Recent EEOC Enforcement Activity
Bloomberg L.P. Sued for Pregnancy Bias
Bloomberg L.P., the news and financial services company, violated federal law by discriminating against a class of female employees who became pregnant and took maternity leave, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in September, 2007.
The EEOC asserts that Bloomberg engaged in a pattern of demoting and reducing the pay of female employees after they announced their pregnancies and after they took maternity leave. Some women were replaced by more junior male employees. The lawsuit also alleges that the same pregnant women and new mothers were excluded from management meetings and subjected to stereotyping about their abilities to do their jobs because of their family and caregiver responsibilities. Complaints made by the women to Bloombergís human resources department were dismissed.
The EEOC filed its lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The suit seeks monetary relief; an order requiring the company to implement new policies and practices to prevent discrimination; training on anti-discrimination laws; posting of notices at the work site; and other injunctive relief.
$4.3 Million Settlement In National Origin Discrimination Case
In October, 2007, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) entered into a consent decree with B & H Foto and Electronics Corp., resolving a national origin discrimination case on behalf of Hispanic workers at one of the largest retail sellers of photographic, computer and electronic equipment in the metropolitan area.
The EEOCís lawsuit alleged that B & H paid Hispanics in its warehouses less than non-Hispanic workers and failed to promote them or provide them health benefits based on their national origin. Under the voluntary settlement, B & H agreed to equalize the wages of Hispanic employees to their non-Hispanic coworkers and to work with the EEOC in a claims process to distribute $4.3 million in monetary relief to individuals who were paid less, not promoted, or denied benefits because they are Hispanic.
In addition to providing for distribution of the multi-million dollar settlement fund the decree also requires employer training, notice posting, adoption of an anti-discrimination policy, reporting to the EEOC, and monitoring by the EEOC for five years.
$27.5 Million Consent Decree in Age Bias Case
The international law firm of Sidley Austin LLP will pay $27.5 million to 32 former partners who the EEOC alleged were forced out of the partnership because of their age, under a consent decree approved by a federal judge.
The EEOC brought the suit in 2005 under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A major issue in the case was whether partners in the law firm were protected as employees under the ADEA. The decree provides that "Sidley agrees that each person for whom EEOC has sought relief in this matter was an employee with the meaning of the ADEA."
The decree also includes an injunction that bars the law firm from "terminating, expelling, retiring, reducing the compensation of or otherwise adversely changing the partnership status of a partner because of age" or "maintaining any formal or informal policy or practice requiring retirement as a partner or requiring permission to continue as a partner once the partner has reached a certain age."
The General Counsel of the EEOC observed, "This case has been closely followed by the legal community as well as by professional services providers generally. It shows that EEOC will not shrink from pursuing meritorious claims of employment discrimination wherever they are found."
AT&T to Pay $756,000 for Religious Bias
In October, 2007 the EEOC announced a favorable jury verdict of $756,000 in a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against AT&T Inc. on behalf of two male customer service technicians who were suspended and fired for attending a Jehovahís Witnesses Convention.
The jury awarded the two former employees $296,000 in back pay and $460,000 in compensatory damages under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Both men had submitted written requests to their manager for one day of leave to attend a religious observance. Both men testified that they had sincerely held religious beliefs that required them to attend the convention each year. Both men had attended the convention every year throughout their employment with AT&T. However, when they took the day off to attend the convention, they were fired.
"In this case, AT&T forced their employees to choose between their religion and their job," said an attorney for the EEOC. "Title VII does not require that an employee make that choice in order to maintain gainful employment."