In a lawsuit filed on September 29, 2011, lawyers with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge that a trucking company violated federal law by allowing a supervisor to harass employees with racial epithets, including the trucking company’s only African-American driver.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-29-11o.cfm .  According to the EEOC, an African-American driver was targeted by his dispatcher with racially offensive comments such as coon, gorilla, porch monkey, and the N-word.  He also heard slurs directed at other ethnic groups, including raghead, sand N-word and wetback.  As stated by the EEOC, other truck drivers witnessed the racial harassment and one even complained to management, but the trucking company still failed to take effective action and the harassment continued.  Racial harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and EEOC lawyers filed the racial harassment lawsuit after an attempt was first made to resolve the case through a voluntary settlement. 

Whether employees are subjected to racist slurs, racial comments and unlawful verbal harassment based on race in Beaumont, Cuero, Conroe or elsewhere, workers may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if a workplace racial harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential discrimination case.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace racial harassment.  In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-28-11b.cfm , EEOC lawyers announced filing of a federal lawsuit against a family-owned bakery business accused of subjecting black employees to a hostile work environment based on their race.  According to the EEOC, African-American employees were subjected to racially offensive language from the company’s vice president and one of the company’s supervisors, including racial slurs and insulting racial comments such as “I am glad to get rid of that n—-r,” and “you are a stupid n—-r,” as well as “boy” and “monkey.”  In addition, the EEOC contends that one of the plaintiffs overheard the supervisor refer to black employees as nigger at least twice per week.  Moreover, the EEOC also charges that black employees made complaints to the vice president and the supervisor about their unwelcome racial comments, but the racial harassment continued.

Race discrimination, including racial harassment, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and, in Texas, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code similarly prohibits this type of unlawful workplace misconduct.  Ethnic slurs, racial jokes, offensive or derogatory comments, including, for example, opprobriums such as mayate and nigger, or other verbal or physical conduct based on an individual’s race and color constitutes unlawful harassment when the conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment, or interferes with the individual’s work performance. 

As stated by an EEOC lawyer, “No worker whould have to endure such crude and cruel insults as these [and] [t]he EEOC is deeply committed to combating such misconduct and filing suit against employers if they ignore complaints about it.” 

Whether racial harassment in the workplace occurs in Conroe, Cuero, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to cruel racial comments, remarks or misconduct may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if a racial harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential race harassment claim.

U-Haul violated federal law by subjecting African-American employees to a racially hostile work environment because of their race, according to a United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-29-11l.cfm .  In this regard, the EEOC stated that its lawsuit charges U-Haul with subjecting an African-American mechanic and other African-American employees to racially offensive comments from a white supervisor and other employees.  More specifically, EEOC attorneys charge in the lawsuit that a supervisor of the mechanic regularly referred to him and other African-American employees with the N-word and used other derogatory slurs.  In addition, the EEOC racial harassment lawsuit contends that the mechanic’s co-worker, a parts room employee, subjected African-American employees to the same offensive behavior by using racial slurs and refusing to let African-Americans enter the parts room. 

The alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, and the EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.  An EEOC Director quoted in the Press Release stated, in part, as follows:  “It is appalling that racial harassment and the use of racial slurs are still found in today’s workplace … Employees should not have to endure a racially hostile work environment in order to earn a living.” 

For more information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces, see www.eeoc.gov .

A company that produces pork sausage has agreed to pay $60,000.00 and furnish other relief to settle a wage discrimination and racial harassment lawsuit filed by attorneys with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-11-11.cfm .  In the lawsuit, EEOC attorneys charged that the sausage company violated federal law by paying an African-American maintenance worker less than white counterparts and subjecting him to a hostile work environment.  In addition, the EEOC asserted that the company gave raises and paid higher salaries to all maintenance department employees except the department’s lone African-American employee.  Further, EEOC attorneys alleged in the case that the sausage company allowed a supervisor to regularly use racially offensive language toward the employee because of racial animus. 

Racial discrimination in the workplace violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including racially hostile work environments.  EEOC attorneys filed the employment discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to settle the matter through the EEOC’s conciliation process.  Additional information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces may be found at www.eeoc.gov . 

An EEOC attorney familar with the case remarked, in part, as follows:  “Sadly, race discrimination continues to exist in the workplace where workers are paid less and forced to endure a racially hostile work environment.”   

Whether employment-related race discrimination occurs in Conroe, Beaumont or Houston, workers subjected to a racially hostile work environment and unequal pay may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if the facts and circumstances of the potential race discrimination case merit filing of a workplace discrimination lawsuit.

A Dallas, Texas industrial and contruction equipment company agreed to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by attorneys with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to an EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-24-11b.cfm .  Brought by EEOC lawyers in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Laredo Division, the EEOC’s lawsuit charged that the Dallas company subjected an employee to unlawful race discrimination when it terminated him from his position as a technician because of his race, black.  In this regard, EEOC attorneys further alleged that the distribution company subjected the former employee to a racially hostile work environment in which a management official with direct supervisory authority over the employee referred to him by using the N-word, slave, dark horse and the South Texas racial epithet - mayate.  As stated in the EEOC Press Release, the management official admitted using the N-word racial slur at work and several witnesses corroborated that the management official routinely used racist epithets and made racist jokes at the workplace.

Racial harassment, including use of racial slurs and offensive or derogatory racial comments, as well as discharge due to race violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment-related race discrimination.  In this case, the EEOC filed suit after the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office determined that the company had violated Title VII and after it tried to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the EEOC’s conciliation process.  More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

An EEOC trial lawyer with the San Antonio Field Office was quoted saying, in part, as follows: “Smart employers can prevent racial harassment by not only promulgating anti-discrimination policies but also making such policies effective through regular training and monitoring.”

Whether unlawful workplace racial harassment occurs in Laredo, Houston, San Antonio or elsewhere, employees subjected at work to discriminatory language such as the N-word, slave or mayate may contact the EEOC or a lawyer to determine if a race discrimination or hostile work environment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination lawsuit.

Race discrimination, including racial harassment in the workplace, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  In its role as an agency enforcing anti-discrimination laws, the EEOC may investigate charges of workplace discrimination and file suit against companies which violate workplace civil rights laws.  On June 22, 2011, the EEOC announced in a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-22-11.cfm that it filed suit against a freight trucking company for allegedly subjecting a class of African-American employees to a racially hostile work environment.  According to the EEOC, a truck driver and other African-American employees were repeatedly subjected to unwelcome derogatory racial comments and slurs by trucking company employees and managers, beginning as early as May 2007.  These racial comments and slurs included use of the terms “boy” and “monkey,” as well as the N-word.  Further, the EEOC contends that a noose was involved in the harassment.  The EEOC said that even though management and a co-owner were informed of the harassment, the racial harassment continued. 

An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release said “Cases like this remind us that, sadly, in the 21st Century, racial harassment still exists in workplaces across America.”

An investigation by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) revealed that employees of a roofing company were frequently subjected to racial epithets, racial jokes and hostile treatment by other company employees, according to an EEOC June 7, 2011 Press Release posted by the EEOC at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-7-11b.cfm .  The EEOC said the harassment was largely perpetrated by supervisors working at the northwest Minnesota commercial, industrial and residential roofing company, adding that, despite complaints to senior company management, the workplace misconduct did not stop. 

In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including racial harassment and retaliation for reporting racial harassment.  Following an investigation of the discrimination charge, the EEOC determined that there was reasonable cause to believe the roofing company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In addition, the EEOC found that the roofing company retaliated against the employee who brought the initial discrimination complaint by firing him after he reported the unlawful mistreatment.

As a result of the charge and the EEOC investigation, the roofing company agreed to pay $71,500 to seven black, Hispanic and American Indian employees to settle the racial harassment and retaliation charges.  In addition, the EEOC said the roofing company will provide other relief, including ant-discrimination training to employees and additional training to all supervsiors, managers and owners.

Whether unlawful workplace harassment and retaliation based on race or national origin occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to a racially hostile work environment may contact the EEOC or an attorney to determine if an employment discrimination charge or lawsuit is appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential harassment claim.  More information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Employment related race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit racial discrimination in the workplace.  In this role, the EEOC can litigate cases against companies charged with unlawful discrimination.  For example, an EEOC Press Release dated April 22, 2011 discusses a Memphis, Tennessee discrimination lawsuit in which a sheet metal company located in Memphis was sued by EEOC attorneys and then agreed to pay former African-American employees $160,000 to resolve the racial harassment lawsuit.  According to the Press Release, EEOC attorneys charged in the lawsuit that a white supervisor and other employees subjected African-American employees to racially offensive comments, including regular use of racial slurs and displaying of racial graffiti in common areas and on company equipment.  An attorney in the EEOC’s Memphis Office was quoted as saying “Employees should not have to endure a racially hostile work environment as it is a violation of federal law.” 

Whether workplace race discrimination creates a racially hostile work environment in Memphis or elsehwere, employees subjected to racial slurs and racial gaffiti at work can contact the EEOC and an attorney.  For more information about the EEOC, see www.eeoc.gov .

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-22-11.cfm

A company based in Goldthwaite, Texas is the target of a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawyers in Iowa, according to an April 6, 2011 EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-6-11b.cfm .  As described in the Press Release, the Goldthwaite, Texas company is charged with subjecting a group of 31 men with intellectual disabilities to severe abuse and discrimination for more than 20 years.  Filed in the Southern District of Iowa, the disability discrimination lawsuit contends that the company exploited these workers at an Iowa turkey processing plant because their intellectual capabilities made the men particularly vulnerable and unaware of the extent to which their legal rights were being denied.  More specifically, the EEOC asserts that the workers were denied lawful wages and subjected to verbal abuse, including references to them as retarded and stupid, as well as physical abuse, including physical contact such as hitting and kicking. 

Such alleged workplace misconduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAA), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, including intellectual disabilities, in terms and conditions of employment and wages; and bars disability based harassment.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency charged with enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including disability harassment.  More information about the EEOC is available in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

The lawsuit follows an EEOC Commission meeting held March 15, 2011, that explored the issue of discrimination on the basis of mental disabilities.  On March 24, the EEOC issued its final regulations interpreting the ADAA, which simplified the determination of who has a “disability” and made it easier for people to establish that they are protected by the ADA. 

Whether workplace mental disability harassment occurs in Texas or elsewhere, employees subjected to verbal ridicule and physical abuse because of intellectual disabilities may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine whether a mental disability discrimination and harassment lawsuit is appropriate in Texas or elsewhere under the facts and circumstances of their potential employment discrimination claim.

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.