In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-29-11i.cfm , U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawyers announced filing of an employment retaliation lawsuit in Houston, alleging that two Houston companies violated federal law by retaliating against a female employee for filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC.  According to the EEOC, the employee first served as an executive secretary before being fired and then hired as a sales assistant by another Houston company.  Shortly after joining her new employer, she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC against her former employer.  The charge alleged, among other things, that she was terminated in retaliation for engaging in activity protected under Title VII.  The EEOC decided not to investigate further and, after it decided this, the first employer decided to forward to the second employer a copy of the discrimination charge and the EEOC’s notice.  The EEOC said that on the very same day that the charge and dismissal were received by the second employer and reviewed by a supervisor, the second employer decided to fire her as well as part of a purported reduction in force.  As an EEOC regional lawyer quoted in the Press Release stated:  “Even if the EEOC chooses not to pursue an investigation of a charge, an employee’s right to file such a charge must remain unimpeded.”  In this regard, retaliation against an employee for complaining about discrimination 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 retaliation for opposing employment discrimination.  EEOC lawyers filed the retaliation lawsuit in Houston after the EEOC first attempted to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

In Texas, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code prohibits employment practices which result in the firing of an employee based on the individual’s race or color.  In addition, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code prohibits employer retaliation against individuals who oppose workplace discrimination, make or file charges of discrimination, file a discrimination complaint or testify, assist, or participate in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing.  With respect to retaliation, an internal grievance alleging conduct that violates Chapter 21’s prohibitions against discrimination reasonably equates to opposition against discriminatory conduct regardless of whether a formal complaint has been filed with, for example, a governmental agency such as the Texas Workforce Commission or the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity commission (EEOC).

For its own part, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  For example, the EEOC may investigate and litigate charges of employment discrimination, including allegations of workplace racial harassment or retaliation for complaining about race harassment.  In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-4-11a.cfm , EEOC attorneys announced filing of a federal lawsuit in which the agency charges that a company violated federal law by subjecting employees to racial slurs and retaliating against them for complaining about racial harassment.  Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in employment and protects employees from retaliation when they report discriminatory treatment.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether employees are subjected to workplace racial harassment and slurs in Beaumont, Cuero, San Antonio or elsewhere, employees who believe they have experienced unlawful racial discrimination and termination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine whether a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination claim.

“Enforcement of anti-discrimination laws depends upon employees who are willing to oppose and report conduct that might violate them,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Jim Sacher in connection with a settlement obtained by the federal agency in a Houston race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys against a Houston energy company.  The EEOC’s lawsuit asserted that African-American employees working at the defendants’ plant in Houston were subjected to a racially hostile work environment and that three of the African-American employees were discharged after they complained about harassment.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-27-11h.cfm .

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, including sexual harassment and pregnancy, or national origin, and prohibits employers from retaliating against those who complain about discriminatory misconduct.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws which prohibit employment discrimination and retaliation.  In Texas, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code also protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race and color, as well as national origin, sex, or religion.  As with Title VII, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code protects workers against retaliation.  With respect to retaliation, an employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise take adverse employment actions against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing employment discrimination.  More information about the laws enforced by the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .  In addition, information about the Texas Workforce Commission and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code is available at www.twc.state.tx.us/crd/facts.html .   

In another Houston race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys, the federal agency alleges that Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, a nationwide retailer of sporting goods, apparel and other products, engaged in a pattern or practice of failing to hire African-American and Hispanic applicants for positions in its retail stores nationwide, and retaliated against employees who opposed discriminatory practices.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-21-11.cfm .  According to the EEOC Press Release for this lawsuit, EEOC lawyers assert in the case that qualified African-Americans and Hispanics were routinely denied retail positions such as cashier, sales associate, team leader, supervisor, manager and other positions at many stores nationwide.  In addition, the EEOC said the lawsuit alleges that store managers in the Houston area, in Louisiana, and elsewhere made overtly racially derogatory remarks acknowledging the discriminatory practices, including allegedly that hiring black candidates did not fit the coporate profile.  Moreover, the company punished employees who opposed the company’s unlawful practices, in some instances firing them or forcing them to resign, according to the Press Release. 

Whether unlawful employment-related race discrimination and retaliation occurs in Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to workplace racial discrimination and retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices may contact the EEOC, the Texas Workforce Commission and a lawyer to determine if a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential claim.

Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protect individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion, as well as retaliation.  Employees have a right to be free from retaliation for their opposition to discrimination or their participation in an EEOC proceeding by filing a charge, testifying, assisting or otherwise participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII.  An employer may not fire, demote, harass, or otherwise retaliate against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination.  In addition to the protections against retaliation that are included in all of the laws enforced by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) also protects individuals from coercion, intimidation, threat, harassment or interference in their exercise of their own rights or their encouragement of someone else’s exercise of rights granted by the ADA.

Whether retaliation against employee opposition to workplace discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Dallas, Houston or elsewhere, workers subjected to adverse employment actions as a result of opposing employment-related discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential retaliation claim.

A New Mexico-based convenience store chain, which operates over 300 stores in Texas and New Mexico, agreed to pay $37,000 and furnish other relief in order to settle a retaliation lawsuit filed by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of an employee who had worked for the company for almost ten years before being fired for cooperating in an EEOC disability discrimination charge investigation.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-13-11.cfm .  According to the EEOC, the employee worked for the company in Santa Anna, Texas, and was fired shortly after the company received notification that his statements in the EEOC investigation led to an EEOC finding of violation in connection with another worker’s charge of disability discrimination.   EEOC attorneys brought the suit pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which includes a section prohibiting discrimination against any individual based on that individual’s testimony, assistance, or participation in any manner in an investigation into an alleged ADA violation.  EEOC attorneys filed the retaliation lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.  An EEOC attorney with the EEOC’s Dallas District Office was quoted, in part, as saying:  “We will always be willing to agressively pursue the claim of an employee who we believe is punished for providing honest testimony in a federal investigation.” 

In Fiscal Year 2010, retaliation charges filed with the EEOC nationwide accounted for 36.3% of all filings.  More information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Employees who participate in federal investigations into discrimination which are conducted by the EEOC may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine whether a retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination case.  Further in this regard, whether one is subjected to workplace retaliation in Dallas, Houston, Plano or elsewhere in Texas, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964 also protect individuals against employment discrimination, as well as retaliation for opposing discrimination or participating in any manner in an EEOC proceeding by filing a charge, testifying, or assisting in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII.  See, http://www.twc.state.tx.us/crd/facts.html .

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.

In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-26-11b.cfm , the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced filing of a disability discrimination lawsuit against a fabrication company alleged to have violated federal law by firing an employee because he inquired about taking time off for shoulder surgery and for participating in an interview with an EEOC investigator in a prior case.  According to the EEOC, the fired employee had inquired about taking time off to have shoulder surgery for a shoulder injury suffered on-the-job.  In addition, the EEOC also asserts that the company’s motivation to fire the employee was his participation as a witness in a prior, unrelated EEOC investigation which resulted in an EEOC lawsuit being filed against the company on August 31, 2009.  As described in the EEOC Press Release, the company confronted the employee the next day about his interview with an EEOC investigator, demanded that he sign a statement about his interview and then fired him at the end of his shift.

Disability discrimination in employment violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  Retaliation against an employee for cooperating in a discrimination investigation is also unlawful.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and retaliation.  

An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated, in part, as follows:  “The allegations in this complaint - and we intend to prove their truth in court - present a stark example of the chilling effect employer retaliation can have on the EEOC’s ability to root out discrimination in the workplace.”  More information about the EEOC may be found in its website at www.eeoc.gov .

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) attorneys announced in a Press Release posting at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-15-11a.cfm that owners of drive-in restaurant in New Mexico have agreed to settle a sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC.  According to the Press Release, the EEOC’s lawsuit charged that a manager and limited partner of the restaurant subjected a class of women, including teenagers, to sexual harassment, including sexual comments and innuendo, as well as unwanted touching.  The EEOC’s lawsuit also alleged that women who asked the then manager to stop harassing them or complained about their work environment were subjected to retaliation in the terms and conditions of their employment, primarily by reducing their hours.  The EEOC’s suit further alleged that employees were also forced to quit their jobs because of the sexual harassment, retaliation, and/or the employer’s failure to provide preventive or remedial relief.

Sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and retaliation against persons who oppose it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination, including workplace sexual harassment.  The EEOC filed suit in the U. S. District Court for the District of New Mexico after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the EEOC conciliation process. 

As described in the EEOC Press Release, the case is the largest litigation settlement ever by the EEOC’s Albuquerque Area Office.  The EEOC anticipates that over 70 women are expected to receive relief through the decree.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release, stated, in part, as follows:  “Managers must constantly be reminded of their obligation to maintain workplaces where employees are not subjected to illegal harassment or retaliation, [and] [w]here managers fail to satisfy these obligations, it is the employer’s responsibility to correct the violations and prevent other violations from occurring …”  Additional information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov .   

Whether restaurant employment discrimination, including sexual harassment and retaliation for opposing sex discrimination, occurs in New Mexico, Texas or elswhere, restaurant employees subjected unlawful sexual harassment and hostile work conditions may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a charge of sex discrimination is appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential case.

A company in Plano, Texas has been charged with religion discrimination in a lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys, according to a posting at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-27-11.cfm .  As alleged in the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Press Release, the Texas company violated federal law when it failed to accommodate a store manager’s religious beliefs and then fired him because of his religion.  More specifically, the store manager is a Seventh Day Adventist who decided in June of 2006 to reaffirm and strictly practice his religion, which includes a religious tenet that he not work on his Sabbath, Saturday, before sundown.  His request to be excused from working Saturdays before sundown was denied, but, afterward, he was transferred to a different location where the company granted a religious accommodation until a company realignment occurred and he was again informed he would have to work Saturdays.  When he refused to do so based on his religious belief, the company fired him.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to sincerely held religious beliefs of employees as long as doing so poses no undue hardship on the employer.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including employment related religious discrimination.

EEOC attorneys who filed the religion discrimination lawsuit against the Texas company filed the case only after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement with the Plano-based company.  The EEOC lawsuit seeks back pay, reinstatement, compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.  Ann EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated, in part, as follows: “Employers must remember their duty to provide an accommodation to the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees and applicants.” 

Whether Sabbath Day employment discrimination against Seventh Day Adventists occurs in Beaumont, Dallas, Houston or elsewhere, Texas employees subjected to religious discrimination and harassment may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a religion discrimination lawsuit is appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential claim.