Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EEOC NEWS—American Airlines, Apple resolve unrelated disability, religious discrimination suits; new suits allege sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Pamela Wolf, J.D.

“While the law allows employers to seek medical documentation to support a pregnancy-related accommodation in some situations, they may only do so when it is reasonable under the circumstances.”

The EEOC separately announced it has recovered a combined $350,000 for workers in Texas and Virginia who suffered reported disability and religious discrimination, respectively. The federal antidiscrimination agency also brought new lawsuits against employers in Colorado for alleged sexual harassment and Minnesota and North Carolina for reported pregnancy discrimination.

Employee with blindness denied reasonable accommodation. American Airlines, Inc., will pay $200,000 and provide other relief to settle allegations that it violated the ADA when the domestic and international air carrier failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee at its Fort Worth, Texas, location after she developed cortical blindness. The employee requested to use screen reader software to convert text and other information on computers into synthesized speech as a reasonable accommodation, which would allow her to use the company’s computer systems to perform her job duties, according to the EEOC. Alternatively, she requested to be transferred to another position. American Airlines failed to take legally required steps to enable the employee to use the screen reader software for her job or help her find another reasonable accommodation, instead keeping her on unpaid, involuntary leave for almost four years and then firing her after failing to facilitate her return to work, the agency said.

In addition to the monetary relief for the blind employee, the two-year consent decree resolving the case requires American Airlines to integrate the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines into its development of new, accessible reservation software the company is projecting to launch in 2027. Upon implementation of the web application, the airlines must conduct an accessibility audit of the software by a trained specialist and dedicate up to 120 hours of labor to remedy any barriers to accessibility for blind and visually impaired employee-users that may still exist. The company will also train HR employees whose job duties include responding to reasonable accommodation requests, post an employee notice about disability discrimination, and provide reports to the EEOC about relevant employee accommodation requests.

“Blind and otherwise visually impaired workers deserve every opportunity to put their skills and knowledge to work, make highly valuable contributions to our nation’s economy, and have rewarding careers,” said acting EEOC Dallas Regional Attorney Ronald L. Phillips. “The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as screen reader technology. There are numerous technical resources available to aid employers in their search for reasonable accommodations, including government rehabilitation agencies, non-profit organizations, technology consultants and the Job Accommodation Network.”

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division; the case is No. 4:25-cv-01056-P.

Accommodation denied for observance of Jewish Sabbath. Pursuant to a two-year consent decree, Apple Inc. agreed to pay $150,000 and update its religious observance policy to resolve allegations that the company violated Title VII by failing to accommodate a Reston, Virginia, employee’s need to be off from Friday sundown through sundown on Saturday in observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Apple rejected the employee’s request because it conflicted with a new Apple scheduling policy regarding weekend work, according to the EEOC. Purportedly, the same store manager who denied the employee’s religious accommodation request later fired him in January 2024 because of his religion and in retaliation for his complaints about the manager’s disparaging religious comments and denial of religious accommodation.

Apple will pay $80,000 in back pay and $70,000 in compensatory damages to the former employee, as well as implement an updated religious observance policy, which requires decision makers to provide employees with a written explanation for denial of a religious accommodation. The company also will provide training to store management and HR personnel on Title VII’s requirement to provide religious accommodation and its prohibition on retaliation, and the employer will submit periodic reports to the EEOC about denials of religious accommodation requests and complaints of religious discrimination.

“Accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs is not optional—it is an obligation mandated by federal law in the absence of an undue hardship,” said EEOC Philadelphia Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. “We appreciate Apple’s willingness to work cooperatively with the EEOC to resolve this matter and take affirmative steps to ensure compliance with federal law.”

The EEOC brought its lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia; the case is No. 1:25-cv-01637.

Failed to investigate, protect female employee from ongoing sexual harassment. Gate Gourmet violated Title VII when the Reston, Virginia-based global airline catering company subjected a female employee to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, according to an EEOC lawsuit. Between 2022 and 2023, a female employee was repeatedly harassed while working for Gate Gourmet at Denver International Airport, the EEOC contended. The woman experienced unwelcome sexual conduct from a male colleague, including vulgar comments and gestures, comments about his sexual preferences, the woman’s body, and his desire to touch her body in the restroom. Gate Gourmet purportedly failed to investigate the employee’s allegations and refused to take steps to protect the woman from the ongoing harassment.

“Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment,” said EEOC Denver Field Office Director Sherrie Hayashi. “Sexual vulgarities and references to someone’s body features do not belong in the workplace and can amount to a hostile work environment when an employer fails to take remedial action to end severe and pervasive harassment.”

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the district of Colorado; the case is No. 1:26-cv-04015.

Refused to hire pregnant woman to promote alcoholic beverage brands. Dentsu International Americas, LLC, violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and Title VII when the international advertising and marketing firm refused to hire a pregnant woman for a Minneapolis-based position promoting alcoholic beverage brands, the EEOC alleged in a lawsuit. In November 2023, New York-headquartered Dentsu reportedly refused to hire a female applicant for a position promoting alcoholic beverage brands and instead hired a less-qualified male applicant. The hiring occurred after the female applicant disclosed her pregnancy during the interview process and indicated she would need to take leave following the birth of her child. The hiring manager for the position later stated that she did not select the female applicant because her “lifestyle didn’t fit” the position, the EEOC said.

“Pregnancy should never stand in the way of a qualified applicant getting a job,” said Acting EEOC General Counsel Catherine Eschbach. “Federal law prohibits employers from denying job opportunities because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The EEOC will continue to enforce these protections and hold employers accountable for pregnancy discrimination.”

The EEOC brought its lawsuit in the District of Minnesota; the case is No. 26-cv-03774.

Fired worker after refusing to accommodate pregnancy-related limitations. Family Dollar Stores of North Carolina, LLC, a Matthews, North Carolina-based retailer with a store in Greenville, violated the PWFA by refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s pregnancy-related limitations and then firing her, the EEOC claimed in a lawsuit. On December 31, 2024, on her day off, a customer service representative reportedly experienced pregnancy-related medical issues, including vaginal bleeding, high blood pressure, swelling in her legs, and back pain. The employee notified the store manager that her doctor referred her to a high-risk clinic and wanted her off work until the appointment three days later, requiring her to miss two scheduled shifts, according to the EEOC. The store manager called the employee and insisted that she provide a note before the night was over, even though it was New Year’s Eve. When the employee was unable to produce the note, the store manager allegedly fired her, saying, “[I’m] going to have to go ahead and let you go.” At her appointment on January 3, 2025, the employee learned she had miscarried.

“The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act prohibits employers from discharging an employee because the employee requested a pregnancy-related accommodation,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Melinda C. Dugas. “While the law allows employers to seek medical documentation to support a pregnancy-related accommodation in some situations, they may only do so when it is reasonable under the circumstances.”

The EEOC filed its lawsuit Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division; the case is No. 4:26-cv-00156-FL.

Companies: American Airlines, Inc.; American Airlines, Inc.; Gate Gourmet; Dentsu International Americas; Family Dollar Stores of North Carolina, LLC

News: AgencyNews Discharge Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PregnancyDiscrimination ReligiousDiscrimination SexDiscrimination SexualHarassment Retaliation RemediesDamages LitigationNewsTrends