The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In this regard, discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.  Women affected by pregnancy or related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations.  See, http://www.twc.state.tx.us/crd/facts.html . 

For its own part, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination, since such alleged misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  As one regional attorney with the EEOC has stated, “Despite enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, discrimination by employers against pregnant employees continues to be a problem.”

In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-29-11e.cfm , EEOC attorneys announced filing of a federal lawsuit against a childcare company, alleging that the childcare company violated federal law by discriminating against an employee because she was pregnant and for retaliating against her, as well as her sister and cousin.  In another pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys, the EEOC charges that a hair salon violated federal anti-discrimination law when it withdrew an offer for a promotion and fired an assistant colorist when it found out she was pregnant.  As discussed in an EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-29-11t.cfm , the employee informed the hair salon owner that she was pregnant, and was told that the information was a lot to digest so it would have to be discussed with the other owners.  The EEOC said that after several failed attempts to find out her start date for the new position, the employee was informed that she was fired. In another EEOC pregnancy case discussed at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-30-11l.cfm , EEOC attorneys announced filing of a federal lawsuit against a wholesale supply company, alleging that the company violated federal law by firing an expectant mother.  More specifically, EEOC attorneys charged in that case that the company fired the employee on her second day of work due to her pregnancy, claiming the owners were upset with the fact that she was pregnant and that she had deceived the company by not disclosing her pregnancy during her interview.  An EEOC attorney familar with the case stated, in part, as follows: “It is a severe injustice to terminate an employee based solely on the fact that she is pregnant.”

More information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment-related pregnancy discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, job applicants and employees subjected to discrimination because they are pregnant may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

In a Press Release at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20110991.htm , the United States Labor Department announced that two restaurants in Jacksonville, Florida have been ordered to pay 30 employees $934,425 in back wages and liquidated damages under the terms of consent judgments.  In this regard, the Labor Department said that the agreements resolve a U. S. Department of Labor lawsuit based on an investigation by its Wage and Hour Division that alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage, overtime pay and record-keeping provisions. 

As described by the Labor Department, investigators found that kitchen employees were improperly classified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay provisions and consequently paid salaries that did not include compensation for hours worked over 40 in a week.  In addition, the Department said that every week, tipped employees would receive their tips plus a paycheck that together equaled the minimum wage; however, management required the employees to sign and return paychecks, and would then cash the checks and put the money back into the restaurant.  Through this process, while it appeared that the owners were paying wages, the employees actually were allowed to keep only their tips.  Finally, the Department maintained that the employers did not maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the employees. 

The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked, as well as one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 per week.  If certain conditions are met, the FLSA permits the employer to take a tip credit toward its minimum wage obligation for tipped employees.  The employer must pay tipped employees a cash wage of $2.13 per hour or the state mandated cash wage, whichever is higher; all tips must be retained by the employee except for contributions to a valid tip pooling arrangement; employees must be informed of the tip credit provision; and the amount of the tips plus cash wages must equal the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 per hour.  Additionally, the law requires that accurate records of employees’ wages, hours and other conditions of employment be maintained.  More information in this regard is made available by the Labor Department at http://www.dol.gov/whd .  

Whether restaurant wage discrimination occurs in Houston, Conroe, Dallas or elsewhere, employees subjected to unlawful wage payments and improper tip pooling may contact the United States Department of Labor and an attorney to determine if a wage and hour lawsuit is appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential restaurant wage discrimination claim.

In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-16-11e.cfm , attorneys with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced filing of an employment discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC charges that a not for profit health care provider violated federal law when it failed to meaningfully investigate an employee’s claims of harassment and race discrimination, retaliated against the employee for using the company’s internal complaint system, and ultimately fired the employee after she filed a charge of discrimination.  According to the EEOC, an African-American employee repeatedly complained to the human resources department about her treatment at the hands of her white male supervisor and the company failed to investigate her numerous complaints, deciding instead to ultimately fire her without any progressive disciplinary steps even though she had no prior discipline.  In this regard, she was allegedly terminated because of disrespectful behavior and failure to follow instructions, and white male employees who allegedly engaged in similar or worse behavior were given formal discipline and sent to classes - at the employer’s expense - to improve their workplace behavior. 

Such alleged misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Prior to filing suit, the EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.  More information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces may be found at www.eeoc.gov .

As reported by the Houston Chronicle, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a federal class action lawsuit on September 21, 2011 against Bass Pro World, a nationwide chain with two Houston area locations, alleging that the company rejected thousands of qualified blacks and Hispanics and retaliated against employees who believed the company’s practices were discriminatory.  See, Sixel, L. M. “Bass Pro Rejected Minority Applicants, Feds Allege,” Houston Chronicle, 9/21/11.  According to Jim Sacher, a regional attorney for the EEOC in Houston, the EEOC built much of its case on evidence provided by former store managers and human resource managers.  In this regard, the Chronicle reports that the lawsuit stems from a 6-year-old complaint to the EEOC by a white manager at the Bass Pro Outdoor World store in Katy, Texas, who alleged she was fired when she complained to her boss about mistreatment of black job applicants and employees.  As further discussed in the article, the follow up investigation led federal officials to believe that the alleged practice of not hiring minorities for hourly or salaried positions was a nationwide pattern in the company’s 55 stores, including the two in the Houston area, one in San Antonio and two in the Dallas area.  Several complaints filed against the retailer came from managers, including two former human resource managers in Katy who contended that they suffered retaliation for opposing discriminatory hiring practices and mistreatment of the store’s few minority employees, according to the article. 

Individuals who believe they may have been denied a position at the company because of their race or their ethnic background can call the EEOC toll free at (855)857-8747.

On August 10, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it reached a settlement with Summit Steel Fabricators Inc. in Houston, resolving allegations that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against non-citizens in the employment eligibility verification process.  In a Press Release at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-crt-1034.html , the DOJ stated that the company had a policy of requiring newly hired workers who are not U. S. citizens to present specific documentation, such as a permanent resident card or resident alien card, even if they had already presented other documents sufficient to establish their employment eligibility under federal law.  U. S. citizens, by contrast, were not required to present any specific documents.  An Assistant Attorney General was quoted in the Press Release as saying: “Employers have a responsibility to conduct the employment eligibility verification process in a non-discriminatory manner, and all workers have the right to look for work without facing discrimination based on their citizenship status.”  For more information about protections against employment discrimination under federal immigration law, one may contact the DOJ Civil Right’s Division Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices at 1-800-255-7688.

In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-1-11.cfm , the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that federal judge in Tennessee affirmed a million-dollar judgment awarded against Michigan based company in a race and sex harassment lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys.  The EEOC stated that its lawsuit charged the company with violating federal law when it tolerated harassment of a black, female employee by a white male co-worker at a plant in LaVergne, Tennessee.  According to the EEOC, the workplace abuse lasted for two months until the co-worker physically assaulted the employee and inflicted serious permanent injuries.  During the four day trial, the trial court heard evidence that the victim reported escalating offensive verbal conduct and gestures, that four levels of the company’s management were aware of the escalating harassment and that the company failed to take effective steps to stop the harassment.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the EEOC Press Release said “This woman was victimized by serious, ongoing abuse, and was severely and permanently damaged as a result,” adding as follows: “A sizeable amount of damages was called for, and we are pleased that the judge agreed.”

Such alleged workplace misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is a federal agency charged with enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  More information about the EEOC is available to the public at www.eeoc.gov .

In a posting at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-15-10a.cfm , the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced on October 15, 2010 that an Austin, Texas packaging company agreed to settle a racial harassment, sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys on behalf of company employees who alleged they had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment, sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting workplace discrimination.  According to the EEOC, the workplace harassment included black employees being routinely subjected to discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, insults and racially offensive comments and jokes.  In addition, the EEOC also charged that a female manager harassed male employees with unwelcome sexual comments and unsolicited physical contact of a sexual nature.  A senior trial attorney with the EEOC’s San Antonio office was quoted in the EEOC Press Release, saying, in part, that the law requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent and correct racial and sexual harassment. 

Whether workplace racial or sexual harassment occurs in Austin, San Antonio or elsewhere, employees experiencing employment discrimination of a racial or sexual nature may contact the EEOC or an attorney to discuss making a formal charge of discrimination.  In this regard, the EEOC offers information to the public on its webite at www.eeoc.gov concerning employee rights and what an employee can do if they experience race, sex and retaliation discrimination on the job.

In a news release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-24-10.cfm , the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced that a Missouri construction company has settled a race harassment lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys.  According to the May 24, 2010 news release, EEOC attorneys charged in the employment discrimination lawsuit that the company violated federal law by racially harassing three African American construction workers and then taking reprisals against them when one complained.  More specifically, EEOC attorneys asserted that the three black construction workers were subjected to unlawful racial harassment which included the use of racially charged comments and the display of a noose. 

Racial harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  In this regard, EEOC attorneys filed the discrimination lawsuit after the agency first attempted to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.  Further information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether unlawful workplace racial harassment and display of nooses occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Port Arthur or elsewhere, victims of employment related race harassment may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a racial discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential discrimination claim.

Attorneys with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced settlement of a discrimination retaliation lawsuit filed in Houston, Texas.  According to the EEOC news release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-25-10.cfm , two Dallas/Fort Worth area transportation brokerage companies will pay $50,000 and provide additional remedial relief to settle a discrimination lawsuit in which EEOC attorneys charged that the employer unlawfully retaliated against an employee by firing him because the employee had complained about workplace comments being made by two coworkers at a Sugarland, Texas facility where they worked.  More specifically, the EEOC claimed in the Houston retaliation lawsuit that the employee complained to the human resources manager about persistent inappropriate jokes about Mormons, as well as workplace comments allegedly disparaging a pregnant female coworker, women in general, and an African American.  As stated in the news release, the human resources manager reported the employee’s complaints to the general manager of the facility and the employee was fired within less than 72 hours.

The EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color and sex, including sexual harassment, as well as retaliation for complaining about discrimination.  In this regard, EEOC attorneys filed the employment discrimination lawsuit in Houston after the agency first attempted to reach a voluntary settlement.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the news release stated, in part, that “No one should lose his job for alerting human resources to inappropriate workplace behavior.”  Further information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether unlawful workplace discrimination and retaliation occurs in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Sugarland or elsewhere, victims of employment discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a discrimination retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential discrimination claim.

In a press release at http://www.justice.gov , the United States Department of Justice announced that it has reached a settlement, in the form of a consent decree, with the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company that, if approved by the U. S. District Court in Oklahoma City, will resolve its lawsuit filed on behalf of a U. S. Army reservist.  According to the March 2, 2010 press release, the Justice Department’s lawsuit charged that the company violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by failing to promptly reemploy the army reservist following his military service.  Under the consent decree, the company must pay the army reservist $40,000 in back wages and other damages.  In addition, the company must supplement its policies at its Lawton, Oklahoma plant to ensure that returning service members are promptly reemployed in accordance with USERRA, and must submit to a period of monitoring by the Justice Department to ensure the company’s compliance with USERRA. 

Subject to certain limitations, USERRA requires employers to reemploy a returning service member in the position the employee would have held had his or her employment not been interrupted by military service.  In this regard, the Department of Justice enforces USERRA and offers additional information about USERRA at http://www.servicemembers.gov .