Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and requires employers to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless to do so would pose an undue hardship.  For its part, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including work-related religion discrimination.  In this regard, EEOC attorneys announced on August 16, 2011 that a moving and storage company will pay $30,000 and furnish substantial equitable relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-16-11f.cfm .

In the lawsuit, EEOC attorneys charged that the company violated federal law when it refused to hire a Rastafarian, because he wore his hair in dreadlocks.  According to the EEOC, the Rastafarian holds the sincere religious belief that as a Rastafarian he should not cut his hair in honor of Jah, the name given to the higher power in that faith.  An EEOC attorney stated, in part, that “[e]mployers need to understand their obligation to balance employees’ needs and rights to practice their religion with the conduct of their business.” 

In addition to monetary relief, the consent decree in the case requires that the company provide significant remedial relief, including, for example, implementing written policies and procedures for its work sites prohibiting religious discrimination and providing anti-discrimination training to all managers, supervisors, and employees at all five of the company’s locations.

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.

The U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in August that two New Mexico men pleaded guilty to federal hate crime charges related to a racially motivated assault on a developmentally disabled man of Navajo descent.  See, http://www.justicec.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-crt-1064.html .  A third man pleaded guilty in June to conspiracy to commit a federal hate crime.  The three were indicted originally for violating the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Shepard/Byrd Act).  During the August plea hearing, two defendants admitted taking the victim to one defendant’s apartment, which was adorned in racist paraphernalia, including a Nazi flag and a woven dream catcher with a swastika in it.  As the victim slept, the defendants defaced his body with ink drawings, and when he awoke, coerced the victim into agreeing to be branded with a wire hanger that burned a swastika impression into the victim’s skin.  Further, the defendants defaced the victim’s body with white supremacist and anti-Native American symbols, including shaving a swastika in the back of the victim’s head.    A DOJ attorney quoted in the DOJ Press Releases stated, in part, as foolows:  “Today’s guilty pleas demonstrate the law enforcement community’s resolve to bring to justice anyone who victimizes a person because of the color of their skin or ethnic heritage.”

The U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced in an August 22, 2011 News Release that a Los Angeles based Japanese restaurant group has agreed to pay back wages of $144,721 to 66 employees following an investigation by the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division that disclosed systemic violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime, minimum wage and record-keeping provisions.  In its News Release at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20111174.htm , the DOL stated investigators conducted interviews and pay roll record reviews, finding that dishwashers, prep cooks and cooks worked an average of 45 to 50 hours per week and were paid “straight time” wages for all hours, rather than time and one-half their regular rates for all overtime as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  In this regard, the FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular hourly rate for hours worked beyond 40 per week.  Additionally, the law requires employers to maintain accurate time and payroll records, and prohibits retaliation against employees who exercise their rights under the law. 

For more information about the FLSA, information is available at http://www.dol.gov/whd/ .

Discharging an individual because of a disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment-related disability discrimination.  In this regard, the EEOC posting at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-16-11c.cfm announced filing of a federal lawsuit by the EEOC in which agency attorneys contend that a newspaper company violated federal law by terminating a disabled manager because of his back injury and neurological impediments.  More specifically, the EEOC disability discrimination lawsuit charges that the company terminated the employee when he returned to work after a medical leave of absence and sought a reasonable accommodation.  According to the EEOC, the employee worked as a print manager and commercial print job supervisor, and, in February 2008, went on medical leave for back surgery due to a herniated disc.  The EEOC said that during surgery he sustained permanent spinal cord damage which limited some lower body functions, so he requested a reasonable accommodation but was terminated one week after he returned to work.  EEOC attorneys filed the disability discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement throught the agency’s conciliation process.

Whether workplace disability discrimination related to back injuries or complications from a disc herniation occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to termination based on a back injury disability may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a disability discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential back injury discrimination claim.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including, for example, national origin discrimination.  In a posting at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-17-11b.cfm , the EEOC announced filing of a federal lawsuit against a Chinese fast food restaurant chain.  In the case, the EEOC charges that the restaurant chain violated federal law by treating Latino employees differently from Asian workers at one of its restaurants.  According to the EEOC Press Release, a general manager for a restaurant gave less desirable assignments to Hispanic workers, reduced their hours and held them to a different standard of performance.  More specifically, the EEOC lawsuit alleges that Hispanic workers who worked as counter help were required to clean the bathroom, tables and counters, while Asian workers were permitted to simply stand around and watch.  In addition, the EEOC found that the general manager disciplined Latino employees in a stricter, harsher and more frequent manner than Asian employees for similar infractions.

Discrimination based on national origin violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  EEOC attorneys filed the lawsuit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the agency’s conciliation process.  The lawsuit seeks monetary damages on behalf of Hispanic workers, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of notices at the workplace and other measures to prevent future discrimination.  In this regard, an EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release said, in part, as follows:  “Favoring employees of one ethnicity over another is not only illegal but undermines the benefits of a diverse work force.”

Whether Hispanic or Latino employees are subjected to workplace discrimination in Corpus Christi, Houston, San Antonio or elsewhere, impacted employees may consult the EEOC or an attorney to determine whether a national origin discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential discrimination case.

In its posting at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-23-11.cfm , the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced filing of a disablity discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC alleges that a national department store retail company violated federal law when it refused to accommodate a diabetic employee’s request for a regular schedule and forced her to quit her job.  More specifically, the EEOC’s lawsuit charges that the company failed to accommodate an employee who began to suffer significant complications to her diabetes after the company switched her from her long-held, set schedule to an irregular schedule, ignoring, later, her oral requests for a return to a set schedule even after she brought in a doctor’s note explaining her need to work a predictable schedule.  As stated in the EEOC’s Press Release, when she told the company that the scheduled hours could kill her, a company store manager laughed and informed her that she would not be accommodated, forcing her resignation. 

Disability discrimination, including the failure to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability, violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  EEOC attorneys filed the lawsuit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the federal agency’s conciliation process.  An EEOC trial attorney quoted in the Press Release stated, in part, as follows:  “Employers are obligated to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities, and this obligation becomes even more serious when a worker has a potentially life-threatening illness.”  More information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether workplace diabetes discrimination occurs in Conroe, Beaumont, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to disability harassment may contact the EEOC or an attorney to determine whether a disability discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential diabetes related employment discrimination claim.

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.

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 .

In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-28-11c.cfm , attorneys with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced filing of a disability discrimination lawsuit against a Temp Agency accused of violating federal law by refusing to allow an employee to return to work because of his epilepsy.  According to the EEOC, the Temp Agency placed the employee with a company where he unpacked and sorted ink cartridges.  After he experienced a brief epileptic seizure on his first day of work, the company allowed him to work the rest of the day, but asked him to provide a note from his doctor authorizing him to return to work.  As described in the Press Release, the employee provided the note to the Temp Agency the next day, but the Temp Agency neither advised him that the note was inadequate nor forwarded the note to the company, and the employee was not permitted to return to work and was effectively terminated. 

Such alleged misconduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and the EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.  More information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces may be found in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related epilepsy discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Houston, San Antonio or elsewhere, employees subjected to disability discrimination may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if an epilpepsy employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential discrimination claim.