Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in July 7, 2009 EEOC Press Release that a hotel will pay $90,000.00 under a consent decree to resolve a disability harassment lawsuit brought by the attorneys on behalf of a dvelopmentally disabled adult.  According to the Press Release, the EEOC lawsuit charged that the hotel violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by permitting two hotel supervisors to harass the employee because of his developmental disability.  More specifically, the EEOC charged that employee was repeatedly called retarded by his supervisors and the hotel terminated the disabled employee because of his disability.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-7-09.html .  The EEOC filed the lawsuit after an administrative investigation found reasonable cause to believe that the ADA had been filed, and after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through the agency’s conciliation process.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “The epithet directed at the employee in this case was offensive and derogatory - really, when you think about it, heartbreaking [and] there’s no room for such talk in today’s workplace - nor for putting employees on the street because of their disabilities.”  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC may be found in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether bias against developmentally challenged employees occurs in Houston, Irving, San Antonio or elsewhere, disabled victims of disability harassment may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a disability discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential disabled person harassment claim.

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in July 2, 2009 agency Press Release that the EEOC filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against a large construction company, alleging the company violated federal law by rescinding a conditional job offer to an applicant because it learned he had diabetes.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-2-09a.html .  According to the EEOC Press Release, once the company learned that the applicant had diabetes, it rescinded a job offer.  As the Press Release stated, it is a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act to refuse to hire an applicant based on his disability.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “The EEOC will take action when an employer unlawfully makes a hiring decision based on ill-founded stereotypes and biases against a person with a disability rather than on his proven ability to do the job.”  During Fiscal Year 2008, disability discrimination charges rose to 19,453 - an increase of 10% from the prior fiscal year.

Whether diabetes related disability discrimination occurs in Amarillo, Dallas, Lubbock or elsewhere, workplace victims of disability bias may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a disability discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential disability harassment claim.

National origin employment discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace discrimination based upon an employee’s national origin.  In this regard, EEOC attorneys announced in a July 13, 2009 EEOC Press Release that a property service company will pay $115,000.00 and furnish other relief to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit in which EEOC attorneys charged that Latino employees were discriminated against when the company disciplined them for being absent from work on May 1, 2006, the day of a “May Day” immigration rally.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-13-09.html .  According to the EEOC Press Release, the company had established a policy prohibiting its majority Latino workforce from attending the rally and three employees had either received pre-approval for their absence or had notified a supervisor in advance of their absences, none of which were related to the rally.  However, the EEOC charged that one employee had been suspended after his supervisor assumed he had missed work to attend the immigration rally while two additional former and current employees were also disciplined when the company subjected them to false assumptions based on stereotypes shaped by their national origin.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “The days when employers make decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions shaped by the race and national origin of their employees should be far behind us.” 

Whether employment discrimination against Latino or hispanic workers occurs in Amarillo, Lubbock, Wichita Falls or elsewhere, hispanic victims of employment discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a national origin discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential Latino discrimination claim.

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a July 13, 2009 agency Press Release that a construction company violated federal law by allegedly subjecting a male employee to sexual harassment.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-13-09a.html .  According to the EEOC Press Release, the sexual harassment lawsuit charges that the construction company allowed a male employee to be sexually harassed by his supervisor and that the supervisor subjected the victim to constant, extremely obscene comments, sexual innuendos and propositions, as well as implied physical threats, and abuse.  In addition, the Press Release stated that the alleged harassment was so pervasive that the victim began to be afraid that he might be sexually assaulted by his male supervisor.  Further, the EEOC said that the victim repeatedly complained about the treatment, but, at one point, was told, “This is a construction site; this kind of thing goes on all the time.”  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release commented that “This employer utterly failed in its obligation to protect this employee from sexual harassment, as required by law, causing needless harm to him [and] the EEOC is here to protect employees from such abuse in the workplace.”  In this regard, such alleged misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including sex discrimination and sexual harassment.  More information about the EEOC may be found in its website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether construction employment related sexual harassment occurs in Brownsville, Harlingen, Houston, McAllen or elsewhere, construction site victims of sex discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a sexual harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential sexual harassment claim.

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a July 10, 2009 agency Press Release that a mental health services provider has been sued for violating federal law when the company allegedly subjected its female employees to a sexually hostile work environment.  According to the EEOC Press Release, the company owner and president repeatedly asked a female employee to engage in sexual acts and attempted to kiss her.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-10-09.html .  As stated in the Press Release, the alleged harasser subjected women to unwelcome sexual comments, offensive touching and other sexually offensive conduct, and the total number of employees who were subjected to the sexually hostile work environment has yet to be established.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release said that “sexual harassment continues to permeate the American workplace [and] employers must take all steps necessary to ensure that employees have a work environment free from harassment.”  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, in including sex discrimination and sexual harassment.  Further information about the EEOC is available in its website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether sexual abuse of employees occurs in Amarillo, Lubbock, Wichita Falls or elsewhere, workplace victims of sexual misconduct may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a sexual harassment lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the potential hostile work environment claim.

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a July 7, 2009 Press Release that the federal agency sued a St. Louis construction company charging that the company violated federal law by firing one of its permanent construction employees because it regarded him as disabled as a result of his history of liver and kidney problems, including cancer.  According to the EEOC Press Release, the former employee was in good health and had been cleared to work by his doctor before he was fired but the company became aware of of his health history when he applied for the company’s health insurance coverage.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-7-09b.html .  As stated in the Press Release, Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and applicants who are disabled, have a record of disability or who are regarded as disabled.  EEOC attorneys filed the disability discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court.  In the lawsuit, relief is sought for back pay along with compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement and other injunctive relief.  Prior to filing of this lawsuit, EEOC attorneys made cancer related disability discrimination lawsuit announcements in other cases where cancer was a factor in the disability discrimination claim.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-12-09.html as well as another case found at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-1-09b.html .  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including disability discrimination.

Whether cancer related employment discrimination occurs in Baytown, Freeport, Port Lavaca or elsewhere, victims of cancer related disability bias may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a cancer discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential disability discrimination claim.

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a July 9, 2009 Press Release that a national employment agency chain has agreed to pay $250,000.00 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the federal agency.  According to the EEOC Press Release, the staffing company allegedly subjected a class of female employees in its Worcester, Massachusetts facility to unlawful job segregation on the basis of sex and then retaliated against one woman for complaining about it.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-9-09a.html .  The EEOC said that the company restricted women to a narrow range of assignments and complied with discriminatory requests from its clients for male only temporary employees.  The Acting Chairman of the EEOC was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “This settlement is a stark reminder to businesses: A customer’s preference to be staffed or served only by workers of a particular gender is never an excuse to engage in illegal sex discrimination.”  In this regard, such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment, and the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing the nation’s laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, gender (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability and retaliation. 

Whether job assignment segregation based on sex or gender occurs in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or elsewhere, victims of employment related sex discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential workplace sex segregation claim.

In a July 8, 2009 Press Release, the U.S. Department of Justice (”DOJ”) announced that a former police officer with the Jackson, Mississippi Police Department was sentenced for a civil rights violation for stealing money from a citizen during an off-duty encounter.  According to the DOJ Press Release, a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi sentenced the former police officer to a term of three years probation and six months home confinement with electronic monitoring (employment and employment training permitted).  See, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/July/09-crt-667.html .  In addition, he was ordered to pay a $1,500 fine and $100 restitution for the offense.  Further, the Judge ordered him to pay $100 in restitution to the victim.  As part of the plea agreement, the former officer, who was fired from the Jackson Police Department, has agreed not to work as a law enforcement officer for any federal, state or local law enforcement agency for three years.

In a July 9, 2009 Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice (”DOJ”) attorneys announced that they filed a lawsuit against the city of Milwaukee alleging it violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (”USERRA”) by refusing to provide an incumbent Milwaukee police officer with a make-up promotional examination for detective which he missed while away on active duty military service with the Air National Guard and thereby failing to properly determine his reemployment status as a police officer elegible for promotion to detective.  According to the DOJ Press Release, the officer was eventually promoted to detective based upon a subsequent promotional examination, but the DOJ contends that he is entitled to have his date for promotion to detective made retroactive, for all purposes, to the date he would have been promoted to detective had the city allowed him to take a make-up examination for the one he missed.  See, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/July/09-crt-670 .  As stated in the Press Release, USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees or applicants for employment because of their past, current or future military obligations, and, subject to certain conditions, USERRA also requires employers to promptly reemploy returning service members in the position they would have held had their employment not been interrupted by military service, or in a position of like status, seniority and pay.  The DOJ states that this protection includes opportunities for advancement.  This is the 18th USERRA lawsuit the Civil Rights Division has filed in 2009 on behalf of service members.  Addtional information about USERRA can be found in the DOJ’s website.

Whether employment related discrimination against military service members occurs in Brownsville, Harlingen, McAllen or elsewhere, victims of military leave discrimination may contact the DOJ and an attorney to determine if a USERRA lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

In a July 9, 2009 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) Press Release, EEOC attorneys announced the filing of a sexual harassment lawsuit against a nationwide optician chain, alleging that the company violated federal law by failing to address sexual harassment complaints from a male employee at one of its stores.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-9-09.html .  According to the EEOC Press Release, the EEOC charged in the lawsuit that the company subjected a male lab technician to a sexually hostile work environment in which he was repeatedly exposed to unwelcome sexual advances, comments and touching.  The lawsuit contends that a co-worker repeatedly touched him, including his private parts; would make lewd sexual comments; would frequently proposition him for sex; and make sexual displays toward him.  He allegedly complained about this abusive conduct, but his concerns were ignored.  As stated in the Press Release, such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Whether employment related sexual abuse occurs in Gonzales, Lockhart, Luling or elsewhere, victims of workplace sexual harassment may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential sexual harassment claim.