Tag: EEOC

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Rules That Sexual Orientation Discrimination Violates Title VII Of The 1964 Civil Rights Act

In a potentially groundbreaking decision that increases legal protections throughout the U.S. for lesbian, gay and bisexual employees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled on June 15, 2015, that existing civil rights law bars sexual orientation-based employment discrimination.  The EEOC addressed the question of whether the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“The Civil Rights Act”) bars anti-LGB discrimination in a charge brought by a Florida employee.

EEOC Employment discrimination LGB discrimination sexual orientation

The ruling was issued without objection from any members of the five-person commission, and while it technically only applies directly to federal employees’ claims, the EEOC also applies such rulings across the nation when it investigates claims of discrimination in private employment.  Although only the Supreme Court can issue a final, definitive ruling on the interpretation of The Civil Rights Act, EEOC decisions are given significant deference by federal courts.

Although the EEOC had been moving in this general direction with cases and field guidance addressing specific types of discrimination faced by gay people, the July 15 decision unequivocally states that sexual orientation is inherently an unlawful “sex-based consideration,” reasoning that sexual orientation discrimination “necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex” and constitutes “associational discrimination on the basis of sex.”  In making this ruling, the EEOC joins approximately 22 states that provide sexual orientation discrimination protections in employment.

Given that this EEOC decision is entitled to deference by federal courts, employers across the U.S. should anticipate that practices that could be construed as discriminatory on the basis of a worker’s sexual orientation will be challenged in federal court and subject the employer to potential liability.

For EEOC guidance on this issue, click the following link: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm

ARTICLE BY Gary M. Gansle of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

EEOC Sues Wal-Mart for Disability Discrimination And Harassment: Agency Says Retailer Denied Accommodations to Disabled Cancer Survivor

Agency Says Retailer Denied Accommodations to and Harassed a Disabled Cancer Survivor

CHICAGO – Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. violated federal law by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee at its Hodgkins, Ill., store who was disabled by bone cancer and failing to stop harassment of the employee, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed yesterday.

According to Julianne Bowman, the EEOC’s district director in Chicago, who managed EEOC’s pre-suit administrative investigation, the Walmart store initially agreed to comply with employee Nancy Stack’s request that the company provide a chair in her work area in the fitting room and limit her scheduled work hours because treatment for bone cancer in her leg limited her ability to walk and stand. After complying with her scheduling accommodation for many months, the store revoked it for no reason. And the store did not ensure that a chair was in Stack’s work area, at one point telling her that she had to haul a chair from the furniture department every day, which was of course hard for her to do given her disability. Finally, the store transferred Stack from the fitting room to a greeter position, which did not comply with her restrictions on standing.

To add insult to injury, Bowman added, a co-worker harassed Stack by calling her names like “cripple” and “chemo brain,” imitated her limp, and removed or hid the chair the employee needed in her work area. Stack complained repeatedly, but the store took no action to stop the co-worker’s harassment.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, which can include denying reasonable accommodations to disabled employees and subjecting disabled employees to a hostile work environment.

The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case, EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-5796, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and was assigned to U.S. District Judge Sharon Coleman. The government’s litigation effort will be led by Trial Attorney Ann Henry and supervised by EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.

“It’s hard to believe a retailer the size of Wal-Mart could not manage to consistently provide such a simple accommodation as a chair,” said John Hendrickson, the regional attorney for EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “Telling a disabled employee that she needs to drag a chair across the store every day is no accommodation at all. Employers have to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would be an undue hardship. EEOC is aware of no hardship that required Wal-Mart to suddenly change Stack’s schedule, deny her the use of a chair, and transfer her out of the fitting room where she had performed her job well for years.”

EEOC Trial Attorney Ann Henry commented, “No employee should have to go to work and face mocking and name calling because she had cancer. Employers who know about such vile harassment in their workplace have an obligation to stop it. Wal-Mart did not do that here, and the EEOC will seek to hold the company liable for that violation.

In July 2014, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart alleging that it violated the ADA by firing an intellectually disabled employee at a Rockford Walmart store after it rescinded his workplace accommodation.

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

This press release originally appeared in the EEOC Newsroom. 

ARTICLE BY U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

United Airlines to Pay over $1 Million To Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit

In a case that garnered nationwide attention, air transportation giant United Airlines Inc. has agreed to pay more than $1 million and implement changes to settle a federal disability lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seal

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that United’s competitive transfer policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with a disability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship for the employer. By requiring workers with disabilities to compete for vacant positions for which they were qualified and which they needed in order to continue working, the company’s practice frequently prevented employees with disabilities from continuing employment with United, the EEOC said.

The consent decree settling the suit, signed by Hon. Judge Harry Leinenweber and entered today, requires United to pay $1,000,040 to a small class of former United employees with disabilities and to make changes nationally. United will revise its ADA reassignment policy, train employees with supervisory or human resource responsibilities regarding the policy changes, and provide reports to the EEOC regarding disabled employees who were denied a position as part of the ADA reassignment process.

This resolution concludes a lengthy and complicated lawsuit. Although the EEOC originally filed the lawsuit on June 3, 2009 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California – San Francisco, United successfully moved for a change of venue to the Northern District of Illinois. Bound by an earlier precedent which held that a competitive transfer policy similar to United’s policy did not violate the ADA, the lower court dismissed the EEOC’s case in February 2011.  However, in a decision reviewed by the full court, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the EEOC that EEOC v. Humiston Keeling, 227 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2000) “did not survive” an intervening Supreme Court decision, U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).  The Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal and found that “the ADA does indeed mandate that an employer assign employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to the employer.” The Supreme Court refused United’s subsequent request for review on May 28, 2013. EEOC Appellate Attorney Barbara Sloan handled the appeal and Supreme Court briefing for the agency.

“The appellate court’s decision provided an important clarification regarding an employer’s responsibility under the ADA to provide a reasonable accommodation so qualified employees may lead economically independent lives,” said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. “I am pleased this major decision also served as a springboard for the strong monetary and non-monetary remedies in today’s resolution.”

EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo said, “If a disability prevents an employee from returning to work in his or her current position, an employer must consider reassignment. As the Seventh Circuit’s decision highlights, requiring the employee to compete for positions falls short of the ADA’s requirements. Employers should take note: When all other accommodations fail, consider whether your employee can fill a vacant position for which he or she is qualified.”

EEOC San Francisco Acting District Director Michael Connolly noted, “We commend United for agreeing to make these important companywide changes that will enable employees with disabilities to stay employed at jobs they are qualified to do, as was intended under the ADA’s protections.”

According to the company website, United Airlines has almost 84,000 employees in every U.S. state and in many countries around the world. The air carrier has the world’s most comprehensive route network, including U.S. mainland hubs in Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York / Newark, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. and operates an average of nearly 5,000 flights a day to 373 airports across six continents.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

ARTICLE BY U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

U.S. Supreme Court: Request for Religious Accommodation Not Necessary to Trigger Discrimination Liability

The U.S. Supreme Court decided the widely publicized case filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Abercrombie & Fitch (Abercrombie), in which a Muslim female applicant who wore a headscarf was denied employment with Abercrombie based on the company’s dress code policy. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, U.S. Supreme Court, No.14-86 (June 1, 2015).

Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, applied for employment with Abercrombie. She came to the interview wearing a headscarf. The assistant store manager rated Elauf as qualified for the position, but expressed concern to her superiors that Elauf’s headscarf would violate Abercrombie’s Look Policy, which prohibits the wearing of “caps.” The term “caps” is not defined in the policy. The assistant manager also informed her superiors that she believed Elauf’s headscarf was worn pursuant to her religion. The district manager directed that Elauf be denied employment, because the headscarf would violate the Look Policy, just as any other headgear would, whether worn for religious reasons or not.

The EEOC filed suit against Abercrombie. The district court entered judgment in favor of Elauf, and a trial on damages resulted in a $20,000 award to Elauf. Abercrombie appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which reversed the district court and entered summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie. Elauf appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to deny employment to an applicant because the employer desires to avoid extending reasonable accommodation based on the applicant’s religious beliefs. In this case, Abercrombie argued that this prohibition applies only when the applicant requests a religious accommodation or otherwise notifies the employer of the need for an accommodation. In this case, Elauf did not at any time make a request for reasonable accommodation, and therefore, argued Abercrombie, she cannot prove that Abercrombie had knowledge of the need for accommodation, which should be a prerequisite to proving religious discrimination.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that an applicant or employee need not necessarily show that the employer had actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation, only that the need for an accommodation was a “motivating factor” in the employment decision. The Court drew a distinction between the statutory language of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s accommodation provisions, which discusses an employer’s obligations with respect to “known physical or mental limitations” (emphasis added), and with the language of Title VII’s religious accommodation provision, which is silent on the knowledge requirement. According to the Court, the rule for a failure to accommodate claim under Title VII’s religious discrimination provision is “straightforward”: an employer may not consider an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, as a factor in employment decisions. The Court’s opinion offers an example of an employer who assumes that an orthodox Jew who applies for employment will need Saturdays off for the Sabbath. If the employer acts on this assumption and denies the applicant employment because of it, Title VII would be violated, regardless of whether the applicant ever make a request for Saturdays off or otherwise stated a request for accommodation.

While the Court noted that an employee’s request for religious accommodation may make it easier to prove it was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, it is not a necessary component to the claim. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s decision awarding summary judgment to Abercrombie, despite the fact that Elauf never made a request for an accommodation.

Speculation About Accommodation May Be Enough

This decision has potentially far reaching effects. The Supreme Court has made clear that an individual need not use specific words or terminology relating to the need for religious accommodation, or even make a request at all, in order for liability for failure to accommodate to arise. Whether the need for accommodation is actually known, or merely speculated, assumed, or otherwise factored into an adverse employment decision, liability can arise — even if the need has not been expressed or substantiated at the time of the employment decision.

ARTICLE BY Julie Furer Stahr of Schiff Hardin LLP
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP

Supreme Court Calls Out the EEOC for Arguing It Alone Can Determine Whether It Followed the Law

We suggested last year that if you felt paranoid that the federal agencies seemed out to get employers, perhaps it was not paranoia at all. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) spate of recent lawsuits — or at least its apparent haste to sue employers and make examples out of them over such things as wellness programs (even before issuing proposed guidance on what was permissible relative to such well-intentioned programs) — clearly did not help with this concern. However, a decision by the Supreme Court last week tightened the reins on the EEOC and reminded it that, in seeking to pursue litigation against employers for violations of law, the Commission must follow the law itself and answer to claims that it has failed to do so.

Pursuant to Title VII, the EEOC must attempt to eliminate unlawful employment practices through “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion” before suing an employer for employment discrimination. Employers may feel this does not always happen because the EEOC has lately seemed more intent on filing suit (and getting press attention for its agenda…) than working things out. Consequently, employers assert they receive insufficient information from the EEOC and are forced to make a decision on a take-it-or-leave-it basis which, if wrong, can have costly consequences. The Commission has stood firm on its use of federal muscle by asserting the courts cannot review whether it has fulfilled its pre-suit conciliation obligation; only the EEOC can review whether the EEOC can do what the EEOC is supposed to do (which seems imminently fair, right?). The Supreme Court has just said otherwise.

The case arose from litigation filed by the EEOC in 2011 on behalf of a class of female applicants not hired by the employer as miners. The employer raised as a defense the argument that the EEOC had failed to conciliate in good faith prior to filing suit, based on two letters sent by the Commission. The first informed the employer that a finding of reasonable cause had been made and “[a] representative of this office will be in contact with each party in the near future to begin the conciliation process.” The second letter declared that conciliation had “occurred” and failed, though it appears that the EEOC’s actual conciliation efforts were thin at best.

The EEOC argued that its conciliation efforts were immune from court review and that, if the courts had the power to review such efforts, it could only review its actions based on the two letters. In response, the court noted the obvious point that without court review, “the Commission’s compliance with the law would rest in the Commission’s hands alone.” Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, also rejected the EEOC’s second argument, stating that “[c]ontrary to its intimation, those letters do not themselves fulfill the conciliation condition: The first declares only that the process will start soon, and the second only that it has concluded. . . . to treat the letters as sufficient — to take them at face value, as the Government wants — is simply to accept the EEOC’s say-so that it complied with the law.”

The court then instructed the EEOC on what it must do to follow Title VII: 1) give the employer notice of the “specific allegation,” including “what the employer has done and which employees (or class of employees) have suffered as a result”; and 2) “try to engage the employer in some form of discussion (written or oral), to give the employer an opportunity to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice.” Justice Kagan then asserted that while judicial review is limited exclusively to whether or not the EEOC has fulfilled these requirements, if the employer provides credible evidence that the EEOC did not fulfill the requirements then a court must conduct the fact finding necessary to decide that limited dispute. If the evidence shows a failure to properly conciliate, the appropriate remedy is to order the EEOC to undertake the mandated efforts to obtain voluntary compliance. Accordingly, while stays of cases may be entered until the EEOC is given the opportunity to do what it was supposed to have done, it is unlikely that any case will be dismissed for failure to meet the pre-suit requirements.

This decision is absolutely a win for employers, as it calls the EEOC out for its improper use of federal muscle through litigation and make an example of an employer without first giving it a legitimate opportunity to assess its options. While the decision will not put employers in control, or even on equal standing, with the EEOC prior to suit, it does create leverage to insist the EEOC meet the minimum requirements. As a practical matter, this may cause the EEOC to be more forthcoming, and cooperative, at least when pressed. And employers should do exactly that if necessary and carefully document circumstances when it feels the EEOC has not done what it must.

Authored by: Gregory D Snell of Foley & Lardner LLP

© 2015 Foley & Lardner LLP

The New OFCCP Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity Protections Are Now In Effect

Proskauer Rose LLP, Law Firm

Executive Order (“EO”) 11246, as amended by EO 13762, officially went into effect, representing the first time in the federal sector that sexual orientation and gender identity have been expressly protected. On July 21, 2014, President Obama issued EO 13762, which amended EO 11246 to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. These additional protections are being incorporated into the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), which will become effective tomorrow, April 10, 2015.

In order to educate the public on these new protections, the Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) is conducting a series of webinars regarding the new sexual orientation and gender identity protections. Thus far, the webinars have focused on the obligations of federal contractors and the procedures available to claimants for filing a complaint under the new protections. We have summarized below key points from the webinar:

To Whom Does This Apply?

These new protections apply to any federal contractor, subcontractor, or government funded construction contractor that enters into or renews a federal contract or contracts valued at $10,000 or more per year. These new protections only apply to contracts entered into or renewed on or after April 8, 2015. These protections do not apply to organizations receiving grants from the federal government.

Administrative Changes Required By Employers

Under the new protections, employers must update the EEO language on their job advertisements, their EEO policies, and their “EEO is the Law” poster. The poster need not be updated until the OFCCP releases a supplement. The OFCCP has not yet announced when this supplement will be released.

With respect to the EEO language, the OFCCP has said that employers can simply say “Equal Employment Opportunity” on their job postings. However, if the employer chooses to list out the protected groups, it must list “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The OFCCP does not endorse the use of the acronym “LGBT,” as this is not representative of the entire protected class.

Dual Filing With The EEOC

The OFCCP clarified that any complaints alleging sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination are considered “dual-filed” with the EEOC. This means that the OFCCP will stand in the shoes of the EEOC when investigating the Title VII component of the complaint. While Title VII does not overtly protect against gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination, the EEOC has taken the position that these classifications are protected under Title VII and will pursue cases on behalf of these individuals.

As a consequence of the dual-filing process, if the OFCCP does not find cause or does not dispose of a case within 180 days, an employee can request a Notice of Right to Sue from the OFCCP to bring a private cause of action against the employer. This is significant as EO 11246 does not provide for a private cause of action. The OFCCP clarified, however, that it does not intend to pursue the compensatory and punitive damages available under Title VII (which are not available under the EO).

Religious Affiliated Contractors

In one of the webinars, the OFCCP clarified that all federal contractors, including religiously affiliated federal contractors, are required to comply with the new protections. This means that even those contractors who have been granted certain religious exemptions under EO 11246 may not discriminate based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.

Restroom Access Policies

The OFCCP clarified how employers must approach restroom access under the new protections. OFCCP explained that employers must allow employees to use restrooms based upon their gender identity. This means that if an employee was identified as a male at birth, but identifies as a female, the employer must permit that employee to use the female restroom if the employee desires to do so.

Benefits

The new protections provide that the same benefits must be provided to same-sex spouses as non-same-sex spouses. However, employers are not required to provide the same benefits to couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships as long as the denial of benefits is not based on discrimination. Consequently, if a contractor provides heterosexual domestic partners with benefits, it must provide homosexual domestic partners with the same benefits.

ARTICLE BY

Connie N Bertram
Alex C Weinstein
Proskauer Rose LLP

Still Waiting for ADA and GINA Guidance on Wellness Incentives

Jackson Lewis P.C.

March is here. The EEOC’s perspective on wellness program incentives is not. Yet again.

In its Fall 2014 regulatory agenda, the EEOC stated it would be issuing in February 2015 amended regulations concerning the size of incentives an employer may offer, yet still have a “voluntary” wellness program under the ADA and GINA.  The EEOC listed these same amendments on its Spring 2014 regulatory agenda. The regulatory agenda is a preliminary statement of priorities under consideration and is not a binding commitment to issue the regulations on the stated date.

The EEOC noted on its agenda that these amendments were needed to address whether an employer’s compliance with HIPAA rules concerning wellness program incentives, as amended by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also complies with the ADA. The EEOC added that an amendment would also address the size of inducements allowed under GINA “to employees’ spouses or other family members who respond to questions about their current or past medical conditions on health risk assessments.”

The allowed size of wellness incentives matters to the growing number of employers with wellness programs. The ACA has a clear compliance standard for such incentives.  Until 2014, the EEOC had stayed on the sidelines of the wellness incentive debate, not offering any guidance beyond its general view that if the incentive was too large, the program was not “voluntary.”

In 2014, the EEOC sued three employers, claiming the size of their wellness incentives (or penalties, depending on your perspective) transformed otherwise voluntary wellness programs into involuntary programs. In the third case, the EEOC sought to enjoin the company from continuing the incentives in its wellness plan. There was no claim that the incentives violated the ACA standard. Our report on that case is here.

At the oral argument on the injunction hearing, the court asked the EEOC numerous times to define the line between a lawful and unlawful incentive under the ADA and GINA. The EEOC declined to define a specific line. The court denied the EEOC’s injunction request.

More than a year ago, we posted that waiting for the EEOCs guidance on incentives under wellness programs is like waiting for Beckett’s Godot, where Estragon and Vladimir lament daily that Godot did not come today, he might come tomorrow. The waiting continues.

ARTICLE BY

Michael J. Soltis
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Statements of Samantha Elauf and David Lopez Following Oral Argument at the Supreme Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seal

Samantha Elauf filed the original charge of religious discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that led to today’s argument in the Supreme Court. She has the following statement for the press:

I was born and raised in Tulsa, Oklahoma. When I applied for a position with Abercrombie Kids, I was a teenager who loved fashion.  I had worked in two other retail stores and was excited to work at the Abercrombie store.  No one had ever told me that I could not wear a head scarf and sell clothing.  Then I learned I was not hired by Abercrombie because I wear a head scarf, which is a symbol of modesty in my Muslim faith.  This was shocking to me.

I am grateful to the EEOC for looking into my complaint and taking this religious discrimination case to the courts.  I am not only standing up for myself, but for all people who wish to adhere to their faith while at work. Observance of my faith should not prevent me from getting a job.

David Lopez, General Counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), made the following statement at the conclusion of the Supreme Court argument in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., a case involving religious accommodation.

This year we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, established as part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII prohibits discrimination because of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion.  The prohibition against religious discrimination reflects this country’s historical tradition of religious freedom and religious tolerance. Since that time, the Commission has led the effort to enforce laws that prohibit religious discrimination for persons of all faiths. Today’s case is the latest effort to ensure all persons protected by  Title VII are not placed in the difficult position of choosing between adherence to one’s faith and a job.

Finally, I would be remiss not to recognize the courage and tenacity of Samantha Elauf.  Regardless of the outcome of this case, her effort to stand up for the important principles at issue is an inspiration.  Samantha now has a brief prepared statement that will be read by Christine Saah Nazer, EEOC spokesperson.

ARTICLE BY

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Statements of Samantha Elauf and David Lopez Following Oral Argument at the Supreme Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seal

Samantha Elauf filed the original charge of religious discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that led to today’s argument in the Supreme Court. She has the following statement for the press:

I was born and raised in Tulsa, Oklahoma. When I applied for a position with Abercrombie Kids, I was a teenager who loved fashion.  I had worked in two other retail stores and was excited to work at the Abercrombie store.  No one had ever told me that I could not wear a head scarf and sell clothing.  Then I learned I was not hired by Abercrombie because I wear a head scarf, which is a symbol of modesty in my Muslim faith.  This was shocking to me.

I am grateful to the EEOC for looking into my complaint and taking this religious discrimination case to the courts.  I am not only standing up for myself, but for all people who wish to adhere to their faith while at work. Observance of my faith should not prevent me from getting a job.

David Lopez, General Counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), made the following statement at the conclusion of the Supreme Court argument in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., a case involving religious accommodation.

This year we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, established as part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII prohibits discrimination because of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion.  The prohibition against religious discrimination reflects this country’s historical tradition of religious freedom and religious tolerance. Since that time, the Commission has led the effort to enforce laws that prohibit religious discrimination for persons of all faiths. Today’s case is the latest effort to ensure all persons protected by  Title VII are not placed in the difficult position of choosing between adherence to one’s faith and a job.

Finally, I would be remiss not to recognize the courage and tenacity of Samantha Elauf.  Regardless of the outcome of this case, her effort to stand up for the important principles at issue is an inspiration.  Samantha now has a brief prepared statement that will be read by Christine Saah Nazer, EEOC spokesperson.

ARTICLE BY

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Wal-Mart to Pay $150,000 to Settle EEOC Age and Disability Discrimination Suit

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seal

Keller Store Manager Was Harassed and Fired Because of His Age and Denied Accommodation for His Diabetes, Federal Agency Charged

Wal-Mart Stores of Texas, L.L.C. (Wal-Mart) has agreed to pay $150,000 and provide other significant relief to settle an age and disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC charged in its suit that Wal-Mart discriminated against the manager of the Keller, Texas Walmart store by subjecting him to harassment, discriminatory treatment, and discharge because of his age. The EEOC also charged that Wal-Mart refused to provide a reasonable accommodation for the man’s disability as federal law requires.

According to the EEOC’s suit, David Moorman was ridiculed with frequent taunts from his direct supervisor, including “old man” and “old food guy.” The EEOC further alleged that Wal-Mart ultimately fired Moorman because of his age. Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age 40 or older, including age-based harassment.

The EEOC’s suit also alleged that Wal-Mart unlawfully refused Moorman’s request for a reasonable accommodation for his diabetes. Following his diagnosis and on the advice of his doctor, Moorman requested reassignment to a store co-manager or assistant manager position. According to the suit, Wal-Mart refused to engage in the interactive process of discussing Moorman’s requested accommodation, eventually rejecting his request. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Wal-Mart had an obligation to reasonably accommodate Moorman’s disability.

The EEOC filed suit on March 12, 2014, (Case No. 3:14-cv-00908 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Mr. Moorman was subjected to taunts and bullying from his supervisor that made his working conditions intolerable,” said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Joel Clark. “The EEOC remains committed to prosecuting the rights of workers through litigation in federal court.”

Under the terms of the two-year consent decree settling the case, Wal-Mart will pay $150,000 in relief to Moorman. In addition, Wal-Mart agreed to provide training for employees on the ADA and the ADEA. The training will include an instruction on the kind of conduct that may constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment, as well as an instruction on Wal-Mart’s procedures for handling requests for reasonable accommodations under the ADA. Wal-Mart will also report to the EEOC regarding its compliance with the consent decree and post a notice to employees about the settlement.

“The EEOC is pleased that Wal-Mart recognized the value of resolving this case without any further court action,” said EEOC Dallas District Director Janet Elizondo.

ARTICLE BY

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
OF
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission