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.

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.”

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.

EEOC: Fla. Contractors Condoned Racism

Think racism is gone in the workplace? Think again.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) September 30 announced that it has filed two separate race discrimination lawsuits – one against Alto Construction Co. Inc., a site development and asphalt paving construction company based in the Tampa area, and another against J.A. Croson, LLC, a plumbing and HVAC contracting company based in the Orlando area.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against Alto, its management regularly used the N-word in front of Black employees. Specifically, the complaint alleges that a white site supervisor told a Black employee that “we say the N-word here a lot” and, despite the employee’s objections, the site supervisor continued to use the N-word on a daily basis. The complaint also alleges that a white division manager humiliated the Black employee by ramming a shovel from the back between his legs. The Black employee objected to the assault and, in response, was fired later that day.

In a completely separate action, the EEOC filed suit against J.A. Croson. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, company management routinely used derogatory slurs in reference to non-white employees. For example, management referred to Black employees by the N-word, “boy,” “biscuit lips,” and “African bastards.” They referred to Hispanic workers as “stupid Mexicans,” “wetbacks,” and “these f–ing Puerto Ricans,” among other things. The EEOC further alleged that J.A. Croson referred to non-white employees as “non-essential” and “useless,” and assigned them the least desirable work tasks. When non-white employees complained of the racial discrimination, J.A. Croson fired them.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed its suits against Alto (Civil Action No. 8:22-cv-02238) and J.A. Croson (Civil Action No. 5:22-cv-00435) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlements through its concili­ation process.

“Title VII makes workplace racial harassment unlawful and provides no exemption for the con­struction industry,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Robert E. Weisberg. “We will continue to prosecute claims against employers including those in the construction industry that permit racism, especially by managers, to go unchecked.”

Evangeline Hawthorne, the EEOC’s Tampa Field Office director, added, “We hope these lawsuits will send a message that the EEOC will aggressively investigate employers engaged in race discrimination or retaliation toward members of their workforce – and bring legal proceed­ings against them when it is necessary.”

The two lawsuits charge the companies with discriminating and retaliating against construction workers based on race. These lawsuits again bring to the forefront and underscore the EEOC’s commit­ment to addressing race discrimination in the construction industry.

On May 17, 2022, the EEOC held a hearing that examined the severe and pervasive discrimination in the construction industry, including against people of color. The EEOC is committed to combating discrimination in the construction industry. To learn more, visit https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-shines-spotlight-discrimination-and-opportunities-construction.

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

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.

EEOC: Broadcaster Underpaid Black Employee

Firing her for complaining compounded the employer’s legal troubles, the EEOC says.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. violated federal law when it discriminated against an employee because of her race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed September 29.

According to EEOC’s lawsuit, Sinclair subjected an analyst, a Black woman who worked for the company in Cockeysville, Maryland, to race discrimination when it underpaid her and forced her out of her job. Sinclair treated other employees who are not Black more favorably, including paying them more to perform similar work, the agency charged. After the analyst opposed the pay discrimin­ation and reported it to Sinclair, the company refused to remedy the disparity, thus compelling her to resign, according to the lawsuit.

 Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits dis­crimination based on race. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02477) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Sinclair from discriminating against employees because of race in the future; lost wages; compensatory and punitive damages; and other relief.

 “The EEOC is committed to enforcing Title VII’s prohibition against pay discrimination because of race,” said Rosemary Rhodes, director of the Baltimore Field Office of the agency’s Philadelphia District.

Philadelphia District Office Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence said, “Engaging in race-based pay discrimination is a violation of federal law. The EEOC is committed to eradicating discriminatory pay, including pay practices that disadvantage Black women.”

The EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. The legal staff of the EEOC also prosecutes discrimination cases in Washington, D.C. and parts of Virginia.

EEOC: Sales Rep Retaliated Against

Is retaliating against a discrimination complaint ever worth the legal risk?

Wisconsin-based Dental Health Products, Inc. (DHP), a nationwide provider of supplies and equipment to dental practices, violated federal law by firing a sales represent­ative based in McAllen, Texas because she made a complaint to human resources alleging sex-based discrim­ination and harass­ment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the sales representative made a written complaint to DHP’s human resources department alleging that her manager was discriminating against her because of her sex after he reassigned her clients to a male salesperson. She also said the employer was creating a very hostile work environment for her. DHP fired the sales representative less than one day later, the EEOC said, in retaliation for opposing what she believed to be unlawful discrimination.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case, EEOC v. Dental Health Products, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:22-cv-00994, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. ­­The EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and appropriate injunctive relief to prevent similar discriminatory practices in the future.

“A manager may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise retaliate against an individual for filing a complaint of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination based on sex,” said Philip Moss, a trial attorney with the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office.

Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC in Dallas, added, “If employees learn that a co-worker has suffered an adverse employment action for stepping forward to challenge what they understand may be discrimination in the workplace, others may not want to take that kind of a risk. The EEOC enforces the law with a focus on thawing that chilling effect.”

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

The San Antonio Field Office is part of the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, which is responsible for processing charges of discrimination and the conduct of agency litiga­tion in Texas and parts of New Mexico.

Employer, Staffer Sued Over Hiring Practices

Sometimes employers and recruiters team up in bad ways.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against the national staffing agency BaronHR, LLC and Radiant Services Corporation, a commercial laundry facility that serves the hospitality industry in Southern California, for discriminatory denial of employment based on race, national origin, and sex, the federal agency announced Sept. 13.

The EEOC charged that since 2015, BaronHR and Radiant failed to recruit, refer, and hire Black, Asian, and White applicants for low-skill positions. The EEOC further alleged that Radiant requested only female applicants for certain “light” job positions, and only male applicants for “heavy” job positions. BaronHR acquiesced by recruiting and referring applicants based solely on their sex, the EEOC said.  

Finally, the EEOC alleges that BaronHR required that applicants have no medical conditions or history of injury. BaronHR’s unlawful hiring criteria excluded qualified individuals with disabilities, perceived disabilities, or a record of a disability.

The EEOC investigated BaronHR and Radiant following Commissioner’s Charges alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibit discrimination in recruitment and hiring. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-06517) in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Staffing agencies and employers have a dual-employer relationship, which makes both responsible for ensuring a discrimination-free workplace,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the Los Angeles District Office. “Preferential hiring has no place in the workforce and acquiescing to such requests extends liability from the employer to the staffing agency.”

Acting Los Angeles District Director Christine Park-Gonzalez said, “Screening out qualified job applicants based on sex, race, national origin or disability is prohibited under federal law. The EEOC is here to ensure that job applicants and workers are protected from such injustices in the workplace.”

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, especially class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate against racial, ethnic and religious groups, older workers, women, and people with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

For more information about race and color discrimination, visit the EEOC’s website at https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination; for information on sex discrimination: https://www.eeoc.gov/sex-based-discrimination; for information on national origin discrimination: https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination; and for information on disability discrimination: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-disability-related-resources.

On the Menu: Ark., Texas Restaurants Permitted Harassment of Teen Workers, EEOC Alleges

This was cross-border harassment of vulnerable employees, the government charged.

Two Chili’s Grill & Bar Restaurants in Arkansas and Texas subjected female employees, including teens, to sexually hostile work environments in violation of federal law, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged in lawsuits filed in Little Rock and Dallas Monday.

Brinker Arkansas, Inc., doing business as Chili’s Grill & Bar in Benton, Ark., violated federal law when it subjected a class of female teens to sexual harassment, the EEOC charged. The sexual harassment, committed by a 33-year old male cook, involved several physical assaults and forced one of the victims to resign.

The EEOC also charges that in Prosper, Texas, just outside of Dallas, Brinker International Payroll Company, L.P., also doing business as Chili’s Grill & Bar, violated federal law on the same basis. The primary sexual harasser in that case was a 36-year-old male employee who grabbed and touched a female employee from behind and made vulgar sexual comments to her in both English and Spanish. The Texas lawsuit also charges that a number of other male cooks and other hourly employees repeatedly made sexual remarks about teen employees. 

According to both EEOC lawsuits, the restaurants hired teens, failed to train the teens on their anti-harassment policy, and failed to monitor the workplace to provide a safe working environment. Both restaurants failed to take proper action when teens complained about sexual assaults on the job. One restaurant continued to schedule a teen to work shifts with the alleged harasser. Both restaurants failed to conduct any onsite investi­gation, instead relying on offsite “Team Member Relations” employees who failed to investigate adequately.

“The EEOC is committed to protecting younger workers from unlawful harassment and workplace discrimination,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. “Teen workers are particularly vulnerable to harassment because they may not fully understand their workplace rights and often lack the ability or self-confidence to resist unwelcome conduct.”

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suits in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00820-KGB­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ and in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-02017-E, after first attempting to reach pre-litigation settlements through its conciliation process. The suits seek monetary relief in the form of back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits, as well as injunctive remedies requiring more effective policies and procedures for training, reporting and investiga­tions to ensure workers have adequate protection from sexual harassment in the future.                

Edmond Sims, acting district director of the EEOC’s Memphis District, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi, said, “Sexual harassment of young women in the restaurant industry remains a persistent and serious problem. Combating this has long been a priority of the EEOC.”

Alexa Lang, trial attorney in the EEOC’s Dallas District, added, “Employers who regularly hire teenage employees working their first jobs have a heightened responsi­bility to keep those employees safe. It is unaccept­able that these young women’s first experience in the workforce was mired in sexual harassment.”

The EEOC’s Youth@Work website (at http://www.eeoc.gov/youth/ ) presents information for teens and other young workers about employment discrimination, including curriculum guides for students and teachers and videos to help young workers learn about their rights and responsibilities.

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

EEOC Alleges Restaurant Allowed Harassment and It Retaliated When the Victim Complained

This shouldn’t be allowed at any restaurant–or any workplace.

Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware corporation operating in Greensboro, North Carolina, violated federal law when it subjected a female employee to a sexually hostile work environment and then retaliated against her for complaining about it, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Wednesday.

According to the EEOC’s suit, a female team member at a Bojangles fast food restaurant in Greensboro was sexually harassed from March 2020 to June 2020. The EEOC charges that during that time period, the restaurant’s general manager made numerous sexual remarks to the employee and inappropriately touched and grabbed the employee. The EEOC’s lawsuit further charges that after complaining about the general manager’s conduct, the employee was denied the opportunity to participate in a management training program and was transferred to a different location as retaliation.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose sexual harassment. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission v. Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., Civil Action No.: 1:22-cv-00739) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future harassment and retaliation in the workplace.

EEOC: Care Facility Allowed Harassment of Blacks by White Patients and Residents

No, patients can’t be permitted to spew hate and venom toward staff members.

98 Starr Road Operating Co., LLC, doing business as Elderwood at Burlington, a large long-term care facility located in Burlington, Vermont, violated federal law by allowing black nurses and nurse assistants to be subjected to ongoing and egregious racial harassment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, starting in 2020, certain White patients/residents of Elderwood repeatedly directed offensive racial slurs at Elderwood’s Black nurses and nurse assistants, including “n—-r”, “coon”, “monkey” and “Black b—–s.” One patient repeatedly told Black employees to “go back to Africa”; followed Black employees throughout the facility so as to racially berate them; and physically assaulted Black employees because of their race.

The EEOC charged that despite Elderwood’s managers and supervisors witnessing some of these incidents and despite numerous complaints about the race harassment lodged to manage­ment by the Black nurses and nurse assistants, Elderwood told the Black employees that its residents could say what they wanted at the facility. In response to one complaint by a Black nurse, an Elderwood manager told her that she should be used to being the target of racial slurs because she “is from the South.”

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race. Race harassment is a form of race discrimination that is prohibited by the statute.

The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont (EEOC v. 98 Starr Road Operating Co., LLC, d/b/a Elderwood at Burlington, 2:22-cv-00168), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the agency’s conciliation process. The EEOC seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for the affected employees, and injunctive relief to remedy and prevent future workplace racial harassment.

“Federal law requires that an employer take prompt and effective remedial action to prevent race harassment of its employees in the workplace, including where the harassers are patients or customers,” said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office. “Here, Black employees were subjected to ongoing racial abuse for months on end without any effective response by Elderwood. Such misconduct is clearly unlawful, and the EEOC is here to stop it.”

Timothy Riera, acting director of the New York District Office, added, “Racial harass­ment in the workplace is never acceptable, no matter who engages in the harassment. This har­assment was especially grotesque, and should have been addressed quickly but was allowed to continue. An employer cannot ignore egregious racial harassment simply because the harassers are long-term care facility residents.”

The EEOC’s New York District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, northern New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont. The agency’s Boston Area Office conducted the investigation resulting in this lawsuit.