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.

An estimated 2.5 million people in the United States have an intellectual disability - approximately 1% of the United States population.  As reported by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 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, an individual is considered to have an intellectual disability when: (1) the person’s intellectual functioning level (IQ) is below 70 - 75; (2) the person has significant limitations in adaptive skill areas as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills; and (3) the disability originated before the age of 18.  “Adaptive skill areas” refers to basic skills needed for every day life, including, for example, communication, self-care, home living, social skills, leisure, health and safety, self-direction, functional academics (reading, writing, basic math), and work. 

Persons with intellectual disabilities successfully perform a wide range of jobs, and, the EEOC says, can be dependable workers, but many employers still exclude persons with intellectual disabilities from the workplace because of persistent, but unfounded myths, fears, and stereotypes.  In this regard, the EEOC reports that some employers believe incorrectly that persons with intellectual disabilities will have higher absentee rates and will cause insurance costs to skyrocket even though studies show that these are misconceptions.

For its own part, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit workplace discrimination, including disability discrimination and harassment or retaliation for reporting disability discrimination.  The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is one federal law enforced by the EEOC which prohibits discrimination based upon disability.  While not everyone with an intellectual disability is covered by the ADA, a person with an intellectual disability may meet the ADA’s definition of disability, subjecting an employer to liability for mental disability discrimination. 

In April of 2011, EEOC attorneys filed a federal disability discrimination lawsuit against a company based in Texas, alleging that the Texas company discriminated against employees with mental disabilities by subjecting the employees to verbal and physical harassment while housing them in substandard facilites and denying them lawful wages.  According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against the company, EEOC attorneys contend that the Texas company exploited these workers because their intellectual disabilities made them particularly vulnerable and unaware of the extent to which their legal rights were being denied.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-6-11b.cfm .  More specifically, the EEOC lawsuit asserts that the company failed to pay lawful wages, restricted the employees’ freedom of movement, failed to provide adequate medical care when needed and subjected the employees to vebal abuse which included frequently referring to the workers as retarded and stupid.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the EEOC’s Press Release pertaining to the lawsuit said, in part, as follows: “The victims in this case were subject to a hostile work environment and discriminatory treatment because of their disability.” 

The EEOC lawsuit on behalf of these workers followed an EEOC Commission meeting that explored the issue of discrimination on the basis of mental disabilities.  Following that meeting, the EEOC issued its final regulations interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (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 an employee with a mental or intellectual disability is subjected to verbal or physical harassment and unlawful employment discrimination in Texas or elsewhere, the disabled employee may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a charge of disability discrimination and harassment, including a disability discrimination lawsuit, is warranted under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination claim.

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.”

In a June 17, 2011 Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-17-11.cfm , the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that an engineering firm based in Beaumont, Texas agreed to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by EEOC attorneys by paying $100,000 and providing additional remedial relief.  According to the EEOC, the Beaumont company unlawfully fired an employee because it mistakenly assumed he had multiple sclerosis (MS) that would substantially limit his ability to work.  Filed in the Beaumont Division for the Eastern District of Texas, the EEOC lawsuit claimed that a regional safety supervisor for the company’s Beaumont facility began experiencing numbness and tingling in his extremities soon after starting his job at the engineering firm.  The employee sought medical tests to determine the cause of his symptons and informed his immediate supervisor.  He also told the regional safety manager that the doctors believed he may have MS.

As stated in the EEOC Press Release, the regional safety manager recruited someone else  for the employee’s position and urged the employee to take medical leave, telling him that MS is very debilitating and that he did not think the company would want to deal with his disease.  The employee followed the supervisor’s advice and took medical leave, but, when he obtained from his doctor a full medical clearance to return to work without any restrictions, the Beaumont company’s human resources manager refused to honor it, stating that the employee’s position was no longer available, despite the fact that it was available and remained so until the company hired someone else for the position approximately two weeks later.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects workers against employment discrimination because of perceived disabilities as well as actual disabilities.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination whether it occurs in Beaumont or elsewhere.  More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Employees subjected to employment related disability discrimination in Beaumont or elsewhere may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if the particular circumstances and facts of their potential discrimination claim warrant filing of a charge of disability discrimination.

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 .

In a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a convenience store in Wisconsin is charged with violating the civil rights of an employee who was fired because of her disabilities.  According to a May 25, 2011 EEOC Press Release, EEOC attorneys contend that the company fired the female employee because she left the workplace to seek medical attention for medical conditions, including panic attacks and interstitial familial pulmonary fibrosis.  See EEOC posting at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-25-11b.cfm .  An EEOC director was quoted as saying: “No employer can force upon any disabled employee the impossible choice between necessary medical treatment and his or her job.”  In this case, EEOC attorneys assert that the convenience store apparently fired the disabled woman since she had medical conditions, but everyone in the U. S. gets an opportunity to make a living, regardless of disabilities.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting disability discrimination.  More information about the EEOC may be found at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether unlawful employment-related medical condition terminations occur in Beaumont, Houston, or elsewhere, employees fired because they have medical conditions and need to see their doctor can contact the EEOC and an attorney to discuss filing disability discrimination charges and a disability discrimination lawsuit.

On May 10, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that two Arkansas men pleaded guilty in a Little Rock, Arkansas federal court to charges related to their involvement in the firebombing of the house of an interracial couple.  According to the DOJ, the two men admitted that on the night of January 14, 2011, while at party in Arkansas, they and two other men devised a plan to firebomb an interracial couple’s home.  They then drove to the home, and, upon arrival, constructed three Molotov Cocktails and threw them at the house.  In addition, the DOJ said that the couple was subjected to racial slurs and threatened with future violence if they did not leave Arkansas.  Though not physically injured themselves, the victims’ home did sustain some damage during the firebombing incident.  The two men pled guilty to one count of conspiracy against rights and one count of criminal violation of housing rights.  See, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/May/11-crt-599.html .

The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division announced on March 10, 2011 that a Bexar County, Texas corrections officer was charged in a two-count federal indictment with violating the civil rights of two detainees assaulted at the Bexar County Detention Center.  According to the DOJ Civil Rights Division Press Release at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/March/11-crt-308.html , the civil rights case is being investigated by the FBI’s San Antonio Division with assistance from the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office and is being prosecuted by an Assistant U. S. Attorney as well as a Civil Rights Division Attorney.  An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence of guilt, and the defendant is presumed innocent unles and until proven guilty.

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that an Arlington, Texas man pleaded guilty in February 2011 to a hate crime stemming from the ethnically motivated arson of a children’s playground at a mosque in Arlington during July of 2010.  The DOJ said that the man pleaded guilty to damaging religious property in violation of federal hate crime laws before a U. S. Federal District Judge in Fort Worth, Texas.  According to the DOJ Press Release, the man admitted to setting fire to playground equipment at the mosque as part of a series of ethnically motivated acts directed at individuals of Arab or Middle Eastern descent associated with the mosque.  He further admitted to shouting racial and ethnic slurs at individuals of Arab or Middle Eastern descent at the mosque on multiple occasions.  As stated in the Press Release, this is the 50th prosecution of post September 11, 2001 backlash against Arab and Muslim Americans.  See, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-crt-228.html .

Hate crimes may be reported to law enforcement, a United States Attorney and the Department of Justice whether they occur in Arlington, Fort Worth, Houston or elsewhere.  In this case, the hate crime incident was investigated jointly by the Arlington Police Department and the FBI, and is being prosecuted by a trial attorney with the DOJ Civil Rights Division and an Assistant U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas.  People subjected to hate crime misconduct may also contact an attorney to determine whether a hate crime civil rights lawsuit is appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential hate crime case.

Sentencing in the Arlington hate crime case was set to occur July 11, 2011.

In Fiscal Year 2010, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 33,890 charges alleging race-based discrimination, accounting for 36 percent of the federal agency’s private sector caseload.  In this regard, racial discrimination in employment practices violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is an agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit employment-related racial discrimination.  Within this role, the EEOC may bring suit against companies on behalf of employees subjected to racial discrimination and retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination.  For example, the EEOC posted at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-3-11.cfm a Press Release announcing that a transportation management company agreed to settle for $60,000 a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys.  According to the Press Release, EEOC attorneys filed the employment discrimination lawsuit and charged the company with violating federal law by subjecting a black employee to racial discrimination.  In addition to seeking monetary relief, the EEOC can obtain other forms of relief, including injunctive relief to prevent and eliminate further harassment and retaliation.  More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether racial slurs and comments occur in workplaces in Beaumont, Dallas, Houston or elsewhere, employees forced to experience racial harassment at work may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine whether a racial harassment lawsuit is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the particular case.