The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) provides a wide range of protections for individuals entering, called to active duty in the military, or deployed service members, and is intended to postpone or suspend certain civil obligations to enable service members to devote full attention to duty and relieve stress on the family members of those deployed servicemembers.  See, www.military.com .

For example, the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division announced settlements in May with two lenders under the SCRA, resolving allegations that the lenders wrongfully foreclosed upon active duty servicemembers without first obtaining court orders, in violation of the SCRA.  According to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Press Release, the combined settlements provide more than $22 million in monetary relief to the victims.  In addition to monetary relief one consent decree provides that the lender will repair any negative credit report entries related to the allegedly wrongful foreclosures and will not pursue any remaining amounts owed under the mortgages. 

The Civil Rights Division’s SCRA investigations have, according to the DOJ, resulted in litigation or settlements enforcing SCRA’s provisions for termination of residential lease agreements, protection against enforcement of storage liens on towed vehicles without court orders, reduction of interest rates to six percent on credit obligations, and a prohibition against paying pre-payment penalties on mortgage loans when a service member must move for military service. 

Additional information about the DOJ’s enforcement of the SCRA and the other laws protecting servicemembers is available at www.servicemembers.gov  or by phone at 1-800-896-7743.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued the Texas Department of Rural Affairs (TDRA) charging that the state agency engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it paid a female program specialist less than her male colleagues for doing essentially the same work.  In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-20-11d.cfm , the EEOC said it filed the sex discrimination lawsuit in the Austin Division for the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, claiming the TDRA violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963.  In this regard, EEOC attorneys allege in the lawsuit that the employee was paid approximately $25,000 less than her male counterparts in the TDRA’s former Disaster Recovery Division.  According to the EEOC, the TDRA created a new, temporary division in 2008, the Disaster Recovery Division, to disburse $3.1 billion of federal money in Texas after Hurricanes Dolly and Ike.  The female claimant learned that males hired as program specialists were paid much more than the female program specialists.  On February 28, 2011, the Disaster Recovery Division was eliminated, and, as a result of the elimination, the claimant and all female program specialists in the DRD were terminated from employment with the TDRA but several male program specialists were kept. 

Whether discriminatory, unequal pay in employment occurs in Austin, Cuero, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to pay discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine whether a pay discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances 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 sexual harassment lawsuit filed in Dallas, Texas by attorneys with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges a lighting entertainment company with subjecting a female employee to a barrage of sexual remarks, touches, and lewd sexual exposure by a department manager and co-workers.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-19-11b.cfm .  According to the EEOC, the company hired the female employee in May of 2007 as a temporary employee before she became a permanent warehouse lead in September, 2007.  In the lawsuit, EEOC attorneys contend that she was the only female in the company’s Dallas warehouse department, and that, prior to becoming a permanent employee, she began to experience unwelcome sexually vulgar comments, advances and touches by a warehouse manager, as well as male warehouse co-workers.  The EEOC alleges further that the female employee endured unwanted touches, requests for sexual relations, money being rubbed on her body, forced kisses, and derogatory names such as bitch and slut.  Moreover, the EEOC asserts that one employee even exposed himself to her on the job and that she reported the harassment to management but nothing was done to stop the harassing conduct or impose timely discipline on the harassers.  Ultimately, she resigned. 

The sexual harassment lawsuit was filed in federal court in Dallas pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and requires an employer to prevent and promptly correct sexual harassment.  The EEOC seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including sex discrimination and harassment.  Agency attorneys filed the lawsuit after the EEOC investigated the case, finding reasonable cause to believe that the alleged discrimination took place, and first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. 

Whether employment-related sexual harassment occurs in Dallas or elsewhere, employees subjected to workplace sexual harassment may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a sexual harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential sex discrimination 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 .

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in August that a former contract security officer at the Willacy Detention Center in Raymondville, Texas pleaded guilty to engaging in sexual abuse of a female detainee under his supervision and control.  According to the DOJ, the former security officer was assigned to pick up meal trays from the various housing “pods” inside the Willacy Detention Center in Raymondville.  When he encountered the victim outside one of the pods as she dropped off empty trays from her pod, the officer pulled the victim into the guard’s bathroom located adjacent to the victim’s pod and engaged in intercourse with her.  The DOJ said that the female detainee immediately reported the sexual abuse to two individuals, including a former female contract security officer supervising her pod.  See, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-crt-1016.html .

Whether law enforcement sexual abuse of detainees or arrestees occurs in Texas or elsewhere, people subjected to law enforcement officer sexual abuse may contact the United States Department of Justice or a lawyer.  In this case, the sexual misconduct charge was investigated by agents from the Department of Homeland Security in Harlingen, Texas and prosecuted by Assistant U. S. Attorneys in Houston.

In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-21-11c.cfm , the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced filing of an age discrimination lawsuit against a Corpus Christi, Texas based distributor of diesel, fuels, gasoline, lubricants and oil.  As described by the EEOC, the employment discrimination case claims that the Corpus Christi company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) when it discriminated against a 72-year-old former fire chief who sought employment as a truck driver.  Filed by EEOC lawyers in a Corpus Christi federal court, the age discrimination lawsuit alleges, more specifically, that the company refused to consider this former fire chief for employment after he received a referral for a truck driver position from Texas Workforce Solutions.  According to the EEOC, the applicant had years of valuable experience operating tankers, eighteen wheeled vehicles and emergency vehicles.  In addition, he had driven 75 foot ladder trucks during years of service as a volunteer fire fighter and as a department chief.  However, the EEOC charges that when he went to apply for work with the company, a hiring official focused entirely on the man’s age rather than his qualifications and, after looking at his driver’s license, stated that he was too old to drive for the company.  Consequently, he was not allowed to complete the hiring process.

Such alleged conduct violates the ADEA, and the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including discrimination related to age.  In this regard the EEOC first attempted to resolve the case pre-litigation before filing the lawsuit in Corpus Christi.  More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov . In addition to federal law prohibiting work-related age discrimination, Chapter 21of the Texas Labor Code offers protections against age discrimination in the workplace. For more information in this regard, one can visit http://www.twc.state.tx.us/crd/facts.html . 

Whether age discrimination related to employment occurs in Corpus Christi, Portland, Robstown or elsewhere in South Texas, employees subjected to this type of employment discrimination 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 age discrimination case.

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.