On June 27, 2011, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-27-11b.cfm , announcing settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit against a nationwide restaurant chain.  EEOC lawyers charged in the case that the restaurant chain refused to provide one of its restaurant managers with legally required reasonable accommodations for her disability, a leg amputation.  According to the EEOC, the company prohibited her from working in its restaurants because of her disability, despite her desire to return to work, and then fired her because of her disability.

Interestingly, the EEOC further charged that the restaurant business maintained a maximum medical leave policy that automatically denied workers any additional medical leave beyond a pre-determined limit, even when additional medical leave was required by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) reasonable accommodation, which resulted in the unlawful termination of a class of workers.  Consequently, in addition to a monetary payment to the fired restaurant manager, the consent decree settling the lawsuit will also provide monetary relief to 33 additional workers who EEOC lawyers charged were denied reasonable accommodations and unlawfully terminated.  A trial lawyer quoted in the EEOC Press Release stated that “Industry should take note that federal law requires employers to make exceptions to generally applicable policies and work rules - such as limits on the amount of medical leave an employee may take - when necessary to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities, unless providing an exception to a particular individual is an undue hardship.”

The EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws which prohibit employment discrimination, including disability discrimination.  In fiscal year 2010, private sector workplace discrimination charge filings with the EEOC hit an unprecedented level of 99,922, which included a record high number of disability charges (25,165) - an increase of 17.3% in disability charges over the prior fiscal year.  More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawyers filed a discrimination lawsuit against a full-service home health care provider, charging that the health care provider violated federal law when it fired an employee because of her disability and because she challenged the company’s failure to accommodate her.  In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-14-11.cfm , the EEOC announced filing of the disability discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC alleges that a registered nurse, who worked as a pediatric case manager, was diagnosed with breast cancer and began treatment in 2009.  According to the EEOC, the employer refused to provide her with reasonable accommodations to enable her to return to work in a pediatric case manager job or an appropriate alternate position, despite her being released to return to work with limited restrictions that were phased out and ultimately eliminated.  As a result of the company’s refusal to reasonably accommodate her, she filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC.  The EEOC said that she was subsequently subjected to adverse employment actions, including termination, in retaliation for her having filed the discrimination charge.

In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Such alleged misconduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA.  EEOC lawyers filed the discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.  The agency seeks injunctive relief and punitive damages as well as lost wages and benefits because of the alleged breast cancer disability discrimination.  An EEOC lawyer quoted in the Press Release stated, in part, as follows:  “Federal law clearly obligates employers to work with disabled employees to determin how best to accommodate them.”     

Whether breast cancer disability discrimination occurs at workplaces in Beaumont, Cuero, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to breast cancer disability 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 case.

In Texas, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit, under Texas and federal law, employers from discriminating against people because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment.  As described in the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) Employment Discrimination Fact Sheets at http://www.twc.state.tx.us/crd/facts.html , the law requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer.  Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers are examples provided by the TWC of accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs.  In addition to prohibiting religion discrimination in employment, Texas and federal law also make it unlawful for employers to retaliate against employees for opposing and reporting employment discrimination based upon religion.

For its own part, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency charged with enforcing federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination, including religious discrimination.  In a July 15, 2011 Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-15-11a.cfm , the EEOC announced a finding by a federal court in which the federal court agreed that a national retail clothing company committed religious discrimination against a 17-year-old Muslim girl.  EEOC lawyers allege in the religious discrimination lawsuit that the retail clothing company failed to hire the girl for a sales position because she wore a hijab, or head scarf, in observance of her sincerely held religious beliefs.  The Court found that the company refused to hire her in June 2008 for a position at one of its stores because she was wearing the hijab when she was interviewed and this violated the company’s “look policy.”  The Court, noting that the company had allowed numerous exceptions to its “look policy,” including head scarf exceptions, found that the retail company had “completely failed to consider the impact, if any, of those exceptions” and that its evidence was thus too speculative.  An EEOC trial lawyer quoted in the Press Release said: “The Court has sent a clear message to employers: that the denial of a request for a reasonable accommodation of an employee’s or applicant’s religious beliefs must be based on demonstrated facts, not guesswork or speculation.” 

More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment discrimination based upon religion occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to religious discrimination may contact the EEOC, the TWC and a lawyer to determine if a religion discrimination charge and lawsuit is appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential Texas employment religious discrimination claim.

A global specialty chemicals company in Arkansas will pay $80,000.00 to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), according to an EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-12-11.cfm .  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the company violated federal anti-discrimination law when it terminated several black employees because of their race.  More specifically, the EEOC case alleged that the company terminated black employees based upon discriminatory and subjective evaluations.  Workplace race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, and EEOC lawyers filed this race discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary, pre-litigation settlement through the agency’s conciliation process.  More information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment discrimination based upon race occurs at workplaces in Arkansas, Texas or elsewhere, employees subjected to unlawful workplace racial discrimination may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if a racial discrimination lawsuit is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the potential case.

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.

Following their January 2011 guilty pleas to conspiring to violate the civil rights of an interracial couple by burning a cross near their home in Louisiana, a federal judge has sentenced three people involved in the cross burning incident, according to the United States Department of Justice.  During the guilty pleas, it was admitted that in October 2008 the three men agreed to build, erect and burn a cross near the home of their cousin, her African American boyfriend, her 11-year-old son, and their grandmother who was believed to approve of the interracial relationship.  The cross was built, transported near the victims’ home and lit on fire.  When they learned the FBI would investigate, the conspirators removed the burned cross, disassembled it and hid it in the woods.  An attorney with the Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division said, “The defendants used an unmistakable symbol of hate to threaten a member of their own family simply because of her boyfriend’s race.”  See, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-crt-543.html  

Victims of hate crimes and incidents such as cross burnings, which historically have been symbols of racial hatred, may contact the United States Department of Justice to report the crime and request action.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including discrimination based upon an employee’s intellectual or mental disabilities.  As discussed by the EEOC, an estimated 2.5 million people in the United States have an intellectual disability - approximately 1% of the United States population.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/intellectual_disabilities.html .  Estimates also indicate that only 31% of individuals with intellectual disabilities are employed, although many more want to work.  According to the EEOC, persons with intellectual disabilities successfully perform a wide range of jobs, and can be dependable workers.  In addition to having intellectual disabilities, persons with intellectual disabilities may have other impairments as well.  The EEOC identifies examples of coexisting impairments to include conditions such as cerebral palsy, seizure disorders and attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder or ADHD, among others.

In this regard, the EEOC announced on July 5, 2011 that a retail company charged with disability discrimination agreed to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC on behalf of a part-time stocker who suffers from cerebral palsy, limited intellectual functioning and a seizure disorder.  In its Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-5-11a.cfm , the EEOC states that the company refused to provide a reasonable accommodation to the employee.  The EEOC’s suit asserted that while the employee succeeded early on with the assistance of a job coach and task reminders, the company later failed to ensure the presence of a job coach during work-related and job performance meetings.  Following a 2004 medical leave of absence due to a seizure, the employee’s work hours were decreased dramatically, sometimes down to only eight hours per week, the EEOC said.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in the Press Release, saying, in part, as follows:  ” … employers must be mindful to treat workers with disabilities fairly and decently and ensure that reasonable accommodation requests are properly carried out.”    

Unfortunately, many employers still exclude persons with intellectual disabilities from the workplace because of persistent, but unfounded myths, fears and stereotypes, and, as the recent case shows, workers with mental disabilities can be subject to workplace discrimination related to their intellectual disabilities. 

Whether employment-related disability discrimination against persons suffering from limited intellectual functioning and coexisting impairments such as cerebral palsy or ADHD occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, employees may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a charge of disability discrimination and an employment discrimination lawsuit are appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential mental disability discrimination claim.

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  In an EEOC Press Release dated July 5, 2011 posted at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-5-11b.cfm , the EEOC announced filing of a federal discrimination lawsuit that accuses a restaurant of violating federal law by permitting a regular customer to sexually harass female employees.  More specifically, the EEOC charges restaurant management with failing to protect its female servers from a repeat harassing customer.  According to the EEOC, the customer was a sheriff’s deputy who frequently commented on female server’s bodies and grabbed their breasts and buttocks.  In addition, the EEOC asserts that the sheriff’s deputy invited female servers to join him and his wife in a menage a trois.  The EEOC further contends that when the female servers complained, restaurant management failed to take immediate corrective action to end the offensive and intimidating harassment. 

Such alleged misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In this regard, EEOC attorneys filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release said, in part, as follows:  “The EEOC will actively prosecute employers that condone such conduct.”  More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether repeated customer sexual harassment of restaurant employees occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to customer sexual harassment may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a sexual harassment lawsuit is appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential sex abuse claim.

One of the world’s largest security firms violated federal law when it failed to stop co-worker harassment of a security guard, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced in a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/6-28-11a.cfm .  According to the EEOC, a security guard of East Indian national origin faced constant harassment, including national origin and age related harassment.  In its lawsuit, the EEOC contends that the guard was repeatedly ridiculed about his accent and his turban.  The guard made complaints to supervisors but the company took no action to address the harassment, and, instead, transferred the guard involuntarily, which ultimately led to a reduction of work hours and benefits.  Ultimately, the guard resigned. 

Federal law prohibits employment discrimination, including national origin harassment, and the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting workplace harassment.  Additional information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether accent harassment in the workplace occurs in Conroe, Dallas or Houston, employees subjected to workplace ridicule and intimidation based upon their national origin accent may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if an employment discrimination charge is appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential accent harassment claim.

A Houston nightclub’s Corporate Vice-President made explicit racist statements and forced out African-American staff, according to a race discrimination lawsuit filed in a Houston federal court by attorneys for the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  Filed in Houston on June 30, 2011, the EEOC’s lawsuit charges that, beginning at least in September 2007, the nightclub’s management prevented African-American waitresses from working their scheduled shifts when a company official visited the club from corporate headquarters near Dallas, because, as reported in the EEOC’s Press Release, local Houston managers told one African-American waitress that a vice president did not like African-American waitresses and dancers in his club.  The EEOC further claims that this vice president called at least one black waitress the N-word.  In addition, the EEOC claims that black waitresses working at the club insisted on speaking with the vice president to discuss their complaints of race discrimination.  The meeting, however, failed to change the working conditions, which had become intolerable for African-American females who were repeatedly prevented from working their scheduled shifts because of their race.  The EEOC contends that the women were forced to quit because of the racism. 

Race 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 workplace racism.  EEOC attorneys filed the Houston race discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.  An EEOC attorney in Houston said, “This lawsuit will send a message to employers that the EEOC will vigorously enforce federal law by prosecuting companies whose staffing decisions are unapologetically motivated by unlawful racial preference.”

Whether unlawful workplace race discrimination occurs in Dallas, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected employment discrimination based upon race or racial preferences may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if a charge of racial discrimination is appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential racial discrimination lawsuit.

Source:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-30-11a.cfm