Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EEOC NEWS—New lawsuits allege age, disability, pregnancy, religious, sex discrimination; third-party action no defense, (Oct 8, 2025)

By Pamela Wolf, J.D.

“Employers cannot evade liability for discriminatory employment decisions by blaming a third party.”

In separate developments, the EEOC announced its filing of new lawsuits alleging religious, sex, pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination against employers in Virginia, Alabama, New York, Texas, and Oklahoma, respectively. As three of the new lawsuits illustrate, employers cannot evade their own anti-discrimination legal obligations when an adverse employment action is prompted by a third-party.

Failed to accommodate employee’s Jewish faith. Apple, Inc. violated Title VII when it failed to accommodate an employee’s Jewish faith and subsequently fired him because of his religion and in retaliation for complaining of religion-based discrimination, according to a new EEOC lawsuit. A 16-year employee at the Reston, Virginia Apple Store, who worked as an Apple “genius,” consistently received positive performance reviews, the lawsuit asserted. However, beginning in August 2023, shortly after he converted to Judaism, he allegedly requested an accommodation for observing his Sabbath by not working Fridays and Saturdays. His new store manager rejected the request, claiming that Apple’s scheduling policy now prohibited him from having both Friday and Saturday off. Fearing he would lose his job if he did not comply, he allegedly worked on the Sabbath, against his religious beliefs.

Further, after he requested a religious reasonable accommodation, Apple began disciplining the employee for purportedly violating its grooming policies. Shortly after he reminded his supervisor of an upcoming day off for religious reasons, Apple allegedly terminated him in January 2024, falsely claiming another violation of its grooming policy.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia; the case is No. 1:25-cv-1637.

Staffing agency unlawfully honored discriminatory client request. The EEOC sued WorkSmart Staffing, LLC, a regional staffing agency headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina, for allegedly violating Title VII by discriminating against a class of females when it failed to hire or refer them to available positions. From August 1, 2020, to August 8, 2023, the company failed to hire or refer a class of aggrieved females for laborer positions because of their sex at two of the company’s offices, in Hoover, and Leeds, Alabama. One of WorkSmart’s clients requested male laborers only for their facility, and the company complied with the client’s discriminatory request, according to the EEOC.

“Unfortunately, some companies engage in sex-based hiring practices that have no place in today’s workforce,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Marsha Rucker. “The EEOC remains vigilant to prevent sex-based hiring practices across all sectors of employment.”

The EEOC brought its lawsuit in the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division; the case is No. 4:25-cv-01659-SGC.

Pregnancy discrimination by third party agent. Delta Air Lines violated Title VII and the ADA when it rescinded a job offer from an applicant due to her pregnancy, the EEOC claims in a new lawsuit. Delta allegedly extended a conditional employment offer in July 2022 to an applicant for a ticket agent customer service representative position at one of its New York City airport locations. Delta required applicants to pass a physical ability test. When the applicant, who was in the early stages of pregnancy, presented a medical release form signed by her doctor confirming her ability to take the test, the third party hired by Delta to administer the test purportedly refused to do so because of her pregnancy. After the applicant told Delta she presented the required medical release and was still turned away based on her pregnancy, Delta failed to take corrective action and instead rescinded the job offer, according to the lawsuit.

“Employers cannot evade liability for discriminatory employment decisions by blaming a third party,” explained EEOC Regional Attorney Kimberly A. Cruz. “This case stands as a reminder to employers that they are responsible for ensuring that their policies and practices, including those implemented by their agents, do not result in unlawful discrimination.”

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York; the case is No. 25-cv-5448.

Refused to hire drivers over 65 because of insurance restrictions. A new EEOC lawsuit asserts that Fat and Broke, Inc., dba Gamer Logistics, located in El Paso, Texas with offices in Laredo, Texas, Indiana, and Mexico, violated the ADEA when it fired and refused to hire a class of older drivers and applicants for driver positions because of their age. In March 2024, the logistics company allegedly fired a 69-year-old driver, a four-year veteran of the company, because the company’s new liability insurance policy did not cover drivers aged 65 or older. Further, in July 2024, the company purportedly refused to hire a 68-year-old applicant for a driving position because of his age. Both the employee and applicant held commercial driver’s licenses and met the physical requirements to operate commercial motor vehicles.

The EEOC also contended that Gamer Logistics excluded a class of employees and job applicants from driver positions because they were age 65 or older. Moreover, the company has recently imposed age-discriminatory medical screening conditions for employing older drivers.

“Employers are ultimately responsible for their own hiring, firing, and conditions of employment,” advised EEOC District Director Travis Nicholson. “They cannot escape liability for evident age-based employment decisions just because another private party, such as an insurance company, imposes an age-based restriction.”

The EEOC brought its lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division; the case is No. 3:25-cv-00433.

Purported disability accommodation ineffective. Yellowhouse Machinery Co. violated the ADA when it failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability at its McAlester, Oklahoma, dealership, ultimately forcing her to quit, according to a new EEOC lawsuit. The operator of construction and heavy equipment dealerships across Texas and Oklahoma employed a receptionist who suffers from debilitating chronic migraines triggered by prolonged exposure to bright light. For almost three years, she was allowed to work under dimmed overhead lighting and performed her job duties successfully and without issue, the EEOC said. But in May 2024, the store manager abruptly replaced the existing lighting with bright LED bulbs. The receptionist allegedly submitted a doctor’s note to the manager, explaining her medical need for dimmer lighting. Despite medical justification and the employee’s repeated requests, Yellowhouse purportedly refused to do anything other than move her desk a few feet, which was an ineffective measure that failed to alleviate her symptoms. Without an accommodation, the receptionist was ultimately forced to resign, the EEOC claimed.

The EEOC brought its lawsuit in the Eastern District of Oklahoma; the case is No. 6:25-cv-344-JAR.

Companies: Apple, Inc.; WorkSmart Staffing, LLC; Delta Air Lines; Fat and Broke, Inc.; Gamer Logistics; Yellowhouse Machinery Co.

News: AgencyNews Discharge Discrimination AgeDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PregnancyDiscrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Retaliation SexDiscrimination LitigationNewsTrends