A Houston based concrete company will pay $135,000 to settle a national origin, age and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against its Memphis subsidiary, according to an EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-11-10b.cfm .  As stated in the press release, EEOC lawyers charged in the employment discrimination lawsuit that company officials harassed and discriminated against a Thai-American employee because of his East Asian national origin and age.  The sales technician was allegedly called “J-p” even though he is of Thai ancestry.  In addition, the EEOC contended that the employee was subjected to insensitive ageist comments and then removed from the sales department and demoted to a driver job because of his age and national origin.  After complaining about the discrimination, he was further harassed, including being assigned to defective trucks, and repeatedly threatened with firing.  Moreover, after the company moved him out of sales, it hired two unqualified white men into that department, without an application process that would have given him the chance to apply for the positions.  The EEOC asserted that the Thai-American employee ultimately resigned when the work environment became too hostile to endure. 

Such alleged misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  In this regard, the EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether hostile workplace discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential harassment claim.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including age discrimination.  In a February 3, 2010 EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-3-10b.cfm , federal agency lawyers announced that an Atlanta clothing store company will pay $40,050 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC.  According to the Press Release, EEOC lawyers charged in the age discrimination lawsuit that the company subjected an employee to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, including disparate discipline and, ultimately, terminated her because of her age.  An EEOC lawyer with the EEOC’s Atlanta Office was quoted in the Press Release as saying “We are pleased with the employer’s efforts to quickly resolve this dispute, while taking affirmative steps to remain in compliance with the law in the future.”  For its own part, the company denied any wrongdoing or liability.  Further information about the EEOC is available in its website at www.eeoc.gov .

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) attorneys have filed an age discrimination lawsuit against a New York City law firm alleging that the firm violated federal age discrimination law through its compensation system, according to a January 28, 2010 EEOC Press Release found at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-28-10a.cfm .  As stated in the Press Release, EEOC attorneys charge that the law firm’s compensation system provides dramatically reduced compensation to attorneys who practiced law after turning 70 years of age.  More specifically, the EEOC contends that the law firm requires all partners to give up their ownership interest in the firm at the age of 70, and, if an attorney continues to work, his or her compensation consists of an annual “bonus” payment in an amount totally within the discretion of the firm’s executive committee.  According to the EEOC, the reduced compensation is less than what is provided to similarly productive younger attorneys. 

In this case, a law firm attorney turned 70 in 2001 and his compensation has been substantially less than younger attorneys at the firm with similar productivity even though he routinely has obtained over $1 million in fees annually from his clients.  When the attorney complained about the age based compensation system, the EEOC said that the law firm reduced his bonus payment by two-thirds while his productivity remained the same.

This alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits age based employment discrimination against those aged 40 and older, and which also bars employers from retaliating against those who complain about such unlawful employment practices.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including age discrimination.  EEOC attorneys filed the age discrimination lawsuit after attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

In Fiscal Year 2009, the EEOC received 22,778 age discrimination charge filings, the second highest level ever, accounting for 24% of its private sector caseload.  EEOC age discrimination charge data may be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/adea.cfm .  Further information about the EEOC may be found at www.eeoc.gov .

Concluding an age discrimination lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Texas, lawyers with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a December 15, 2009 Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-15-09a.cfm that the City of North Richland Hills will pay $75,000 to a former worker and take remedial action to resolve a case in which EEOC lawyers charged that the City subjected a former technician to age based harassment which resulted in his forced termination or constructive discharge.  According to the EEOC Press Release, EEOC lawyers alleged in the lawsuit that the former employee was ridiculed with age related taunts that he was too old to keep up, made too much money and was too old to do his job.  The EEOC also alleged that after suffering the abusive behavior for several months, the former employee reported the harassment to his supervisor and to the City’s human resources department, but the City failed to take any corrective action and the harassment increased to the point the worker was forced to resign.  A trial lawyer with the EEOC’s Dallas office commented in the Press Release that age related harassment is against the law and should not be tolerated by employers. 

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (”ADEA”) prohibits employment discrimination based on age against employees and applicants 40 years of age or older.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including harassment related to age, and the EEOC filed the age harassment lawsuit in Texas after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether workplace related age harassment occurs in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or elsewhere, victims of age discrimination may contact the EEOC or a lawyer to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate in Texas or elsewhere under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential harassment claim.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits employment discrimination because of age, and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace age bias.  Employees and applicants 40 years of age and older are protected under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  In 2008, age discrimination charges received by the EEOC totaled 24,582, representing a 28.7 percent increase over 2007.

In a November Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-13-09.cfm , EEOC lawyers announced that a credit union company agreed to pay $57,250.00 to settle an EEOC age discrimination lawsuit.  According to the EEOC Press Release, a 61-year-old teller claimed in the case that she was fired in October 2003 because of her age.  An EEOC lawyer quoted in the lawsuit Press Release stated, in part, that statistics show age discrimination remains a serious issue across the country.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether workplace age bias takes place in Beaumont, Galveston, Houston or elsewhere, victims of age discrimination in employment may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if an age discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential age bias claim.

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) allege in an age discrimination lawsuit filed in Georgia that a retail chain violated federal law when it fired an employee because of her age, according to an EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeooc.gov/press/10-909c.html .  As stated in the EEOC Press Release, agency attorneys charge that the company subjected the employee to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment because of her age, including disparate discipline, prior to her termination.  Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (”ADEA”), and, in this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including elder employee age discrimination.  EEOC attorneys filed the elder age discrimination lawsuit in federal court after first attempting to reach a voluntary out of court settlement.  Further information about the EEOC is available in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related elder age discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Galveston, Houston or elsewhere, elderly victims of workplace ageism may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if an elder age discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) attorneys charge in a Corpus Christi age discrimination lawsuit that a store in Corpus Christi violated federal law by refusing to hire a 61-year-old applicant because of his age.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-25-09f.html .  According to a September 25, 2009 EEOC Press Release, the store located on Airline Road in Corpus Christi allegedly refused to hire the applicant into a loss prevention / asset protection position despite his qualifications and 27 years of experience, claiming that the man was “not a good fit and would be too hard to train.”  As stated in the Press Release, a former store employee told the applicant several months after he interviewed for the position that the manager of the Loss Prevention Department felt he was “too old” for the position.  The EEOC Press Release said that the store subsequently hired a number of individuals, most of whom were under 30, and none of whom had experience comparable to the 61-year-old applicant.  Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  EEOC attorneys filed the age discrimination lawsuit in Corpus Christi after first attempting to reach a voluntary out of court settlement.  A trial attorney in the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office was quoted in the Press Release as saying, in part, that too often employers simply right off older applicants, with age being the determinative factor. 

In Fiscal Year 2008, the EEOC received 24,582 charges alleging age discrimination, and this is an increase of 27 percent from Fiscal Year 2007.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including age discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC is available in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov .

In a September 22, 2009 Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-22-09.html , the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced that its attorneys sued a metal recycling company for age discrimination, alleging that the company violated federal law by refusing to hire a qualified 76-year-old applicant because of his age.  According to the EEOC’s Press Release, the federal lawsuit charges that the older worker applied for the position of diesel mechanic, and, although he was qualified for the position, the company refused to hire him, stating it was looking for someone younger.  EEOC attorneys charge that the company continued to seek applicants for the position, and ultimately hired an individual who was substantially younger than the older worker and who was less qualified.  As stated in the Press Release, discrimination against persons age 40 and over because of age violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including discrimination against older workers based on their age.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated that “Federal law ensures that older workers have the right to participate in the workplace regardless of age.”  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether employment related age discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Houston, Port Arthur or elsewhere, older worker victims of age bias may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if an age discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential older worker age bias claim.

In an August 20, 2009 Press Release, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced that it has filed an age discrimination lawsuit against AT&T, Inc., a company based in Dallas, Texas, alleging that a class of retired workers were discriminated against by denying them the ability for reemployment solely because they retired under early retirement plans, including the Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program, the Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program or other retirement plan.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-20-09.html .  As stated in the Press Release, the effect of this denial of reemployment results in a disproportionate number of older workers not having the same opportunity to apply for reemployment, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the result of the company’s policy is to exclude a class of older workers because of their age from being reemployed by the company regardless of their qualifications.  EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart Ishimaru said, in part, that “This particular case highlights the Commission’s commitment to combating age-based disparate impact discrimination.”  For further information about the EEOC, see the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov .

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in an August 18, 2009 Press Release that a Kansas-based staffing company unlawfully discriminated against a 55-year-old Caucasian employee because of her race and age.  According to the EEOC Press Release, the company provides staffing and administrative services to the federal General Services Administration.  As stated in the Press Release, the EEOC charges in a federal lawsuit that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by subjecting the female employee to discrimination due to her race and age, and then firing her in retaliation for reporting the unlawful conduct.  More specifically, the lawsuit contends that the employee was subjected to differential treatment by her younger African American supervisor and fired one day after making a complaint.  In this regard, an EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release said that the female, Caucasion employee “was singled out for unfair treatment by her supervisor [and] … fired after reporting discrimination to her employer.” 

See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-18-09.html .

Whether race and age employment related discrimination occurs in Baytown, Galveston, League City or elsewhere, vicitims of unlawful workplace discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a race and age discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appopriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination claim.