Good Bet: EEOC Recovers $720K from Vegas Casino Operator in Settlement of ADA Lawsuit

Like many a gambling debt, this situation spiraled out of control. First, the employer denied reasonable accommodations. This led to what amounted to coerced resignations because some employees believed they had no better option than to quit their jobs. Then the employer compounded the problem by alleging retaliating against the employees who complained about the accommodation denials.

Enter the federal government.

LDTG Las Vegas, LLC; Fifth Street Gaming, LLC; and DTG Las Vegas Manager, LLC, which operate the Downtown Grand Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, will pay $720,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. The EEOC also charged the company with unlawfully retaliating against employees who sought their rights to reasonable accommodations.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, since at least 2018, Downtown Grand Hotel & Casino engaged in numerous instances of discrimination against employees, including failing to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and terminating an employee with colon cancer because he wore an ostomy bag. This failure to accommodate left some employees with no choice but to quit, the EEOC alleged.

The agency further maintained that the company retaliated against employees who made requests for accommodations or who sought to enforce their rights under federal law through the EEOC, by subjecting them to undesirable working conditions and discipline, including termination.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discriminating against workers with a disability. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Case No. Case No.: 2:23-cv-00510), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to providing monetary relief, Downtown Grand Hotel & Casino has agreed to put in place measures that will address and prevent disability discrimination in the workplace. These measures include designating an external equal opportunity monitor to ensure compliance with the ADA and the provisions of the consent decree; instituting effective mechanisms for handling reasonable accommodation requests, as well as complaints of disability discrimination in the workplace; and providing training for managers and employees with respect to disability antidiscrimination laws. The decree will remain under the court’s jurisdiction for three years.

“The ADA protects workers with disabilities from discrimination and guarantees them the right to a reasonable accommodation in order to ensure their equal access to employment,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, which includes Las Vegas in its jurisdiction. “This case demonstrates the EEOC’s commitment to enforcing these rights, including in the hospitality industry.”

Michael Mendoza, local director of the Las Vegas office, said, “The EEOC will continue to vigorously investigate and pursue cases under the ADA, to uphold the law and protect the rights of disabled employees.”

For more information about disability discrimination, visit the EEOC’s website at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-disability-related-resources. More information about retaliation can be found at https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation.

Pig Farm Tolerated Harassment of Trans Employee, Got so Bad She Quit, EEOC Alleges

[My thanks to Jon Hyman for including this blog post in his list of must-read blogs in his April 5 roundup for the Ohio Employer Law Blog]

If you allow your employees to harass an employee who has transitioned to another gender, prepare to be sued.

Sis-Bro, Inc., a hog farm in New Athens, Illinois, violated federal law when it allowed an employee to be harassed because of her sex and gender identity, forcing her to quit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed March 28.

According to the lawsuit, the targeted employee, who was a high performer, began her transition in 2018. From that time, Sis-Bro’s co-owner made frequent, derogatory comments about the targeted employee’s gender identity; the co-owner refused to call the targeted employee by her name and referred to her by her former name; repeatedly told her she was “a guy”; and criticized her use of employer-provided health insurance and leave for gender affirming care.

Further, Sis-Bro failed to stop aggressive sexual harassment by a fellow employee. Beginning in October 2020, a newly hired employee exposed his genitals to the targeted employee, touched her breasts on one occasion, attempted to touch her breasts on other occasions and made frequent unwanted comments and sexual advances towards her. Much of this behavior occurred openly in the presence of other employees. Sis-Bro did not have a policy for reporting harassment. Despite this, at least one employee reported the harassment to the co-owner, but the co-owner did not take any steps to address the harassment. This behavior continued until the targeted employee was forced to quit.

Such alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex. Harassment based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by the statute. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Sis-Bro, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-968) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, East St. Louis Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

“The investigation revealed that Sis-Bro Inc., through its co-owner, engaged in and failed to address severe and pervasive harassment over the course of years,” said EEOC Chicago District Director Amrith Kaur Aakre. “The EEOC is committed to ensuring transgender individuals are protected from harassment and other discrimination in the workplace.”

Greg Gochanour, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, said, “Transgender workers, like all workers, deserve to have a safe workplace free from harassment. Employers have the responsibility to prevent and address harassment based on gender identity, but the EEOC is ready to enforce federal law when they fail to do so.”

For more information on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-sogi-discrimination. For more information on harassment, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment.

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is charged with enforcing federal employment discrimination laws in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa.

Employer Settles Multiple Complaints With EEOC Stemming From Alleged Harassment of Women

The alleged harassment was only the first of several civil rights violations, the government charged.

Tapco Inc, a manufacturer and molder of farm equipment in Bridgeton, Missouri, agreed to conciliate two federal discrimination charges alleging sexual harassment and constructive discharge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced October 26.

According to the charges, an employee with Tapco sexually harassed two female employees.

They complained to managers, but believed their complaints were not adequately addressed and eventually resigned. The female employees also alleged that they were unlawfully retaliated against for complaining about sexual harassment.

The EEOC investigated the allegations and found reasonable cause to believe that Tapco Inc violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment to their employer.

Without admitting liability, Tapco entered into a conciliation agreement with the EEOC; according to the agreement, the company will pay one former employee $46,750 and the other former employee $34,750. Additionally, Tapco agreed to continue to not discriminate or retaliate against employees on the basis of sex, distribute company policies and procedures related to workplace harassment, and conduct annual training for all employees and managers. The company will also post a notice to all employees about their rights under Title VII. The EEOC will monitor compliance with the agreement.

“With the successful conciliation of these charges of discrimination, we were able to further the EEOC’s mission to prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination and advance equal opportunity for all in the workplace,” said EEOC St. Louis District Director David Davis.

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

The EEOC’s St. Louis District Office has jurisdiction over Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma and several counties in Illinois.

EEOC: Employer Denied Women Driver Jobs

The civil rights violations didn’t stop there, the government alleges.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) September 30 announced that it filed suit against Gypsum Express, Ltd., headquartered in Baldwinsville, New York, for sex discrimination in hiring, as well as retaliation and constructive discharge involving two former recruiters. Gypsum Express, Ltd. provides truck-transportation services and currently has terminals in Pennysylvania, New York, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Illinois.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that since at least 2014, Gypsum Express has engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of hiring discrimination against female applicants for flatbed driver positions because of sex, including having a formal same-sex trainer/trainee policy for a period of time. The EEOC alleges the policy precluded recruiters from hiring inexperienced female applicants for driver positions because Gypsum Express did not employ any female trainers and was unwilling to pair female trainees with male trainers.

The EEOC further alleged that hiring officials, other management and supervisory employees, human resources personnel, and recruiters expressly stated sex-based criteria for flatbed driver positions.

The EEOC also charged that Gypsum Express subjected a former recruiter to retaliatory discharge for opposing the trucking company’s discriminatory hiring practices and forced another recruiter to engage in discriminatory hiring practices which adversely affected her terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, forcing her to quit.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits, among other things, using sex-based criteria in employment and retaliation against employees who oppose sex discrimination.

After first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process, the EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. Gypsum Express, Ltd., Case No. 2:22-cv-00119) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Covington Division.

The agency seeks lost wages, pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensatory damages, and punitive damages, as well as a permanent injunction and ongoing reporting and monitoring procedures to ensure that Gypsum Express complies with the law in the future.

“This case demonstrates the EEOC’s ongoing commitment to remedying class-wide sex discrimination and eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring,” said Kenneth Bird, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Indianapolis District Office. “Hiring must be based on the individual’s ability to do the job, regardless of sex.”

Michelle Eisele, director of the EEOC’s Indianapolis District Office, said, “Retaliation against employees who oppose discrimination they observe in the workplace cannot be tolerated. The EEOC is committed to seeking relief for workers who speak up against their employer’s discriminatory conduct.”

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

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.

Chipotle Store in Wash. Turned Blind Eye to Harassment of Female Employees, EEOC Alleges

If true, this eatery has some serious work to do to ensure a non-threatening work environment.

Fast food chain Chipotle Services LLC and Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., violated federal law by subjecting young female employees to egregious and ongoing sexual harassment from October 2019 to June 2020, severe enough to force two employees to leave their jobs, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed yesterday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Chipotle cultivated a toxic work environment when it allowed a male service manager and a male crew member to sexually harass several young female employees at its Sammamish store.

In 2019, a 29-year-old service manager began to target a 16-year-old worker with unwelcome sexual comments, touching, and requests for sex. After a different service manager reported her concerns with the 29-year-old service manager’s behavior, the general manager failed to investigate and instead warned the teen she could be fired for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with the service manager. The general manager continued to schedule the teen to work a closing shift with the alleged harasser. Eventually, the service manager sexually assaulted the teenage worker and began subjecting others to harassment.

In 2020, Chipotle management again failed to take appropriate action upon receiving complaints of sexual harassment regarding a 24-year-old crew member who made comments about the bodies of several workers and referred to them with unwelcome nicknames like “mama,” “sweetheart,” and “baby girl.” Chipotle agreed to investigate their complaints but permitted the alleged harasser to return to the workplace where he angrily confronted those who had complained about the harassment. Fearing for their safety because of Chipotle’s inaction, two workers quit.

Such conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to investigate and take prompt and effective steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. Chipotle Services, LLC and Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00279) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process. The EEOC seeks lost wages and monetary compensation for the emotional distress the workers suffered, punitive damages, and injunctive relief to ensure Chipotle’s workers have adequate protection from sexual harassment in the future.

“This case involves workers in their teens and early 20s. These are their first impressions they will they form about the workplace, and it is devastating when an employer permits sexual harassment to continue despite repeated complaints,” said Nancy Sienko, director for the EEOC’s San Francisco District, which includes Washington state. “We want to send a clear and opposing message: every worker has a right to a workplace free from sexual harassment, and the EEOC will hold employers accountable.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Carmen Flores said, “Teen workers comprise a large segment of the workforce in the fast food industry. Being new to the workplace and unfamiliar with their rights makes it that much harder for young workers to speak up against sexual harassment. The EEOC has made a priority of defending the civil rights of vulnerable workers such these young people, and will seek the full extent of legal relief on their behalf.”

The EEOC’s Select Task Force Report on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace provides a Chart of Risk Factors for Harassment and Responsive Strategies for ideas on how to reduce the risks of harassment given a young workforce and the isolation of closing or night shift.

Chipotle is a publicly traded restaurant chain with more than 2,500 locations across the United States, with corporate headquarters in Newport Beach, California.

The EEOC’s Seattle Field Office has jurisdiction over Western Washington.

Sour Taste: Ohio Restaurant on Hook for $75K in Settlement of EEOC Harassment Case vs. Owner

Another restaurant is in the soup over a male employee’s harassment of a female subordinate.

A Cincinnati-area restaurant group will pay $75,000 to a former employee and implement other relief to settle a federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced Tuesday.

According to the EEOC lawsuit, the male owner and chef of 3501 Seoul, LLC, SushiNati, LLC, and The Korea House, LLC subjected a female employee to unwelcome and offensive sexual harass­ment, including an offer of money in exchange for sex. The harassment culminated in a sexual assault of the employee and therefore became so intolerable that the employee was compelled to quit, the EEOC said.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964. The EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. 3501 Seoul, LLC, SushiNati, LLC, The Korea House, LLC, Civil Action No.1:20-cv-00277) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The two-year consent decree settling the suit requires payment of $75,000 to the harassment victim and signif­icant non-monetary relief designed to prevent further harassment. These include a letter of apology from the business owners to the harassment victim; implementation of record-keeping and anti-discrimination policies and procedures; creation of a telephone hotline for employee harassment complaints; and training for all employees, including management and the business owners, on the requirements of Title VII and its prohibition against harassment in the workplace. The companies must also establish robust investigation procedures and report all harassment complaints to the EEOC.

“The EEOC takes claims of sexual harassment very seriously and the agency is dedicated to ensuring that women are protected from unwelcome sexual conduct in the workplace,” said EEOC Indianapolis District Director Michelle Eisele.

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.

Egg on Their Face: Poultry Ranch Forks Over $93K to Settle Suit Involving Disabled Worker

Let’s hope this case resounds in the employer world so no employee with a disability will be treated this way again.

A Saranac, Michigan egg producer will pay $93,000 and provide other relief to settle a disability harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced yesterday. The EEOC charged that Herbruck Poultry Ranch, Inc. violated federal law by subjecting a worker to a hostile work environment because of her disability and by retaliating against her for complaining about the discriminatory treatment.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a disabled employee experienced frequent mocking by her supervisor and coworkers about her disability-related symptoms. The Commission further alleged that Herbruck failed to take adequate remedial measures in response to the harassment, retaliated against the worker for complaining about it, and constructively discharged her through escalating harassment, which included her supervisor’s following her into a bathroom and initiating a confrontation with the disabled employee on her last day at work.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which mandates that covered employers provide a workplace free of disability-based harassment and prohibits retaliation against disabled employees who complain of harassment. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids (Case No. 1:19-cv-00165) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the monetary relief, the two and a half-year consent decree resolving the suit provides for injunctive relief, revisions and amendments to Herbruck’s discrimination and harassment policies, and training for all employees on the requirements of the ADA.

“We are pleased with the relief provided by the consent decree,” said Dale Price, the EEOC attorney who handled the case. “The revised policies and training provide meaningful protections for the employees of Herbruck from disability-based harassment. With this resolution, Herbruck has taken a positive step towards protecting the rights of disabled employees in the workplace.”

The EEOC’s Detroit Field Office is part of the Indianapolis District Office, which oversees Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, and parts of Ohio. The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

EEOC: Retail Chain Flubbed Accommodation

Sometimes cheap is expensive, as this prominent beauty products chain may find out concerning its treatment of a store employee who had a disability.

Bath & Body Works, LLC, a national retail chain selling bath and beauty products violated federal law by refusing to consider a reasonable accommodation requested by an employee with a disability, and then constructively discharging her because of her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed September 26.

According to Julianne Bowman, district director for the EEOC’s Chicago District office, who supervised the investigation preceding the lawsuit, Jennifer Tvinnereim had worked in the store for a year, and earned a promotion as a Sales Lead. In February 2015, Tvinnereim requested a larger monitor at the cash register to accommodate vision issues she had related to diabetes, but she was simply sent home and had her hours reduced. Bath & Body Works’ corporate human resources department was contacted by Tvinnereim but did not try to provide the larger monitor. The store manager bought a cheap magnifying glass and humiliated Tvinnereim by presenting it to her in front of her co-workers.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires the employer to investigate and discuss an employee’s request for reasonable accommodations. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case, EEOC v. Impressions Incorporated, Civil Action No. 0:18-cv-02758, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, and was assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson. The government’s litigation effort will be led by Trial Attorney Patrick Connor and supervised by EEOC Associate Regional Attorney Jean P. Kamp.

“Employers must give serious consideration when an employee requests an accommodation for a disability,” said Greg Gochanour, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “Instead, Ms. Tvinnereim was sent home, had her hours reduced and then was humiliated when told to hold a cheap magnifying glass in front of customers as she used the cash register monitor.”

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

Moving Co. Hit With Racial Harassment Suit

This company isn’t a hospitable place for black employees, according to this lawsuit.

Arizona Discount Movers of Phoenix violated federal law by subjecting an African-American employee to racial harassment and forcing him to quit to escape the abuse, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed June 25.

In its suit, the EEOC charges that a supervisor at Arizona Discount Movers frequently made comments such as “white power,” “if you’re not white, you’re not right” and used the N-word to refer to employee Clinton Lee. The supervisor also told Lee to get out of a room because they were having a Klan meeting. At one point, a troll doll was painted black, a Post-it was affixed to the troll doll, which read “Clint Lee,” and the doll was hung in the middle of the facility. The EEOC says that despite Lee’s complaint about the troll doll, the company failed to take adequate action. This misconduct created an unlawfully hostile work environment for Lee, forcing him to resign to escape further mistreatment.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, including racial harassment. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (EEOC v. Arizona Discount Movers, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01966-HRH) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.

The lawsuit asks the court to order Arizona Discount Movers to provide Lee appropriate relief, including back wages, compensatory and punitive damages, and a permanent injunction enjoining the company from engaging in any further racially discriminatory practices. The EEOC also asks the court to order the company to institute and carry out policies and practices that will eradicate and prevent racial harassment there in the future.

“Racial harassment is never acceptable in any workplace,” said Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah. “The conduct that Clinton Lee suffered here is deeply disturbing and violates federal law. We are particularly concerned that he was subjected to language and conduct by his supervisors that attempts to assert white superiority over African-Americans. Employers and supervisors have a legal duty to create a safe workplace environment for their employees.”

EEOC District Director Elizabeth Cadle said, “The language and images that were aimed at Mr. Lee were crude, cruel and something no one should have to endure today. The EEOC is here to fight such malicious mistreatment of American employees.”

Harassment, Constructive Discharge Lawsuit Filed by EEOC Against Cal. Milk Tea Franchises

Another California employer is in the federal government’s legal crosshairs over its treatment of its female employees.

Tapioca Express, a South El Monte, Calif.-based milk tea franchise, and two of its franchisees violated federal law by subjecting female employees to sexual harassment and forcing some to quit because of the abuse, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced June 13.

According to the EEOC, the owner of two Tapioca Express franchisees in Chula Vista and National City, Calif., harassed female employees by inappropriately touching them and making repeated comments of a sexual nature. The EEOC said that the owner wrapped his arms around women, physic­ally pressed up against them, and made inappropriate comments about body attributes. Some female employees felt compelled to quit because of the escalating sexual harassment. The EEOC further charged that all three related defendant companies — Tapioca Express, Inc., Erivera Enterprise, LLC d/b/a Tapioca Express, and Edeleen, Inc. — failed to prevent and correct the harassing behavior notwithstanding myriad complaints.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination which is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (EEOC v. Tapioca Express, Inc., Erivera Enterprise, LLC d/b/a Tapioca Express, and Edeleen, Inc. d/b/a Tapioca Express, Case No. 3:18-cv-01217-MMA-BLM) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC’s suit seeks monetary damages for the class of victimized emp­loyees, as well as injunctive relief intended to prevent and correct discrimination.

“Sex harassment remains a persistent problem which requires all employers to ensure account­ability, training and leadership to promote a workplace free of harassment,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, which includes San Diego County in its jurisdiction.

Christopher Green, director of the EEOC’s San Diego Local Office added, “The #MeToo movement has brought awareness of how power imbalances in the workplace lend themselves to sexual harassment. Employers must understand that they are accountable for the abuse of their employees.”

According the company’s website, www.tapiocaexpress.com, Tapioca Express specializes in milk tea and other popular snacks from Asia, with stores in California, Nevada and Washington.

On Monday, the EEOC reconvened its Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace for a meeting at agency headquarters in Washington, D.C. Established in 2015, the task force concluded its work in June 2016 with the final report of its co-chairs, EEOC Commissioner Chai R. Feldblum and Commissioner and now-Acting Chair Victoria A. Lipnic. The report includes recommen­dations and resources regarding leadership, accountability, policies and procedures, training, and developing a sense of collective responsibility. Monday’s meeting delved into workplace harassment in light of the #MeToo movement, and discussed how employers can and have worked to better prevent and stop harassment.

Preventing workplace harassment through systemic litigation and investigation is also one of the six national priorities identified by the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).