain authority to enforce the terms of the decree for its duration.

“This case is a strong reminder that unlawful race discrimination and retaliation continue to permeate our workplaces,” said Rudy Sustaita, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Houston District Office. “Other employers should take heed and review their practices and policies to ensure compliance with federal law. Otherwise, the EEOC will enforce the law against violators and seek redress for aggrieved employees.”

Houston District Office Senior Trial Attorney Claudia Molina-Antanaitis said, “Racial slurs, comments, and other workplace harassment are not only illegal, deeply hurtful to the individual employee, but also poisons the work environment. Employers must take prompt and fair corrective action, as the law requires, in response to all harassment complaints.”

For more information on race and color discrimination, including harassment, and retaliation, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination and https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation.

Retailer Forks Over $37K to Resolve EEOC Charge Over Firing of Employee After Childbirth

Make sure to evaluate employees on their merits-not on discredited stereotypes.

Fashion retailers Sage Boutique, LLC, and Just Because – Washington, LLC, located in Hayden, Idaho, and Newport, Washington, respectively, have agreed to pay a former employee $37,000 and furnish other relief to resolve a discrimination charge filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced December 21.

Following a federal investigation by the agency’s Seattle Field Office, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe the social media manager had been fired due to concerns for her “postpartum reliability” and despite a positive record of performance and attendance prior to her pregnancy.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits discrimination against employees because of pregnancy.

Through the agency’s voluntary conciliation process, the parties were able to reach a pre-litigation settlement for compensatory damages and other injunctive relief, including the implementa­tion of policies, procedures and trainings designed to enhance accountability and oversight of managers and employees and help prevent future discrimination.

“Under federal law, it is illegal for employers to make employment decisions based on stereotypes that assume a pregnant employee’s job performance will simply decline after the child is born,” said Elizabeth M. Cannon, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “We commend Sage Boutique and Just Because Fashions for engaging in the conciliation process and taking affirmative steps to prevent future discrimination.”

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

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

Strengthened Pregnancy Accommodation Protections Included in Omnibus Funding Bill

Congress has finally leveled the playing field for pregnant workers.

Tucked into the omnibus funding bill heading for President Biden’s signature is the new Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Under the new law (H.R. 2694), private sector employers with 15 or more employees as well as public sector employees must make reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers (employees and job applicants with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions) unless an undue hardship would result. The law also says that pregnant workers cannot be denied employment opportunities, retaliated against for requesting a reasonable accommodation, or forced to take paid leave or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation is available. Workers denied a reasonable accommodation will have the same rights and remedies as those established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including lost pay, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees. Public sector employees can seek relief similar to that available under the Congressional Accountability Act and the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991.

The law is designed in part to shore up protections under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The Supreme Court’ ruled in 2015 in Young v. UPS that pregnant workers may bring reasonable accommodation claims under the PDA. However, Congress found that two-thirds of cases after Young ruled against pregnant workers who were seeking accommodation.

For more on the law, see the fact sheet from the House Committee on Education & Labor.

Car Parts Maker Hit With $298K Fine For Safety Infractions Revealed During OSHA Inspection

All any worker should want for Christmas is a safe workplace. They didn’get it here.

A federal workplace safety investigation found that a Kyle vehicle parts manufacturer ignored repeated concerns raised by workers, and willfully exposed them to hazards related to unsafe machine operations, potential falls and a lack of personal protective equipment.

An inspection by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration that began in June 2022 at Simwon NA Corp. identified one willful violation for failing to control hazardous energy to prevent sudden machine startups. The agency also issued more than a dozen serious citations for the company’s failures to follow required machine safety procedures; provide procedures for safe entry into permit required confined spaces; prevent workers’ exposure to slips, trips and fall hazards; provide workers with required safety equipment; and provide procedures for safe crane operations.

OSHA has proposed $298,338 in penalties for the company.

“OSHA found that – despite concerns voiced by its workers – Simwon NA Corp. ignored serious safety issues, putting its workers at risk,” said OSHA Area Director Casey Perkins in Austin, Texas. “The company must act quickly to comply with federal safety standards before an employee suffers serious injury or worse.” 

A subsidiary of the Myung Shin Industries Co. Ltd. in South Korea, Simwon NA Corp. supplies doors for vehicles built at Tesla’s Giga Texas factory in Austin.

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.

Learn about controlling hazardous energy and workers’ rights to file a complaint with OSHA.

EEOC Sues Employer Over Job Withdrawal to Applicant Because of Possible Drug Side Effects

You can’t just reflexively take a job offer away because the applicant takes prescription medications.

Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC agreed to pay $49,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced December 19.

Outokumpu, a global stainless-steel producer, employs more than 900 persons at its Calvert, Alabama facility. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Outokumpu offered a qualified applicant a position as an entry operator in its melt shop contingent on the applicant passing a physical examination and drug screening by Occupational Health Center (OHC), a third-party company that conducts pre-employment health screenings. According to the EEOC, the OHC examiner identified possible side effects of a prescription anxiety medication the applicant sometimes took, and then Outokumpu withdrew the applicant’s job offer.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from discriminating against job applicants based on a disability, including practices that screen out or tend to screen out individ­uals with disabilities from employment. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00521, S.D. Ala.) in federal court in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama after its Birmingham District Office completed an investigation and after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement during its voluntary conciliation process.

“An employer is required under the ADA to ensure that any post-offer, pre-employment medical screening is an individualized assessment of the applicant, even when that exam is carried out by a third-party medical provider,” said Bradley Anderson, district director of the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office. “Employers may not rely on assumptions to medically screen out qualified applicants, but, instead, must consider whether a reasonable accommodation would permit the applicant to perform the job.”

Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office, added, “Before disqualifying an applicant or employee based on a disability-related medication, an employer should determine whether use of the medication poses an actual, not merely possible, safety issue. This requires consideration of the most current medical knowledge or best available objective evidence, often including discussion with the applicant or employee or the prescribing physician, to determine how the medication affects the applicant and whether it actually causes any unsafe side effects during working hours.”

Under the two-year consent decree settling the suit, Outokumpu will pay $49,000 to the applicant it rejected, develop or revise policies and procedures to prevent disability discrimin­ation, and train its management and human resources employees on these polices and the ADA.

Outokumpu must also require its medical providers to undergo training on the require­ments under the ADA for an individualized assessment in pre-employment medical examina­tions. In addition, Outokumpu must require its medical provider to give written instructions to any applicant found not medically qualified regarding the applicant’s rights under the ADA, including the right to a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC will monitor Outokumpu’s compliance for the duration of the decree.

The EEOC’s Birmingham District Office enforces federal employment civil rights laws throughout Alabama, Mississippi (except 17 northern counties), and the Florida Panhandle.

More information about disability discrimination is available at Disability Discrimination and Employment Decisions | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov).

EEOC: Hospital Denial of Religious Exemption From Flu Vaccine Policy Was Title VII Violation

The employer lacked justification for denying an exemption after previously granting it, the feds charged.

Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta (CHOA), a pediatric healthcare system in Georgia, violated federal law when it fired a maintenance assistant for requesting a religious exemption to its influenza vaccination policy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed December 16.

According to the EEOC’s suit, the maintenance employee, in accordance with CHOA’s procedures, requested a religious exemption to CHOA’s flu vaccination requirements based on sincerely held religious beliefs. CHOA had previously granted the employee a religious exemption in 2017 and 2018. In 2019, however, CHOA denied the employee’s request for a religious accommodation and fired him, despite the employee’s extremely limited interaction with the public or staff.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits firing an employee because of his religion and requires that sincerely held religious beliefs be accommodated by employers. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-4953 MLB RDC) 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, front pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future discrimina­tion.

“It would not have been an undue burden for CHOA to continue accommodating its employee as it had in 2017 and 2018,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “Instead, CHOA inexplicably changed its stance on flu vaccination exemptions for this maintenance employee in 2019 and failed to consider any meaningful reasonable accommodations for his sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office, said, “Religion is defined to include all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, and the EEOC stands ready to enforce an employer’s statutory obligation to reasonably accommodate the religious observances and practices of its employees where doing so would not be an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

Night Moves: Manufacturer Settles EEOC Lawsuit Over Refusal to Hire Women to Work Late Shift

Is there a valid reason why women can’t work the night shift?

Qualtool, Inc., a Tavares, Florida tool manufacturing company, will pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced December 16.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Qualtool refused to accept applications from or hire women who sought positions on the evening shift because of their sex.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from considering sex when making hiring decisions. The EEOC filed its suit (Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-229) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $50,000 in monetary relief, the five-year consent decree settling the suit requires Qualtool to develop and distribute a written policy against discrimination and to conduct anti-discrimination training. Qualtool must also post a notice at its worksite about the lawsuit and submit written reports twice a year to the EEOC.

“Unfortunately, some employers continue to rely on antiquated stereotypes about women to make hiring decisions,” said EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Robert E. Weisberg. “The EEOC is here to remedy such misconduct.”

The director of the EEOC’s Miami District Office, Evangeline Hawthorne, warned, “Employers cannot shut people out of jobs based on sex. The EEOC remains steadfast in its commitment to take legal action against those who engage in such unlawful hiring practices.”

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

The EEOC’s Miami District Office is comprised of the Miami, Tampa and San Juan EEOC offices, and has jurisdiction over Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

N.J. McDonald’s Out $100K in ADA Settlement

Respecting of rights shouldn’t depend on who owns the company.

JDKD Enterprises, L.P., a Sewell, New Jersey limited partnership that owns and operates numerous McDonald’s franchises in New Jersey, will pay $100,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced December 16.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, JDKD Enterprises fired an employee who worked at several McDonald’s restaurants for 37 years because of his autism spectrum disorder. The employee’s per­formance remained excellent throughout his decade-long employment at the Deptford, New Jersey McDonald’s, receiving numerous awards and accolades acknowledging his excellent job performance. However, two months after JDKD Enterprises, L.P., assumed ownership of this McDonald’s, it abruptly terminated the grill cook.

Such conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions based on an individual’s disability or need for accommodations. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-16441) in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.

In addition to providing the former employee $100,000 in monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit provides for systemic relief intended to prevent further disability discrimination, periodic reporting to the EEOC, and training for all management personnel in responding to reasonable accommodation requests.

“The ADA protects people with autism spectrum disorder, and the EEOC is absolutely committed to aggressively enforcing the ADA requirement that employers reasonably accommodate their workers with disabilities absent undue hardship,” said Debra Lawrence, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office.

EEOC Philadelphia District Director Jamie Williamson added, “Ensuring that all employees, especially management, are properly trained regarding their obligations under the ADA – including their duty to engage in good faith, diligent communications with their disabled employees about accommo­dation needs – is a smart business practice and the right thing to do. Leadership means stewardship of an organization’s most valuable asset – its people.”

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

The EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office is one of four offices in the Philadelphia District, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, 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.