Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EEOC NEWS—Employers pay combined $1M-plus to resolve race, sex, disability, and pregnancy discrimination, retaliation allegations, (Apr 30, 2026)

By Pamela Wolf, J.D.

One employer reportedly failed to address a serious sexual harassment complaint and then fired the aggrieved worker after she obtained an order of protection from court and served a copy on the company.

The EEOC separately announced its combined recovery of $1,074,298 in monetary relief for workers at companies in California, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Carolina to settle allegations of race, disability, sex, and pregnancy discrimination, as well as retaliation against those who complained. One company paid $600,000 to resolve allegations that it routinely refused to hire qualified individuals with disabilities by using pre-employment inquiries that were unrelated to the job for which candidates had applied.

Racially harassed worker fired for complaining. Metro Eighteen, Inc. will pay $70,098 and provide other relief to settle allegations that the San Francisco-based home electronics installation company violated Title VII when a black employee at its Los Angeles location was subjected to racially charged language and conduct by coworkers. He allegedly complained to his supervisor, but the race-based harassment continued. After the employee complained about the harassment, Metro Eighteen fired him in retaliation for making the complaint, according to the EEOC’s lawsuit.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Central District of California; the case is No. 2:26-cv-03412-AH (ADSx).

Refused to hire qualified individuals with disabilities, unlawful screening. Lori’s Gift’s, Inc. agreed to pay $600,000 and provide other relief to resolve a lawsuit claiming it violated Title VII when it engaged in companywide practices, since at least 2018, that included using unlawful screening criteria and preemployment inquiries, and refused to hire qualified individuals with disabilities based on the perceived need to make accommodations for them. The nationwide hospital gift shop chain reportedly required applicants for store positions to complete preemployment screening questions asking whether they could lift up to 30 pounds and whether they could walk or stand for up to five hours when such requirements were not related to or necessary for the jobs. If an applicant answered “no” to either screening question, Lori’s Gifts would automatically reject the applicant, the EEOC said.

The two-year consent decree resolving the federal agency’s lawsuit also requires Lori’s Gifts to train store associates, managers, and HR personnel on disability discrimination and the ADA; submit periodic reports to the EEOC about applicants who seek accommodations; establish a telephone and email hotline for employees and applicants to report concerns, questions, or complaints regarding the ADA; and provide information on its job application webpage about reporting concerns of disability discrimination under the ADA.

The EEOC brought its lawsuit in the Southern District of Ohio; the case is No. 2:23-cv-03175-EAS-CMV.

Fired for getting order of protection; employer refused remedy sexual harassment. Sofidel America Corp. will pay $80,000 and furnish other relief to settle allegations that the international paper products manufacturer with a plant in Inola, Oklahoma, violated Title VII when it allowed a male employee to sexually harass a young female coworker for more than six months, including making lewd sexual comments and forcibly trying to kiss her. She complained to the company on June 6, 2023, but the harassment purportedly continued. Because her employer failed to protect her, the young woman obtained an Emergency Protective Order against the harasser from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, on July 7, 2023, and provided a copy of it to the company on July 10. On July 11, Sofidel fired the young woman because she obtained the protective order, but allowed the harasser to remain employed.

“Federal law protects workers who oppose sexual harassment and who participate in legal processes to make the harassment stop,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Andrea G. Baran. “Employers must take prompt and effective action to stop and remedy sexual harassment and must never retaliate against workers who try to protect themselves or others from such misconduct.”

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Northern District of Oklahoma; the case is No. 4:24-cv-00462-JFJ.

Refused to accommodate new worker’s pregnancy. Florence CK, LLC, a Comfort Keepers franchisee providing in-home caregiving in Florence, South Carolina, agreed to pay $324,200 and furnish other relief to conciliate a charge that it violated Title VII, the PWFA, and the ADA by requiring an unlawful medical exam, failing to accommodate, and firing a new employe who was pregnant. During orientation, the employee notified Comfort Keepers of her pregnancy and the company instructed her to obtain medical clearance. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that when the employee then notified the company of a pregnancy-related limitation, the company failed to accommodate and eventually fired her, even though she could perform the essential functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation.

The EEOC’s charge investigation also found reasonable cause to believe that the company’s statewide hiring practice of requiring disclosure of family medical information violated GINA.

The company agreed to provide the monetary relief to the affected employee and more than 1,000 former and current candidates and employees. Florence CK will also provide antidiscrimination training for all HR personnel, managers, and decisionmakers, and post EEOC notices, including a notice about the resolution of this matter, in conspicuous places. The EEOC will monitor compliance with the agreement for two and a half years.

Companies: Metro Eighteen, Inc.; Lori’s Gift’s, Inc.; Sofidel America Corp.; Florence CK, LLC

News: AgencyNews Discharge Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PregnancyDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation SexDiscrimination SexualHarassment Privacy RemediesDamages