EEOC History: 2000 - 2009

Milestones: 2000

• EEOC contracted with 93 state and local Fair Employment Practice Agencies (FEPAs) that resolved approximately 53,000 dual filed Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act charges. EEOC also contracted with 63 Tribal Employment Rights Offices (TEROs) to secure Indian preference agreements with employers operating on or near reservations and for the TEROs to process charges filed against employers operating on reservations.
• In February, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13145 prohibiting federal departments and agencies from making employment decisions based on protected genetic information. In issuing the first Executive Order of the 21^st Century, the President stated that he hoped the action would "set an example and pose a challenge for every employer in America" to adopt a policy not to discriminate on the basis of protected genetic information "because . . . no employer should ever review your genetic records along with your resume." The Executive Order assigned to EEOC the responsibility for coordinating the policy with federal departments and agencies.

• In the spring, EEOC conducted a series of town hall styled meetings in selected cities nationwide for federal sector employees as well as attorneys and advocacy groups who represent the interests of individual complainants. The town hall meetings provided information to the public about current and anticipated improvements to the federal sector EEO process and allowed participants the opportunity to share their comments and concerns about the federal sector EEO process with the Director of the Office of Federal Operations and members of the Vice President's National Performance Review Task Force for improving the federal sector EEO process.
• As a result of Priority Charge Processing Procedures, EEOC had slightly more than 40,000 charges in its backlog (or inventory), down from over 100,000 charges four years earlier.
• EEOC and the National Labor Relations Board announced a joint Honors Program for law graduates interested in employment and civil rights law. Under the program, attorneys were given the opportunity to work at both agencies and be exposed to the full range of EEO and labor law.
• EEOC issued a Commission Decision on the exclusion of prescription contraceptives from health plans.

Notable Court Decisions

• The Supreme Court held in Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), that older workers cannot sue state agencies for damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
• In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000),  the Supreme Court rules that the plaintiffs can win in an employment discrimination case if they show that the employer's reason for a challenged action is pretextual (not true). The plaintiff does not have to prove that discrimination was the real reason -- it can be inferred from the facts. The unanimous Court states, "It is permissible for the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employer's explanation."
• In EEOC v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese' No. 98-C-698-X, 2000 WL 1339288 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 14, 2000) a jury awarded over $13 million in damages to a part-time janitor with developmental disabilities who was terminated because of his disability At trial, the regional manager, who fired the employee stated he did not want "those people" working at the restaurant. This was the largest individual award under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), although it was later reduced in accordance with statutory caps. 

EEOC Guidance

• The EEOC issued the following guidance in 2000:
  • Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees under the ADA (July 2000).
  • Enforcement Guidance on the Application of the ADA to Contingent Workers Placed by Temporary Agencies and Other Staffing Firms (Dec. 2000).
  • EEOC Policy Guidance on Executive Order 13145: To Prohibit Discrimination in Federal Employment Based on Genetic Information (July 2000) [RESCINDED]
  • Policy Guidance on Executive Order 13164: Establishing Procedures to Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable Accommodation (Dec. 2000).
  • Compliance Manual Section 2 - Threshold Issues (May 2000).
  • Compliance Manual Section 3 - Employee Benefits (Oct. 2000).
  • Compliance Manual Section 10 - Compensation Discrimination (Dec. 2000) and a plain-language fact sheet Questions and Answers: On Compensation Discrimination.

 

Milestones: 2001

• President George W. Bush nominated Cari M. Dominguez in May 2001 as the 12th chair of the EEOC, and the U.S. Senate confirmed her.

  

• On Sept. 11, terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. The Commission's New York District Office (NYDO) at Seven World Trade Center is demolished. There were no loss of life or injuries, but the office and all of its equipment, files, and records are destroyed.
• In response to post-9/11 challenges, the EEOC issued several documents, including: 
  • Questions And Answers About Employer Responsibilities Concerning the Employment of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, And Sikhs 
  • Questions and Answers about the Workplace Rights of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, and Sikhs under the Equal Employment Opportunity Laws.
  • Obtaining and Using Employee Medical Information as Part of Emergency Evacuation Procedures, to address the concerns of employers in the after­math of the 9/11 attacks. 

Notable Court Decisions

• In EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse, Inc., No. 8:99-cv-2218-T-26MSS, (M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2001), a jury awarded $2.2 million to a former female employee who was paid considerably less than a male employee who performed the same job duties, and was retaliated against after complaining of sex discrimination, in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.  The verdict was subsequently reduced to comply with the statutory cap. 

Notable EEOC Settlements

• EEOC v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. (S.D. Ohio Jan. 9, 2001), a Title VII and Pregnancy Discrimination Act lawsuit against the telephone company, settled for approximately $10 million in monetary relief and service credit for female employees who were not credited for pregnancy leave when the employer instituted early retirement incentive plans.
• 13 ADA lawsuits against Wal-Mart Stores settled for a total of $6.8 million (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2001)). Wal-Mart paid $3.8 million dollars to 21 individuals in the 13 pending ADA lawsuits and an additional $3 million to compensate people who had been denied employment at one of Wal-Mart's 52 distribution centers and who were negatively impacted by the company's pre-employment disability-related inquiries.

 

Milestones: 2002

• President George W. Bush launched the New Freedom Initiative to achieve full integration of individ­uals with disabilities into all aspects of the nation's social and economic life.  For people with disabilities, unemployment was as high as 70%. In support of the administration, the EEOC encouraged employers to hire more individuals with disa­bilities and provided advice on the ADA.
• Chair Dominguez launched the "Freedom to Compete" initiative, an "outreach, education, and coalition-building strategy designed to complement the agency's enforcement and litigation programs." As part of the initiative, the EEOC produced a series of public service announcements (PSAs) to run on television, featuring athletes from the 2002 Olympics and Paralympics.

• In May, Congress passes and President Bush signs into law the "Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002," or the No FEAR Act, to become effective October 2003.  It makes federal agencies accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws, and requires agencies to post data about their EEO complaints on their public websites.
• The Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs produced two videos: Marching Toward Opportunity, an overall history of the agency and its work, and Phoenix Rising: The EEOC in New York, the story of the destruction of the EEOC's New York District Office at Seven World Trade Center on 9/11 and its recovery. 
• To further its Five Point Plan for organizational excellence, the Commission contracted with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to evaluate headquarters and field structure, how the agency could communicate more efficiently with the public, and how to improve overall efficiency and performance.  The EEOC's Office of Human Resources completes the agency's transition from paper to elec­tronic processing for personnel matters for the agency's own employees. 

Notable Supreme Court Decisions

• In its 2002 term, the Supreme Court issued seven decisions relating to the laws enforced by the EEOC. These included an analysis of the ADA's requirement of 'substantially limits a major life activity' and definition of reasonable accommodation and direct threat; agreements to arbitrate; back pay for individuals not legally authorized to work; and procedural matters such as timeliness of charges and continuing violations.

Notable EEOC Settlements

• During 2002, the EEOC entered into a number of settlements which included large monetary relief, and many claimants. A few of the largest follow:
  • EEOC v. Bell Atlantic & NYNEX (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2002), $48.9 million to approximately 12,326 current and former female employees in 13 states; pattern and practice of pregnancy discrimination by denying pension credits for pregnancy and maternity leaves.   
  • EEOC v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (S.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2002), $47 million to about 4,600 women denied employment and promotion, or discharged because of their sex. Over 1,100 women were offered jobs.
  • EEOC v. Foot Locker Specialty, Inc.(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2002), $3.5 million in back pay and liquidated damages for 678 people discriminated against because of their age.
  • EEOC v. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. (E.D. Wis. June 28, 2002), $1.775 million in damages to 36 individuals required to submit to medical examinations with genetic testing if they filed injury reports of work-related carpal tunnel syndrome.
  • EEOC v. Iowa AG, LLC and Decoster Farms of Iowa (N.D. Iowa Oct. 2 2002), $1.525 million to Mexican female employees at a poultry and egg processing plant who were subjected to egregious sexual harassment, including rape and sexual assaults by their supervisors, as well as intimidation and retaliation.  
  • EEOC v. McKesson Water Products Co. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2002), $1.245 million to African American sales representatives who were assigned routes in minority and low-income neighborhoods where they earned less than non-African-American sales representatives assigned to more affluent routes. 

EEOC Guidance

• Compliance Manual Section 13 - National Origin Discrimination [Superseded] and plain-English document, Q & A: Compliance Manual Section on Compensation Discrimination [RESCINDED]. 

EEOC Resource Documents

• The ADA: A Primer for Small Business, summarizing the basic employment provisions of the ADA in plain language (Aug. 2002).

 

Milestones: 2003

• The EEOC strengthened outreach and education to immigrant workers through the Justice and Equality Program.  This program explained to immigrant workers that they have the right to work in a workplace free of discrimination.  This initiative, launched by the Houston District Office and then adopted by EEOC offices in Chicago, Denver, and Houston, united EEOC field staff with officials from the Consulates of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia; the Mexican Legal Defense Fund; the U.S. Departments of Labor and Justice; and various community organizations.
• The Commission held a series of public discussions, continuing in to 2004, about the issues raised in the Freedom to Compete Initiative.
• The Commission issued Management Directive 715 (MD-715) policy guidance for federal agencies to use in establishing and maintaining effective EEO programs under Title VII and the Rehabili­tation Act.  The essential components include: demonstrated commitment from agency leadership; integration of EEO into the agency's strategic mission; management and program accounta­bility; proactive prevention of unlawful dis­crimination; efficiency; and responsiveness and legal compliance.
• In July, the EEOC rolled out the RESOLVE program, which is the EEOC's internal alternative dispute resolution program.  RESOLVE is a comprehensive one-stop program that provides an alternative forum for EEOC staff to resolve workplace disputes informally.  All EEOC employees can use RESOLVE, which handles all types of workplace disputes.  The RESOLVE program is a key component of the EEOC's model workplace initiative.
• On Sept. 8, the Commission holds a public hearing, "Repositioning for New Realities: Securing the EEOC's Continued Effectiveness," to solicit input on the recommendations made by NAPA on making the agency more effective.

  

• The EEOC responded to the globalization of the workforce by developing two fact sheets addressing this trend: "Employee Rights When Working for Multi­national Employers" and "The Equal Employment Opportunity Responsibilities of Multi­national Employers."  These fact sheets address frequently asked questions about how laws enforced by the EEOC apply to U.S. workers on international assignments and to workers in the U.S. employed by foreign corporations.

Notable Supreme Court Decisions

• The Supreme Court issued three decisions this term affecting the Commission.  Two involve interpretations of the ADA, the third rules on "mixed motive" jury instructions under Title VII.

Notable EEOC Trial Victories

• In EEOC v. Bon Secours DePaul Medical Center, Inc. No. 2:02-cv-00728-JBF-TEM  (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2003), a jury awarded over $4 million to an employee who was forced to resign in retaliation for her role in addressing complaints by employees about a nurse's sexually harassing behavior in the operating room's surroundings.  The jury award of $1,050,000 in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages will be subsequently reduced in accordance with statutory caps. 

Notable EEOC Resolutions

• The Commission settles the largest-ever age discrimination lawsuit, Arnett and EEOC v. California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2003), compensating more than 1,700 retired state and local public safety officers who were subjected to age discrimination by CalPERS, the nation's largest public retirement fund, and California state and local government employers of public safety officers.  Under the consent decree, the class of former employees received benefits estimated at $250 million. 
• EEOC v. The Dial Corp. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2003) settled for $10 million in compensatory damages for approximately 90 women who were subjected to a hostile work environment by male coworkers and supervisors who propositioned them for sex, groped them, called them derogatory names, circulated  pornography and appeared to stalk some female employees both at the plant and after work.  The employer agreed to pay for an independent three-person panel to monitor the implementation of the decree's terms.
• In EEOC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (S.D. Ala. Oct. 22, 2003), the EEOC settled a race discrimination case for $883,000 for 23 African-American employees who were denied promotions and/or management skills assessment testing and training. The consent decree also prohibited the use of a test for promotion to management positions that the EEOC maintained had a disparate impact on African American employees, as well as the use of any other test or selection device prior to validation and a review by the EEOC.

Notable Federal Sector Decisions

• In Petty v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206, the Commission provided guidance on  implementing the standards of summary judgment in the federal sector adjudicatory process.

EEOC Resource Documents

• The EEOC issued the following resource documents in 2003:
  • Job Applicants and the ADA (Oct. 2003).
  • Work at Home/Telework as a Reasonable Accommodation (Feb. 2003).

 

Milestones: 2004

• In September, the EEOC announced the Youth@Work initiative, an outreach and education campaign designed to educate teenage workers about their workplace rights and responsibilities.  The program sponsored free outreach events for high schools, youth organizations, and small businesses that disproportionately employ younger workers, including teaching young workers how to prevent sexual harassment and other discriminatory practices in the workplace.  School systems repeatedly requested Youth@Work presentations.

  

• The EEOC published a series of reports examining demographic trends, economic indicators and employer practices in leading sectors of the economy.  The reports: "Diversity in the Media: A Chart Book for Selected Industries,"  described employment trends in the publishing, broadcasting, and cable industry; "High-End Department Stores: Their Access to and Use of Labor Markets," examined the status of minority sales workers at leading retailers; "Retail Distribution Centers: How New Business Processes Impact Minority Labor Markets," examined how the location of distribution centers can impact the recruitment and hiring of minority workers; and "Diversity In Law Firms," examined the employment of minority professionals in this influential industry.
• In support of the President's New Freedom Initiative, the EEOC entered into official partnerships with the states of Florida, Maryland, Vermont and Washington.  The EEOC reviewed these states' recruitment and hiring of individuals with disabilities, and also reviewed the reasonable accommodation policies used by these states.  The project was to highlight these states' best practices and share them with other state and local employers.  The EEOC provided technical assistance to those government employers who requested it.

Notable Supreme Court Decisions

• The Supreme Court issued two relevant decisions this year; one dealing with constructive discharge, the other clarifying that an employer can favor a younger employee without age discrimination taking place.

Notable EEOC Trial Victories

• In EEOC v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 347 F.Supp.2d 284 (E.D. La. 2004), a jury awarded $1.29 million to a former chemical plant lab clerk with scoliosis of the lumbar spine and lumbar disc disease.  She was discharged due to the employer's belief that it would be unsafe for her to walk on the plant site, in violation of the ADA.
• In EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., No. 6:02-cv-01112-JA-DAB (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2004), a jury awarded $1.57 million to a senior manager who was retaliated against and forced to resign after he complained to the defendant's legal department that a company official had engaged in employment discrimination.

Notable EEOC Resolutions

• EEOC resolves a sex discrimination lawsuit, EEOC v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2004) for $54 million for a class of female officers and women eligible for officer promotion in the firm's Institutional Equity Division.  The EEOC alleged that the firm engaged in a pattern or practice of sex discrimination by preventing women from being promoted, compensated or enjoying other terms, privileges and conditions of employment on the same basis as men.
• EEOC v. Carl Buddig & Co. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 7, 2004) settled for $2.5 million for African-American applicants and women who were discriminated against. The EEOC alleged that the defend­ant, a meat processing company, denied employment to black applicants because of their race.  The company also physically segregated applications from women and hired them only into packing line jobs, where the periodic raises were lower than in the unskilled jobs given to men.  In addition to the monetary relief, the employer agreed to hire the claimants who had previously been denied jobs. 
• The Commission settled EEOC v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a The Home Depot (D. Colo. Sept. 29, 2004) for $5.5 million for a class of female, African American and Hispanic employees who were subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliated against when they complained about discrimination.
• EEOC v. Milgard Mfg., Inc. (D. Colo. May 19, 2004) settled for over $3.3 million for African American applicants who were denied hire because of their race as well as to an HR employee who complained about discrimination.  In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree also required the defendant to recruit in areas with large black populations and report to the EEOC every six months on the race and ethnicity of applicants and hires.

EEOC Resource Documents

• The EEOC issued a technical assistance document, How to Comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Guide for Restaurants and Other Food Service Employers (Oct. 2004) [RESCINDED].  The guide explains that food service employers must avoid discriminating against people with disabilities while obeying strict public health rules.

 

Milestones: 2005

• This year, the EEOC gave the first "Freedom to Compete" Awards, recognizing private and state and local employers who had made strides towards an inclusive workforce. The awards were given in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

  

• On July 8, the Commission approved a plan to realign the field office structure.  The plan was designed to reduce labor costs, particularly at the management level, and flatten the overall management structure.  The reorganization more accurately aligned resources with ongoing charge activity and promoted greater uniformity across the field. It did not require closing any office, and, in fact, two new offices - Mobile and Las Vegas - were added. Twenty-three district offices were reduced to 15. Repositioning did not result in any EEOC employee losing his or her job or having the job downgraded.
• Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans over Labor Day weekend, and, for the second time in four years, an EEOC field office was destroyed.  The New Orleans staff of approxi­mately 50 fled the flooding of the city and ended up throughout the United States. Within three days, the EEOC confirmed that all employees survived and were safe. A new EEOC New Orleans office opened a few blocks from the old office just three months after Katrina devastated the city. The EEOC was among the very first federal agencies to reopen for business in downtown New Orleans. 

  

• The Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs produced a 40^th anniversary video: Benchmark on a March to Justice.
   

• The EEOC developed the IT capability to enable businesses which are required to file EEO-1 reports annually to update and submit these required reports online.
• The EEOC issued a Spanish-language version of the Youth@Work materials in June.

Notable Supreme Court Decision

• The Supreme Court held in Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi that the ADEA authorizes recovery in disparate impact cases and permits the employer defense that the challenged action was based on a "reasonable factor other than age."  

Notable EEOC Trial Victories

• In EEOC and Tamayo v. Harris Farms, Inc., No. F-02-6199 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2005), a jury awards approximately $1 million, including $500,000 in punitive damages (subject to a $300,000 cap), to a former farmworker woman who was subjected to egregious sexual harassment, including rape by her supervisor and retaliation.  This case was the first federal jury trial in the United States brought on behalf of a woman farmworker.  
• In EEOC v. EchoStar Communications Corp., No. 02-CV-00581 (D. Colo. May 6, 2005), a jury  awarded over $8 million to a blind applicant who was denied a reasonable accommodation, in violation of the ADA.  The jury award of compensatory and punitive damages was subsequently reduced in accordance to the ADA's statutory cap of $300,000. 
• In EEOC v. Dial Corp., No. 3:02-CV-10109 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 29, 2005), a federal judge ruled that a pre-employment strength test for production operator positions used by the defendant at its meat packing plant had a disparate impact against women, and was illegal under Title VII. This ruling followed a jury trial which found that the test was intentionally discriminatory after the extent of the disparate impact should have become apparent to the company.  The court awarded approximately $3.38 million to be shared among 52 class members, all of whom also received job offers with rightful place seniority.

Notable EEOC Resolutions

• The Commission settled EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2005) for $40 million for a class of African Americans, Asians, Latinos, and women who were subjected to race, color, national origin and sex discrimination in all aspects of their employment and applications. A nationwide consent decree established the settle­ment fund and also required the defendants to create an office of diversity and hire 25 full-time diversity recruiters to recruit minority applicants. The decree also established percentage benchmarks for the selection of African-Americans, Asians, Latinos and women into sales associate and managerial positions.
• EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Ohio June 16, 2005) settled for $8.5 million for approximately 3,400 current and former African American Ford employees who took the company's Apprentice Training Selection System test. The EEOC alleged that the defendant used this written test for skilled trades apprentice positions that had a disparate impact on African American applicants.  Besides the monetary relief, the consent decree provided that an industrial organizational psychologist selected by the parties would design and validate an apprenticeship selection process consistent with the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and with professional standards.  The settlement also provided that Ford select 280 class members for apprentice positions.
• Rivera Vineyards, Inc. (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2005) settled for $1.05 million for a class of Latino farmworkers, mostly women, who were subjected to sexual harassment, including rape, touching, groping, breast grabbing, leering and derogatory comments.  The EEOC also alleged that a class of farmworkers who were fired and not rehired after opposing the harassment, were denied job opportunities.  Besides the monetary relief, the consent decree provides for reinstatement and certain hiring goals for women applicants into non-traditional job positions.

EEOC Resource Documents

• The EEOC, the National Council on Disability and the DOJ jointly issued two fact sheets, Questions and Answers for Mediation Providers: Mediation and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (May 2005) and Questions and Answers for Parties to Mediation: Mediation and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (May 2005).
  
  The EEOC also issued:
  • Practical Advice for Drafting and Implementing Reasonable Accommodation Procedures Under Executive Order 13164 (July 2005) to assist executive branch agencies in instituting procedures for processing reasonable accommodation requests under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 
  • Questions & Answers: Association Provision of the ADA (Oct. 2005), explaining the ADA provision prohibiting discrimination based on a known relationship or associ­ation with an individual with a disability.
  • Questions & Answers About Blindness and Vision Impairments in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (updated in 2023).

 

Milestones: 2006

• In April, the Commission began its Systemic Initiative in order to focus on those employers maintaining policies and practices that discriminate against classes of workers and job applicants.  Under the Systemic Initiative, the agency utilized all of its tools - technical assistance, broad-based investigations, conciliation, and, as a last resort, litigation - to end unlawful employer practices of wide-scale discrimination.  The Commission developed a "national law firm" approach, with EEOC offices across the country combining resources to confront employers engaged in widespread discrimination.
• On August 31, President Bush appointed Naomi C. Earp, previously Vice Chair, as the 13^th Chair of the Commission.   Approximately 15 years earlier, Chair Earp had served as a Special Assistant / Legal Advisor to then-Chair Clarence Thomas.

  

• As part of President Bush's New Freedom Initiative, the EEOC issued a "Final Report on Best Practices for the Employment of People with Disabilities in State Government."  The report described practices in nine participating states that promote the employment of people with disabilities generally.  The report also described practices or policies that may inadvertently result in barriers to employment of disabled workers.
• The EEOC launched its Leadership for the Employment of Americans with Disabilities (LEAD) initiative, a national outreach and education campaign to raise awareness about the declining numbers of people with severe disabilities in federal employment.  Through a national outreach and education campaign, this initiative also aimed to educate individuals with severe disabilities and federal hiring officials about how to use special hiring authorities.

Notable Supreme Court Decisions

• Two Supreme Court decisions were issued this year expanding the scope of retaliation and discussing the 15 employee minimum for coverage.

Notable Appellate Decisions

• In Maldonado v. City of Altus, 433 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2006), the Tenth Circuit concluded that the city's English-only policy could contribute to a hostile work environment for Hispanic employees. The court found the Commission's guideline on English-only rules persuasive: the Commission had "consistently concluded that an English-only policy, at least when no business need for the policy is shown, is likely in itself to 'create an atmosphere of inferiority, isolation, and intimidation' that constitutes a 'discriminatory working environment.'"  The EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. 
• In BCI Coca-Cola v. EEOC, 450 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006), the Tenth Circuit held that the racial animus of a supervisor could be imputed to the employer, making it liable for the discharge of a black employee even though the decision maker did not harbor any discriminatory motives.   
• In EEOC v. Heartway Corp., 466 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2006), the Tenth Circuit holds that the issue of whether to award punitive damages in an ADA case is a jury issue.  The case is reversed and remanded to the lower court for trial on the punitive damages claim.  The court also affirms the jury verdict finding the company liable for discrimination and the award of back pay and compensatory damages.  
• In EEOC v. Dial Corp., 469 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2006), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's disparate impact finding that Dial violated Title VII when it used a physical strength test to screen job applicants for entry-level positions at an Iowa meat-processing plant, resulting in a drastic reduction in the number of women hired. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Dial engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional sex discrimination. 

Notable EEOC Trial Victories

• In Chellen and EEOC v. John Pickle Co., 446 F.Supp.2d 1247 (N.D. Okla. 2006), a federal district judge, ruled in favor of the EEOC and private plaintiffs and awarded approximately $1.3 million to 52 East Indian workers who were discriminated against in wages, other terms and conditions of employment and subjected to a hostile work environment because of their race and national origin.  The judge ruled that defendant was responsible for fraud and deceit, inadequate pay, sub-standard living conditions, false imprisonment, lockdowns with an armed guard, phone tapping, food rationing, restrictions on freedom to worship, degrading job assignments, ethnic slurs, intimidation, and the non-payment of wages earned.  This case was one of the first cases involving victims of human trafficking prosecuted under Title VII's prohibition against national origin discrimination.

Notable EEOC Resolutions

• EEOC v. Trans Bay Steel Corp. (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2006) settled for approximately $1 million to 48 Thai nationals who were subjected to different terms and conditions of employment including recruitment, hiring, pay, because of their national origin, in violation of Title VII.  The EEOC alleged that defendant contracted with an employment agency to recruit skilled welders into the United States from Thailand under H2B visas.  However, once in the U.S., the Thai welders were forced to work long hours at restaurants, homes, and apartments, for no pay.  Their passports were confiscated and they were held against their will, some confined to cramped apartments without electricity, water, or gas.
• EEOC v. Independent School Dist. No. 834 of Stillwater, Minnesota (D. Minn. Aug. 18, 2006)settled for over $1.12 million for 58 former teachers and principals whose early retirement incentive payments were reduced because of their age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employ­ment Act (ADEA).  The EEOC alleged that the defendant reduced the amount of the early retirement incentive payment for each year as the employee grew older.  This settlement was one of 12 age discrimination lawsuits against Minnesota school districts filed by the EEOC challenging the early retirement plans.  All of the lawsuits settle for total monetary relief of over $2.6 million for more than 200 retired teachers and other employees.

Notable Federal Sector Decisions

• In Louthen v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A44521, the Commission addressed the issue of whether it is appropriate for EEOC administrative judges (AJs) to take witnesses' testimony by telephone.   The Commission found that testimony may only be taken by telephone when there is a finding of exigent circumstances or there is a joint and voluntary request by the parties with their informed consent.
• In Allen v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A51259, the Commission addressed the issue of whether it is appropriate for EEOC administrative judges to conduct hearings via video confer­ence.  The Commission found that because a video conference hearing more nearly approx­imates an in-person hearing than a telephonic hearing, it is appropriate to allow AJ's greater latitude than in Louthen in determining whether to conduct a hearing by video conference.

EEOC Regulations

• The Commission issued a final rule for implementing the posting requirements set forth in Title III of the No FEAR Act, requiring federal agencies to post on their public websites statistical data pertaining to EEO complaints filed by employees, former employees, and applicants for employment.

EEOC Guidance

• The EEOC issued Compliance Manual Section 15: Race and Color Discrimination (Apr. 2006), along with a plain-English technical assistance document, entitled Questions and Answers About Race and Color Discrimination in Employment.

EEOC Resource Documents

• The agency also issued two resource documents in 2006, Reasonable Accommodation for Attorneys With Disabilities (May 2006)  and Employment Tests and Selection Procedures (Dec. 2006).

 

Milestones: 2007

• At its February meeting, the Commission unveiled the E-RACE (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment) initiative to identify issues and barriers that contribute to race and color dis­crimination.  The initiative explored strategies to improve the administrative enforcement and the litigation of race and color discrimination claims and to enhance the public's awareness of persistent race and color discrimination in employment. The agency developed a set of detailed E-RACE Goals and Objectives to be achieved within a 5-year time frame, from fiscal years 2008 to 2013.
• The EEOC formed the Asian-American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Work Group, whose task is to examine the community's concerns about federal sector employment, special emphasis programs, and the complaints process.
• The Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs produced two videos on the agency's history and mission: Advancing Justice and Opportunity in the Workplace and Breaking Ground for Justice and Opportunity.

Notable Supreme Court Decisions

• Disregarding years of EEOC practice, the Supreme Court held in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. that the period for filing an EEOC charge challenging pay discrimination begins when the pay-setting decision is made, not when the individual becomes aware of the pay discrimination. It held that a Title VII charge ordinarily must be filed within 180/300 days of the time when that decision was originally made. This decision was later overturned in the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

Notable Appellate Decisions

• The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in AARP, et al. v. EEOC, 489 F.3d 558 (3rd Circ. 2007) upheld EEOC's authority, under the ADEA, to promulgate a narrow regulatory exemption that allows employers to coordinate retiree health care benefits with age-based eligibility for Medicare or a comparable state-sponsored retiree health benefits program without satisfying the ADEA's "equal benefits or equal cost" rule.
• In EEOC v. WC&M Enterprises, 496 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2007) the Fifth Circuit, relying primarily on EEOC's guidelines, held that "a party is able to establish a discrimination claim based on its own national origin even though the discriminatory acts do not identify the victim's actual country of origin."  The court noted that EEOC's guidelines make clear that "'it is enough to show that the complainant was treated differently because of his foreign accent, appearance or physical character­istics.'"      
• In Holly v. Clairson Industries, 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) the plaintiff, a paraplegic, had alleged that the defendant violated the ADA by failing to provide him a reasonable accommo­dation for his disability, and by discharging him for violating the company's "no fault" punctuality policy.  The 11th Circuit agreed with the EEOC's amicus brief and ruled there was a genuine issue as to whether "strict punctuality" was essential to Holly's mold polisher position. 

Notable EEOC Trial Victories

• In EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC, No. 2:02-cv-01908-ROS (D. Ariz. June 1, 2007), a jury awarded $287,640, including $250,000 in punitive damages, to a former customer sales representative who was terminated for refusing to remove her headscarf during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.  A federal district judge previously found the defendant liable for religious discrimination for failing to reason­ably accommodate the sales representative's request to wear a headscarf as required by her sincerely held religious beliefs and practices.
• In EEOC v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P, No. 3:06CV00176 JLH, 2007 WL 2891379 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 3, 2007), a jury awarded $756,000 to two former employees who were denied a reasonable accom­modation (i.e. leave) to attend a Jehovah's Witnesses religious convention.  The EEOC alleged that the defendant refused to grant the employees one day of leave to attend the convention, despite granting such leave in previous years.  The employees attended the convention and were subsequently sus­pended and discharged.
• In EEOC v. Bobrich Enterprises, Inc. (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2007), a jury awarded $176,500 to an area supervisor who was subjected to a hostile work environment due to her severe hearing impairment, in violation of the ADA.  The EEOC alleged that the defendant's owner and its human resources manager repeatedly mocked the employee saying to her in front of other employees things like "read my lips," "can you hear me now?," and "you got your ears on?"  The employee resigned because she was no longer able to tolerate the comments and jokes about her impairment. 

Notable EEOC Resolutions

• EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2007) settled for $1.6 million for a class of nearly 700 current and former African American employees who took the Apprentice Training Selec­tion System test at 14 different facilities and were not placed on an apprenticeship program eligibility list. This suit is a successor case to the EEOC's earlier suit against Ford and UAW which was settled for $8.5 million in 2005 and covers additional people disadvantaged by the test who were not covered in the earlier settlement.  In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree provides for the selection of 55 class members for placement on an apprenticeship program eligibility list at one of the defendant's facilities. 
• EEOC v. Woodward Governor Co. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2007) settled for $5 million to approximately 120 African American, Hispanic, and Asian employees and approximately 230 female employees subjected to race, national origin, and sex discrimination in violation of Title VII and the EPA.   The EEOC alleged that the company discriminated against these groups with respect to compensation, promotion and training.  The company's supervisors had essentially standardless authority to make compensation, promotion and training decisions, and expert analysis showed significant disparities between the compensation of white and minority employees and between male and female employees. 
• EEOC v. Sidley Austin, LLP (N.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2007) settled for $27.5 million for 32 individuals who were subjected to age discrimination. The EEOC alleged that the company expelled 32 partners because of their ages and maintained an age-based retirement policy.  The case raised the important question of when members of a professional partnership can be considered employees under the ADEA (and employment discrim­ination laws generally).  In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree included substantial injunctive relief to prevent age-based policies and practices in the future.

Notable Federal Sector Decisions

• In Getzlow v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No., 0120053286, the Commission set forth the proper interpretation and application of the Rehabilitation Act regarding EEO complaints by security screeners subject to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA).  The Commis­sion held that whether a complaint by a security screener states a claim under the Rehabilitation Act must be determined on a case-by-case basis, in light of the specific allegations made, and depends on whether there is any conflict between ATSA-mandated qualifications and the com­plainant's Rehabilitation Act claim.

EEOC Guidance

• The EEOC issued the Enforcement Guidance: Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers With Caregiving Responsibilities (May 2007), which explained how to determine when discrimination against persons with caregiving responsibilities constitutes unlawful disparate treatment under federal EEO law. 

EEOC Resource Documents

• The agency also issued  Q&A: Health Care Workers and the ADA (Feb. 2007).

 

Milestones: 2008

• On May 21, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondis­crim­ination Act of 2008 (GINA) into law.  The act prohibits employers from using individuals' genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions.  Senator Ted Kennedy described the legislation as the "first major civil rights bill of the new century." The EEOC was given responsibility for enforcing GINA's Title II, which covers employment.

• In September, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), to become effective Jan. 1, 2009.  In the ADAAA, Congress rejected the holdings of two Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the definition of "disability" (Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 US 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 US 184 (2002)), thus eliminating protection for many individuals with disabilities whom Congress had intended to protect. 
• The ADAAA expanded coverage and protection in several ways:  First, the act lists bodily functions, which the courts should now take into account when determining whether an individual has an impair­ment of a major life activity.  Second, the act additionally makes clear that individuals with even temporary disabilities may assert coverage if their disability is severe enough.  Finally, the ADAAA states that the evaluation of whether an individual's impairment substantially limits a major life activity should be made without regard to mitigating measures (except for ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses). 
• The Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs produced two PSAs featuring famed musician Wynton Marsalis. The PSAs played on numerous television stations and were used in outreach sessions for the next two years.

• In December, headquarters and Washington Field Office staff moved to a new building, One NoMa Station, 131 M Street, N.E. in a developing part of Washington, D.C. The move to a lower cost area and for less space, was projected to save $800,000 annually. The EEOC has a 10-year lease for this space, which is filled with iconic photographs documenting the civil rights movement.
• The Commission issued a report by the Federal Hispanic Work Group examining barriers in federal sector employment for Hispanic applicants and employees and offering recommendations with respect to these barriers.
• The agency also issued a comprehensive report addressing strategies to reverse the declining partici­pation rate of federal employees with targeted disabilities.
• In light of the Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. City of Jackson, the EEOC pub­lished a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register to update the ADEA regulations.

Notable Supreme Court Decisions

• The Supreme Court issued four decisions affecting different aspects of the ADEA: what constitutes a charge-filing; clarifying that federal employees are protected from retaliation under the ADEA; the employer bears the burdens of both production and persuasion in a disparate impact claim; and a disability retirement plan discriminating on the basis of pension eligibility does not violate the ADEA.

Notable Appellate Decisions

• In EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit, affirmed a district court order enforcing an EEOC subpoena, stating that as long as jurisdiction is not "plainly lacking," a subpoena should be enforced.  Applying that standard, and rejecting a contrary decision by the Fifth Circuit in EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 103 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 1997), the court held that the EEOC retains the authority to issue a subpoena on a charge even after the charging party has instituted a private action based on the charge.

Notable EEOC Trial Victories

• In EEOC v. Lake Ridge Academy (N.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2008), a jury awarded $600,000 to a former employee who was fired after he questioned whether female teachers were being paid less than male teachers -- a violation of Title VII and the EPA.  While the jury was deliberating on punitive damages, the parties settled the case for $950,000, including $40,000 in costs to the EEOC.

Notable EEOC Resolutions

• The Commission resolved EEOC v. Walgreen Co. (S.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2008), a nationwide race discrimination lawsuit, for over $24.5 million for a class of thousands of African American employees who were denied promotion, compensation and assignment because of their race. This was one of the largest-ever monetary settlements in a race case by the EEOC. 
• EEOC v. University of Phoenix, Inc., and Apollo Group, Inc. (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2008) settled for $1.875 million for 52 current and former enrollment counselors who were discriminated against because of their religion (non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [LDS] known also as Mormons). The EEOC alleged that defendant provided LDS counselors better leads on potential students, promoted LDS counselors over more qualified non-LDS counselors, granted LDS counselors tuition waivers and retaliated against non-LDS counselors who complained of religious discrimination by transferring them or discharging them.   
• EEOC v. Kovacevich "5" Farms, A Partnership (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2008) settled for $1.68 million for a class of female farmworker applicants who were denied hire because of their gender. The EEOC alleged that from 1998 to 2003, the company hired approximately 300 farmworkers each year, all of whom were men. In addition to the monetary relief, the defendant agreed to set goals for hiring females in all available positions during the harvest season and to make reasonable efforts to ensure that females comprised at least one-third of the workforce over the course of the season. 

EEOC Guidance

• The EEOC issued Compliance Manual Section 12: Religious Discrimination (July 2008) [Superseded], along with two, plain-English companion documents, Best Practices for Eradicating Religious Discrimination in the Workplace and Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace.

EEOC Resource Documents

• In support of President Bush's New Freedom Initiative, the EEOC published several documents to help individuals with disabilities enter and remain in the workforce, including:
  • Questions & Answers: Promoting Employment of Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Workforce (Sept. 2008).
  • Understanding Your Employment Rights Under the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Guide for Veterans (updated 2020).
  • Veterans and the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Guide for Employers (updated 2020).
  • The ADA: Applying Performance and Conduct Standards to Employees with Disabilities (Sept. 2008).

 

Milestones: 2009

• The first bill that President Barack Obama signed into law (on Jan. 29, 2009) was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The act amends Title VII, stating that the statute of limitation for filing a charge alleging pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck infected by discrimination. The act expressly reverses the Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. This landmark act gave plaintiffs more time to challenge pay discrimination.

• The Lilly Ledbetter Act required the EEOC to reopen several hundred investigations and issue new right-to-sue notices to charging parties because the Commission had relied on the Supreme Court's decision as to when the time period to file a charge had begun.
• Congress appropriated $14 million more to the EEOC than it had in 2008, and this enabled the agency to begin to rebuild its workforce. The EEOC has had a flat budget from 2000 to 2008, so as employees left the agency, no one was hired to fill the vacancies. During this tight fiscal period, the agency lost 271 frontline investigators, more than 33% of the investigative workforce. In 2009, the agency brought on board 155 net new hires.
• On March 2, 2009, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerning the employment discrimination portion of GINA. At the same time, the EEOC issued a technical assistance document, "Background Information for the EEOC: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Title II of the Genetics Information Nondiscrimination Act" that explained the regulations in plain, non-technical language. The EEOC began enforcing GINA on Nov. 21, 2009. On December 7, 2009, the EEOC issued procedural and administrative regulations describing how the agency will process private sector charges and federal sector complaints of discrimination alleging GINA violations.
• On July 16, President Barack Obama nominated Jacqueline A. Berrien for the position of Chair of the EEOC. On March 27, 2010 President Obama made a recess appointment of Berrien to the position. She was sworn in on April 7, 2010 as the 14th Chair of the agency. On Dec. 2, 2010 the Senate confirmed Berrien as Chair for a full term.

  

• On April 8, David Lopez was sworn in as the General Counsel of the EEOC. He was the first EEOC trial attorney to be appointed as the agency's General Counsel. Lopez had been a career employee of the EEOC for over 20 years, including serving as a special assistant to former Chair Gilbert Casellas and as the Supervisory Trial Attorney in the Phoenix District Office.
• In July 2009, during an economic recession, the EEOC issued a Q&A document on "Understanding Waivers of Discrimination Claims in Employee Severance Agreements."
• Because the ADAAA expanded protection to more disabled workers, the number of ADA charges filed with the EEOC increases by 10% from FY 2008 to FY 2009.
• The EEOC arranges for the National Judicial College to provide EEOC administrative judges (AJs) in the Federal Hearings Program with training on writing judicial decisions. The agency also provides training to AJs on e-discovery, sanctions, summary judgment motions and class actions.
• The EEOC convenes a hearing on age discrimination, "Age Discrimination in the 21st Century - Barriers to the Employment of Older Workers," in response to wide­spread layoffs, a record spike in age discrimination charges, threats to employee benefits, and recent court decisions that affect the enforcement of age discrimination laws.
• The National Training Institute (formerly the Revolving Fund) sponsors its 12th annual EXCEL Conference (Examining Conflicts in Employment Law) for the federal EEO community. A record 1,100 EEO officials, lawyers, agency representatives and union officials attend the conference in New Orleans. New Orleans is selected as the conference site to assist that city's rebuilding efforts after Katrina
• The agency also issued a report addressing concerns and making recommendations for federal sector employment, special emphasis programs, and the complaints process for the Asian-American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community.

Notable Supreme Court Decisions

• The Supreme Court issued five decisions affecting the Commission and its work. The decisions took an expansive look at the coverage of the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII; gave weight to collectively bargained arbitration clauses; held that it was permissible to give less credit for pregnancy leave for pension benefit purposes if the leave was taken before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act went into effect; held that age must be a "but/for" cause of the contested action; and ruled that an employer need not discard the results of a test that had a discriminatory impact unless the employer could show that actual reliance would have a discriminatory impact.

Notable Appellate Decisions

• In Sandoval v. American Building Maintenance, Inc., 578 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2009), the Eighth Circuit examined the proper test for holding a parent company liable as an employer for sexual harassment of its wholly owned subsidiary corporation's employees. The court agreed with the Commission's amicus brief and held that the well-established four-factor integrated enterprise test articulated in Baker v. Stuart Broadcasting Co., 560 F.2d 389 (8th Cir. 1977) applied.
• In EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 553 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2009), a subpoena enforcement action, the defendant challenged the EEOC's authority to deny a charging party's request to withdraw a charge and continue to investigate an allegation that the employer had a discriminatory policy of denying employment to people with a record of a criminal conviction. The Seventh Circuit ruled that all that is required for subject matter jurisdiction is for the EEOC to make a request to a court to enforce its subpoena, as authorized by statute.
• In EEOC v. Central Wholesalers, Inc., 573 F.3d 167 (4th Cir. 2009), the EEOC alleged that Central Wholesalers subjected the charging party to a sex-and-race-based hostile work environment. She was the only female and the only African-American in the company's Inside Sales department. The harassment consisted of coworkers routinely using the "N" word and the "B" word in her presence, displaying mop-head dolls with nooses around the dolls' necks, Playboy magazines and calendar as well as other pornography. The Fourth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find that the harassment was based on gender or race and was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile working environment.

Notable EEOC Trial Victories

• After a bench trial in EEOC v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 3:06-cv-0593, 2009 WL 4975280 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 21, 2009), a federal district judge entered a judgment of over $1 million for the EEOC and a former African-American female employee who was subjected to a racially and sexually hostile work environment that resulted in her constructive discharge, including being punched in the face by her harasser and knocked onto the assembly line where she was hit by an air conditioner coming down the line.

Notable EEOC Resolutions

• In a nationwide sex discrimination lawsuit, EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc., and OS Restaurant Partners, Inc. d/b/a Outback Restaurants (D. Col. Dec. 29, 2009), the EEOC settled for $19 million for a class of female employees who were denied hire and promotion because of their gender.

  

• EEOC v. Albertson's LLC aka Albertson's, Inc. (D. Colo. Dec. 14, 2009) settled for $8.9 million to be distributed to 168 eligible class members who were subjected to discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin and retaliation at a national grocery chain's distribution center. The EEOC filed three lawsuits (subsequently consolidated) and charged that a class of employees was subjected to offensive and threatening graffiti - including racial epithets, swastikas and depictions of lynchings and other acts of violence against blacks and Hispanics. The EEOC also charged that the company assigned them more difficult jobs, applied its attendance policy more stringently resulting in more disciplinary actions and retaliated against those who complained.
• The Commission settled EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2009) for $6.2 million in a settlement fund to compensate individuals with disabilities who were denied a reasonable accommo­dation because the company maintained an inflexible workers' compensation leave exhaustion policy and terminated employees instead of accommodating them, in violation of the ADA.
• EEOC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (E.D. Mo. Sept. 14, 2009) settled for $4.5 million to 92 former sales agents who were denied hire when the company implemented a hiring moratorium that had a disparate impact on former sales agents age 40 and over, in violation of the ADEA.
• EEOC v. B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2009) settled for $4.3 million to 149 current and former Latino warehouse employees who were subjected to national origin discrimination when they were paid substantially less than non-Latino workers, denied health benefits, and denied promotions to supervisory positions, all in violation of Title VII.
• The Commission resolved EEOC v. Pitt Ohio Express, LLC (N.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2009) for $2.43 million for women who were denied employment as truck drivers and dockworkers because of their sex in violation of Title VII. In addition to the monetary relief, the company agreed to extend 40 employment offers to rejected female applicants and grant them seniority rights and accompanying benefits based on the initial application date.

EEOC Guidance

• The EEOC issued the "Amended Enforcement Guidance on Recent Developments in Disparate Treatment Theory," [RESCINDED] which discussed circumstantial or direct evidence of discrimination, and limitations on remedies in cases involving mixed-motives.

EEOC Resource Documents

• The EEOC issued several technical assistance documents in plain language explaining a wide variety of issues, including:
  • Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities (Apr. 2009), which supplements the EEOC's 2007 guidance, "Enforcement Guidance: Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities," with suggestions for best practices that employers may adopt to reduce the chance of EEO violations against caregivers.
  • Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the ADA (Oct. 2009).
  • Q&A-Understanding Waivers of Discrimination Claims in Employee Severance Agreements (July 2009).

Notable Federal Sector Decisions

• In Fonda-Wall v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060035, the Commission found that while it may not review an agency's determination with regard to the substance of a security clearance decision, the Commission does have jurisdiction to determine whether the agency was motivated by discriminatory animus when initiating a review of a security clearance.