Each month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) files lawsuits and settles cases covering the federal laws they are responsible for enforcing. These federal laws include:
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
- The Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2022 (PWFA)
- The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA)
- The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
- Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
- Sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991
- Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
- The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)
Below is a list of lawsuits and settlements by the EEOC in from September 1 to 15, 2025.
- EEOC Lawsuits
- EEOC Settlements
- Alabama: Sanmina Corporation to Pay $77,500 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
- Alabama: P.F. Chang’s to Pay $80,000 for Religious Discrimination
- Arkansas: Interventional Pain Management Associates and Baxter Regional Medical Center to Pay $350,000 in EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit
- Georgia: EEOC: Sam’s Club to Pay $60K Over Disability Discrimination
- Illinois: Sunnybrook Union to Pay $110,000 in EEOC Race Discrimination Lawsuit
- Michigan: East Jordan Plastics to Pay $460,000 in EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
- Virginia: Mid Atlantic Dairy Queen to Pay $145,000 to Resolve EEOC Sexual Harassment Charges
- Virginia: Virginia International Terminals to Pay $20,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
EEOC Lawsuits
Maryland: EEOC Sues Roland Park Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center and Atlas Healthcare for Sex and Pregnancy Discrimination
Allegations
Pregnancy discrimination; Sex discrimination; Reasonable accommodation
Laws Involved
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; Pregnancy Discrimination Act
State
Maryland
Summary
According to the suit, a certified nursing assistant told Roland Park RHC she was temporarily restricted by her doctor from lifting patients due to risks in her pregnancy. In response, Roland Park RHC, which maintained a policy of reserving light or modified duty for workers with on-the-job injuries only, refused to provide a reasonable accommodation for the employee as required by federal law. Instead, the company terminated her, telling her to reapply for a position after her pregnancy, the EEOC said.
Maryland: EEOC Sues American Multi-Cinema for Disability Discrimination
Allegations
Disability discrimination; Reasonable accommodation
Laws Involved
Americans with Disabilities Act
State
Maryland
Summary
According to the lawsuit, AMC, at its Owings Mills, Maryland location, violated federal law when it forced a 22-year employee with cerebral palsy to quit around September 2023 after it deprived him of reasonable accommodations which would have enabled him to better perform his job and then greatly reduced his hours. The theater refused to provide a ticket scanner with a strap and side button which would have been easier for him to use, and a printed list of the movies and their corresponding theaters in large font, according to the suit.
North Carolina: EEOC Sues Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Company for Disability Discrimination
Allegations
Disability discrimination; Reasonable accommodation
Laws Involved
Americans with Disabilities Act
State
North Carolina
Summary
According to the lawsuit, a former Cheerwine employee took medication for her disability, which had a side effect of deterioration in her hip cartilage, resulting in a limp while she walked. She worked as a store merchandiser for almost six weeks when, in March 2023, the company required her to submit to a medical examination, weeks earlier than other probationary employees because of her disability. Even though the employee met the physical requirements of the position, Cheerwine placed her on unpaid leave and told her to obtain a complete medical clearance before returning. On March 30, 2023, the employee submitted a note from her doctor clearing her to work, but Cheerwine rejected the note and terminated her employment.
EEOC Settlements
Alabama: Sanmina Corporation to Pay $77,500 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Allegations
Disability discrimination; Reasonable accommodation
Laws Involved
Americans with Disabilities Act
State
Alabama
Summary
The EEOC’s suit charged Sanmina with discriminating against a long-time employee at its Huntsville, Alabama facility who suffered from osteoarthritis and other health conditions. Her conditions made walking across Sanmina’s large parking lot, which lacked sufficient accessible parking spaces, difficult and painful.
After allowing employees to work from home for two years, around February 2022, Sanmina required employees to return onsite. The employee requested a reasonable accommodation to continue working remotely to avoid the pain associated with getting in and out of her car and the long walk to the building. Although Sanmina told her she could continue to work from home pending any further consideration of her requested accommodation, the company fired her several months later without notice, because she continued to exercise her reasonable accommodation of working remotely due to her disabilities, the EEOC charged.
Alabama: P.F. Chang’s to Pay $80,000 for Religious Discrimination
Allegations
Religious discrimination; Reasonable accommodation
Laws Involved
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
State
Alabama
Summary
According to the EEOC’s charge investigation, during the interview process in August 2024 with the P.F. Chang’s location in Birmingham, the applicant requested Sundays off because of his religious beliefs. The EEOC’s investigation concluded he was not hired because of the accommodation request.
Following the EEOC’s investigation, the parties engaged in the EEOC’s pre-litigation conciliation process, resulting in a settlement requiring P.F. Chang’s to provide back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and revise written policies and procedures about religious accommodations. The restaurant also agreed to require training for its Birmingham employees, supervisors, managers, and human resources personnel on equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities, with an emphasis on religious accommodations. In addition, the employer agreed to post a notice regarding the resolution of this matter and the laws enforced by the EEOC.
Arkansas: Interventional Pain Management Associates and Baxter Regional Medical Center to Pay $350,000 in EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit
Allegations
Sex discrimination; Sexual harassment; Retaliation
Laws Involved
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
State
Arkansas
Summary
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, IPMA and Baxter fired an employee in retaliation for her opposition to the sexual harassment of a co-worker. After receiving a complaint of sexual harassment on or about April 2019 from a medical technician against an IPMA physician and co-founder, Baxter’s human resources department investigated. When HR interviewed the physician assistant, she confirmed the medical technician’s allegations, including describing sexually explicit text messages from the physician shown to her by the medical technician. As a result of the investigation, the accused physician took a sabbatical leave.
Three years later, another IPMA physician, who knew the physician assistant participated in the investigation of his colleague, asked the physician assistant to resign. When she refused, IPMA and Baxter fired her. Unbeknownst to second physician, the employee recorded the conversation where he admitted, among other things, the companies asked her to resign because she responded to HR’s investigation of the alleged sexual harassment instead of reporting it second physician.
Georgia: EEOC: Sam’s Club to Pay $60K Over Disability Discrimination
Allegations
Disability discrimination; Reasonable accommodation
Laws Involved
Americans with Disabilities Act
State
Georgia
Summary
According to the EEOC’s suit, the Sam’s Club in Douglasville, Georgia, refused to let a longtime employee return to her associate position in June 2022 following a medical leave of absence related to an automobile accident. The accident left her with post-concussion syndrome, upper back pain, muscle spasms, and chronic lower back pain.
The employee sought minor, temporary adjustments to her duties as a reasonable accommodation for her disabilities. The employee successfully performed a shift with those restrictions upon her return but was later told by her supervisor she could not work with restrictions and would instead need to take another leave of absence until she could work without any restrictions. As instructed, the employee sought additional leave, providing Sam’s Club with a date by which she would be capable of working without restriction. Sam’s Club then denied the employee’s requested leave and fired her. The store’s general manager told her Sam’s Club would not accommodate her injuries because they occurred outside of work.
Illinois: Sunnybrook Union to Pay $110,000 in EEOC Race Discrimination Lawsuit
Allegations
Race discrimination
Laws Involved
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
State
Illinois
Summary
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a black man who worked as a custodian for Sunnybrook School District 171, was denied a promotion on the base of his race. When the school district attempted to promote him to the role of head custodian outside of the terms of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the union stopped the promotion by filing a grievance. In other instances where non-black employees were offered promotions or employment terms outside of the CBA, the union did not oppose the actions, and in some cases actively bargained to permit those promotions to go forward.
Michigan: East Jordan Plastics to Pay $460,000 in EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
Allegations
Sex discrimination; Sexual harassment
Laws Involved
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
State
Michigan
Summary
According to the suit, a class of female employees at the manufacturer’s Beaverton, Michigan location was sexually harassed by a male co-worker, whose conduct included offensive sexual comments and inappropriate touching. Despite being made aware of the harassment through at least two complaints from different women, the company took no disciplinary action against the harasser. The suit alleged that the harassing conduct continued until yet another female employee complained; following this complaint, the company finally conducted interviews and terminated the male employee.
Virginia: Mid Atlantic Dairy Queen to Pay $145,000 to Resolve EEOC Sexual Harassment Charges
Allegations
Sex discrimination; Sexual harassment
Laws Involved
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
State
Virginia
Summary
Franklin, Virginia-based Mid Atlantic Dairy Queen, LLC, doing business as Dairy Queen, entered into conciliation agreements with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to resolve two sexual harassment charges, the federal agency announced today.
The agreements resolve charges where the EEOC’s investigation found reasonable cause to believe the company violated federal anti-discrimination law by allowing two former employees who worked at the company’s Granby Street location in Norfolk and the Landstown location in Virginia Beach to sexually harass multiple female workers from approximately July 2022 to February 2023, including some who were teenagers at the time. The harassers repeatedly made inappropriate sexual comments and engaged in unwelcome physical contact. The investigation found that Mid Atlantic Dairy Queen knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take corrective action or remedial measures.
Virginia: Virginia International Terminals to Pay $20,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
Allegations
Disability discrimination; Reasonable accommodation
Laws Involved
Americans with Disabilities Act
State
Virginia
Summary
According to the suit, the employee worked at VIT-operated Norfolk International Terminals driving a hustler truck, which moves shipping containers around Norfolk International Terminals at a maximum speed of 20 mph. The driver was hospitalized because of a cardiac event and received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The EEOC alleged that after his procedure, VIT violated federal anti-discrimination law by refusing to allow him back to work as a hustler driver, even though he received a medical release, and instead offered lower-paying work.
The lawsuit also charged that VIT violated the law when it assumed the employee would pose a safety risk and imposed restrictions excluding him from working in certain categories of jobs. This assumption was made without conducting an individualized analysis to determine whether or not he could perform the job without posing a direct threat to himself or others.