A warehouse worker started her job seven months pregnant. Thirteen weeks after delivering, she was fired. One sentence from the HR rep is why this case is going to trial.
According to the EEOC, a waste management company hadn’t hired a female garbage truck driver in years, and its interviews showed why: a manager told one qualified female applicant to think carefully, talk to her husband, and let him know if she still wanted the job. She did. The company hired a man. The case settled for $200,000.
A police department ran a volunteer program that looked and felt a lot like a job, complete with uniforms, badges, ranks, performance reviews, and a paramilitary chain of command. Three young women in the program alleged sex discrimination and retaliation, got dismissed, waited over two years to file charges, and then sued under Title VII. The court shut it all down. Continue reading
According to the EEOC, a company told its staffing agencies not to send women for laborer jobs because women would “distract” male workers. When the EEOC sued, the company turned around and sued the staffing agencies too. A federal court just explained why that doesn’t work.
Some employers try. The Fourth Circuit just explained why that trick doesn’t work for these federal discrimination claims. Continue reading
When employees say, “You helped him when he was injured but refused to help me,” it sounds like discrimination. It also sounds like a failure-to-accommodate dispute. A recent Ninth Circuit decision shows why that framing matters, and why getting it wrong can sink the case before it ever reaches a jury. Continue reading
The EEOC’s decision to pull back from investigating disparate impact claims has been loud, controversial, and headline-worthy. And for employees watching their charges get administratively closed in real time, it can feel like the agency has simply walked away. But federal courts are not there to referee agency priorities or second-guess investigations.
TL;DR: A federal court dismissed an employee’s lawsuit against the EEOC after the agency administratively closed her disparate-impact charge following a shift in enforcement priorities. The court held that charging parties have no judicially cognizable right to a particular EEOC investigation, and no standing to force the agency to reopen one. Whatever the EEOC does or does not do, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claims are litigated de novo against the employer – not the agency.
The Supreme Court recently made it easier for employees to prove discrimination, lowering the bar from “serious harm” to “some harm.” That change came from a 2024 sex discrimination case, but its reasoning can influence other Title VII claims too. A new decision from the federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania shows that even when courts apply that softer standard to quid pro quo harassment claims, retaliation still requires a higher level of proof, and neither test was met here. Continue reading
When the agency that enforces the nation’s anti-discrimination laws ends up defending one of its own under Title VII, that is not just newsworthy. It is a lesson for every employer about how bias, inconsistency, and poor process can sneak into even the most compliance-minded workplaces. Continue reading
It’s the kind of line you say when you’re thinking out loud, not realizing that your thoughts are about to become Plaintiff’s Exhibit A. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog