Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EEOC NEWS—Hiring bias settlement announced alongside four accommodation lawsuits, (Apr 7, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Recent actions target alleged hiring discrimination and accommodation failures, including a resolution with HCL America and new suits involving church attendance, sickle cell disorder, pregnancy, and cancer treatment.

The EEOC has announced a $495,000 settlement and four new federal lawsuits accusing employers in the technology consulting, trucking, logistics, gaming, and food-processing sectors of hiring bias and unlawful failures to accommodate religious practice, disability, and pregnancy-related limitations. The matters involve claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and concern employers based or operating in California, Nevada, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina.

Hiring bias. HCL America, a multinational technology consulting company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, agreed to pay $495,000 to settle an EEOC suit alleging age and national origin discrimination in hiring. According to the agency, the company rejected a qualified 62-year-old applicant of Indian descent for a sales director position in July 2021, stating in an email that he was “too old.” HCL also sought applications from non-Indian candidates, and a younger, non-Indian candidate was ultimately hired.

The EEOC said the alleged conduct violated the ADEA and Title VII. Christopher Green, district director for the EEOC’s San Francisco District Office, said, “Hiring must be based on merit—not age or national origin—as the ADEA and Title VII requires.”

Under a two-year consent decree approved April 2, 2026, HCL will work with a third-party consultant to review or revise its policies and procedures concerning age and national origin discrimination and will train recruitment personnel, managers, and supervisors. Regional Attorney Roberta L. Steele said employers should ensure hiring managers and recruiters understand their responsibilities under federal anti-discrimination law.

The case was filed in the Northern District of California; the case is No. 5:24-cv-04694.

Sunday worship. Blue Eagle Contracting, a Grass Valley, California-based bulk mail delivery contractor for the U.S. Postal Service, is accused of violating Title VII by refusing to return a Christian truck driver to a weekday route after he temporarily filled a Sunday morning shift on an emergency basis. The EEOC says the driver advised supervisors when hired in September 2022 that he had religious obligations requiring him to attend Sunday morning church services. He initially worked a weekday route between Reno and Tonopah, Nevada, before volunteering to cover a Sunday shift after a coworker unexpectedly resigned.

According to the suit, the driver repeatedly told supervisors he could work Sunday mornings only until a replacement for the weekend shift was hired. Blue Eagle did hire a replacement, the EEOC said, but continued assigning the driver to Sundays while the replacement drove the weekday route. The driver complained and ultimately resigned in December 2022, after allegedly being forced to choose between his faith and his job.

The EEOC says Title VII required the company to explore possible accommodations absent undue hardship. “Employers are bound by federal law to explore a range of possible accommodations to ensure that employees retain their right to freely exercise their faith,” Green said. Senior Trial Attorney Mariko Ashley added that forcing employees to choose between religious practice and their livelihood, absent undue burden on the employer, violates the law.

The agency filed the case in the District of Nevada; the case is No. 3:26-cv-00226.

Sickle cell accommodation. Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain (USA), faces an ADA suit over the treatment of a former temporary worker at its Forest Park, Georgia warehouses who has sickle cell disorder. The EEOC alleges the employee worked through a staffing company and had spent most of her time on assignments that did not require prolonged exposure to cold. But in January 2023, after a new supervisor assigned her to work only in a cooler, she sought an accommodation allowing shorter cooler periods or reassignment to two available non-cooler roles.

The company allegedly denied the request, telling her it does not accommodate medical restrictions, then discharged her shortly afterward. The EEOC further alleges that Exel later hired all other temporary employees for full-time positions except her, costing her a permanent role. Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office, said the company could have limited her time in the cooler or assigned her to other available work instead of denying the request outright.

The agency says the alleged conduct violates the ADA’s accommodation and anti-discrimination provisions. Darrell E. Graham, district director of the Atlanta office, said employers cannot adopt blanket policies refusing to accommodate restrictions because such policies deny disabled workers the interactive process the law requires. The EEOC seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

The case was filed in the Northern District of Georgia; the case is No. 1:26-cv-01720.

Pregnancy policy. BestBet Jacksonville, identified by the EEOC as Florida’s largest poker room, is accused of violating the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act by refusing reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees and forcing them to quit. The agency alleges BestBet maintained a policy requiring employees to resign if they missed two weeks or more of work and did not qualify for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The suit describes two examples. In one, a worker with a high-risk pregnancy sought to miss six shifts over about two and a half weeks in January 2025 on her doctor’s advice but was forced to quit. In another, an employee who requested leave to have her baby was allegedly forced to leave the company in February 2025. Kristen Foslid, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Miami District Office, said the law requires employers to engage in an interactive dialogue and consider accommodations rather than deny requests outright.

The EEOC says the alleged conduct violated the PWFA, including its requirement that employers reasonably accommodate known pregnancy- and childbirth-related limitations absent undue hardship, even when doing so requires modifying the application of leave policies. Miami District Director Evangeline Hawthorne said the agency would litigate where employers “blatantly ignore federal law.”

The case was filed in the Middle District of Florida; the case is No. 3:26-cv-00704.

Cancer treatment. Butterball LLC, a food-processing company based in Garner, North Carolina and operating in Mt. Olive, North Carolina, has been sued under the ADA over its handling of an employee’s need for intermittent leave for breast-cancer treatment. According to the EEOC, the long-term employee told the company she needed intermittent leave to receive and recover from chemotherapy, but the leave was never granted after she was referred to a third-party benefits administrator. She then accrued “attendance points” for cancer-related absences and was fired under the company’s attendance policy.

Regional Attorney Melinda C. Dugas said intermittent leave and exemptions from progressive attendance policies can constitute reasonable accommodations absent undue hardship, and she stressed that an employer remains responsible for ADA compliance even when it uses a third-party benefits administrator.

The EEOC filed the case in the Eastern District of North Carolina; the case is No. 5:26-cv-00202-FL.

Companies: Butterball, LLC; BestBet Jacksonville, Inc.; Exel Inc.; DHL Supply Chain (USA); HCL America, Inc.; Blue Eagle Contracting, Inc.

News: AgencyNews Discrimination PregnancyDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination NationalOrigin DisabilityDiscrimination ReligiousDiscrimination LitigationNewsTrends