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 .

In a January 29, 2010 press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-18-09.cfm , the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that an assisted living company will pay $43,000 and furnish other relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by the federal agency.  According to the press release, EEOC attorneys charged in the employment discrimination case that the company discriminated against a female housekeeper by firing her rather than accommodating her religious belief that she wear a Muslim head scarf or hijab outside her home.  As further stated in the press release, the company insisted that, as a condition of her continued employment, the housekeeper remove and refrain from wearing her Muslim head scarf on the job.  Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers make an effort to accommodate employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs.  For its own part, the company denied any liability or wrongdoing.

The EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace religious discrimination.  Additional information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related religious discrimination against Muslims occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a religion based employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential Muslim employment discrimination case.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace racial harassment and retaliation for complaining about it.  On December 31, 2009, EEOC lawyers announced that a Memphis radioactive waste processing company will pay $650,000 to 23 African American employees and provide other relief to settle a race and retaliation discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC in the Western District of Tennessee.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov.eeoc/newsroom/release/12-31-09a.cfm .  According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against Race, LLC doing business as Studsvik, LLC, a lead worker in the Studsvik shop and other African American employees were subjected to racially offensive comments by their white supervisor.  In addition, EEOC lawyers charged that the lead worker’s supervisor regularly referred to him and other African American employees with the N-word and other derogatory slurs, such as “boy.”  Moreover, white managers allegedly subjected the lead worker and other African American employees to excessive radiation exposure, more than their white co-workers.  As stated in the press release, EEOC lawyers further contended that the lead worker was suspended for 15 days and then laid off in retaliation for complaining about the racial harassment.  An EEOC lawyer with the agency’s Memphis District Office was quoted in the press release, saying, in part, that “Racial harassment remains a longstanding problem in the workplace for many minorities.”  EEOC Acting Chair Stuart Ishimaru added that “Some of the discrimination alleged in this case is unusually extreme because of the physical danger it created for African American employees.” 

Additional information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces may be found online in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related racial harassment and retaliation occurs in Memphis or elsewhere, victims of racial harassment may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential racial harassment case.

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  In a February 3, 2010 press release found on the internet at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-3-10c.cfm , EEOC attorneys announced two settlements against a hotel operator for $500,000 and signficant remedial relief in cases alleging national origin discrimination and sexual harassment.  Both lawsuits were filed in September 2007 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the first lawsuit, EEOC attorneys charged that non-Chinese banquet servers were rejected for hire based on their national origin when a San Gabriel Hilton severed its contract and hired Landwin Management, a hotel operator, to operate the establishment in April 2005.  The EEOC claimed that all the non-Chinese banquet servers who previously worked for the hotel at the time, many of whom were Latino, were not hired back during the turnover and were instead replaced with less qualified Chinese workers.

In the second lawsuit, EEOC attorneys charged that the Hotel subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment, including verbal sexual harassment by the housekeeping supervisor, who referred to the women as “whores” and “prostitutes” in addition to other offensive language.  The supervisor also allegedly reprimanded the female employees if they even spoke to men, and the operator failed to respond to the employees’ complaints of harassment.

An EEOC attorney involved in the employment discrimination lawsuit commented that “The days when employers make decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions shaped by the race or national origin of their employees should be far behind us.”  Further information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov .

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

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including discrimination based upon disability.  In a press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-8-10.cfm , EEOC lawyers announced filing of a federal employment discrimination lawsuit against a global manufacturing company which the EEOC alleges violated federal law when it refused to hire an employee for a full-time position as a process technician because of her gender and because she is the mother of a disabled child.  According to the February 8, 2010 press release, the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire the mother of a disabled child for a full-time position in 2007.  EEOC lawyers contend in the case that the disabled child’s mother had worked at a company facility as a part-time process associate for four years but was refused a full-time position due to concerns about her ability to work full-time and care for a disabled child.  The EEOC asserted that the company’s conduct violated the ADA, which protects employees from discrimination based on association with people with disabilities, and Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based upon sex. 

An EEOC lawyer quoted in the press release stated that “Under the ADA and Title VII, employers cannot make employment decisions based on stereotypical assumptions that a female employee with a disabled child would have to miss work or could not perform the job because the employee provides care for a disabled person.”  EEOC lawyers filed the employment discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary out of court settlement with the company.  Further information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related discrimination against individuals associated with a disabled person or child occurs in Conroe, Houston, Texas City or elsewhere, victims of ADA discrimination may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if a disability discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential unlawful employment practice claim.

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) attorneys announced settlement of an employment discrimination lawsuit against Albertsons, LLC, a national grocery store chain, according to a December 2009 EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-15-09,cfm .  As stated in the press release, Albertsons, LLC will pay $8.9 million and furnish other relief to settle three employment discrimination lawsuits in which EEOC attorneys charged the company with race, color, and national origin discrimination and retaliation at its Aurora, Colorado distribution center.  The monetary relief will be distributed among 168 former and current employees.

The first lawsuit was filed in 2006 and alleged a pattern or practice of workplace harassment and discrimination based on race, color and national origin.  According to that lawsuit, minority employees were repeatedly subjected to derogatory comments and graffiti, including racial and ethnic slurs, depictions of lynchings, swastikas, and white supremacist and anti-immigrant statements.  Some of the graffiti allegedly remained for years until the restroom was remodeled in 2005.  In the second lawsuit, EEOC attorneys alleged a pattern or practice of retaliation.  A third lawsuit filed in 2008 claimed race discrimination on behalf of a single African American employee at the distribution center who was fired.

An EEOC attorney quoted in the press release said that the graffiti was particularly shocking.  In addition, the attorney commented as follows: “These cases presented the EEOC with some of the most egregious examples of race, color, and national origin discrimination the agency has seen in years.”  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including discrimination based upon race, color and national origin.  Further information about the EEOC may be found at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether race, color and national origin employment discrimination and retaliation occurs in Conroe, Houston, Texas City or elsewhere, victims of workplace harassment may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a workplace harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

The U.S. Labor Department has settled a lawsuit in which two Texas companies were accused of not paying $1 million in overtime to 154 workers. Those workers inspected temporary housing trailers occupied by people who lost their homes during 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.

Federal labor officials announced Wednesday that Irving, Texas-based Fluor Enterprises Inc. agreed to pay the overtime as part of a consent judgment approved in a Houston federal court. The Labor Department also obtained a default judgment against Houston-based Universal Project Management Inc., a subcontractor used by Fluor. According to court documents, Fluor admitted no wrongdoing in the case, saying it wasn’t the workers’ employer.

Universal Project Management failed to answer the claims against it in court. An attorney for Universal was not listed in court records and no public listing for the company could be found.  Associated Press February 10, 2010.

In a January 19, 2010 Press Release, lawyers with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that they reached a settlement in a DOJ lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee on behalf of a detective in the Milwaukee Police Department, alleging the City violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).  See, http://www.justice.gov .  According to the DOJ Press Release, the settlement calls for the City to provide the detective with a retroactive promotion date in the rank of detective, as well as $21,190 in backpay, retoactive seniority and other benefits that flow from the date of adjustment.  In this regard, the DOJ USERRA lawsuit alleges that the City violated USERRA when it did not provide the employee, while he was a police officer, with the opportunity to take a make-up examination for promotion to detective that he missed while on active duty military service, thereby denying him the seniority, status and compensation he would have received but for his active duty service in the military.  As further stated in the Press Release, the City subsequently promoted him to detective after he passed the next scheduled administration of the examination, but the delay still resulted in his loss of pay, seniority and other benefits, including eligibility for future promotions.  A DOJ Civil Rights Division lawyer quoted in the Press Release stated that “No member of our armed services should be disadvantaged because he or she answered a call to duty.”

Additional information about USERRA may be found at www.servicemembers.gov .