Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EEOC NEWS—New suits target bias in hiring and leave, as well as harassment, (Oct 2, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

In the suits, the agency cites failures to hire qualified women, provide reasonable accommodations for workers with pregnancy-related and mental health conditions, and protect employees from sexual harassment and retaliation.

The EEOC has announced a series of lawsuits alleging violations of federal workplace discrimination laws against employers in Georgia, California, Florida, and Texas. The cases involve alleged sex discrimination, disability discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, and sexual harassment, and they span industries from retail and staffing to dental manufacturing and home renovation. Collectively, the lawsuits reflect priorities the EEOC has identified in its enforcement plan, including eliminating gender-based hiring barriers, addressing pregnancy-related limitations and mental health conditions under the ADA, and protecting employees from sexual harassment and retaliation.

Sex discrimination in warehouse hiring. KGI Trading GA, Inc., a seafood wholesaler operating as Moon N Sea, and related partners allegedly refused to hire a class of qualified female applicants for warehouse positions at its Buford, Georgia facility. According to the EEOC, hiring managers told women that men were preferred because they could lift more weight, and the jobs were ultimately given to less qualified male applicants. The agency said that despite being fully qualified, female applicants were denied in favor of men, reinforcing stereotypes about women’s physical ability to perform warehouse work.

The agency asserts this conduct violated Title VII. Marcus Keegan, regional attorney for the Atlanta District Office, noted that an “An employer cannot make decisions based on discriminatory stereotypes about sex that discredit a woman’s ability to perform manual work.” The EEOC’s complaint seeks relief for affected applicants, including back pay and injunctive relief to prevent future discriminatory practices.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia; the case is No. 1:25-cv-05455.

Disability discrimination at national retailer. Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, a New Jersey-based national retailer, allegedly violated the ADA when it failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee diagnosed with postpartum depression at its Hayward, California store. The employee requested unpaid leave beyond the company’s 90-day limit but was told to resign and was terminated in April 2021.

According to the EEOC, the company discouraged her from pursuing leave, encouraged her resignation, and discharged her instead of engaging in the required interactive process to explore accommodations.

EEOC trial attorney Kena Cador said that “encouraging employees to resign does not meet the company’s affirmative obligation to engage in a good faith dialogue.” The lawsuit advances what the agency has identified as a developing national priority, specifically challenging inflexible leave policies that fail to accommodate pregnancy-related disabilities Christopher Green, director of the San Francisco District Office, stressed that employers must demonstrate undue hardship to deny accommodations and warned that the EEOC will hold employers accountable when they fail to comply with the law.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Northern District of California; the case is No. 3:25-cv-08142.

Sexual harassment and retaliation at Florida flooring firm. Renovation Flooring, LLC, and its parent, Payfin Enterprises, LLC, are accused of creating a hostile work environment and retaliating against an executive assistant who rebuffed sexual advances by the company’s owner and CEO. The EEOC’s complaint alleges near-daily harassment, including explicit comments about women’s bodies, requests for sex in exchange for money, threats of termination for refusing his demands, and inappropriate physical contact such as grabbing and touching. The owner also allegedly attempted to lure female employees into his vehicle and questioned them about their sex lives.

The harassment escalated after the executive assistant objected, culminating in her resignation following a February 2024 incident where the owner allegedly became physically aggressive, made sexually explicit and derogatory remarks, and repeatedly solicited her for sex at a work event. According to the EEOC, the companies were aware of the owner’s conduct, having previously received a resignation letter from another executive assistant who cited inappropriate comments by him.

The EEOC’s lawsuit is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for the executive assistant, compensatory and punitive damages for the class of affected female employees, and injunctive relief to prevent future harassment. “Protecting women from sexual harassment is not optional—it’s mandated by federal law,” said Miami District Director Evangeline Hawthorne.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division; the case is No. 3:25-cv-01758-MCR-ZCB.

Failure to accommodate mental health disabilities. Austin-based staffing agency Peak Performers, incorporated as St. Vincent de Paul Rehabilitation Services of Texas, Inc., allegedly denied an executive assistant’s request for four to six weeks of unpaid leave to receive outpatient treatment following a suicide attempt. Instead, the company terminated her employment in April 2024.

The EEOC alleged that company executives knew the assistant sought leave for treatment of mental health conditions but nonetheless refused the request. The agency added that the worker could have returned within three weeks after completing her treatment had the accommodation been granted.

The EEOC’s complaint asserts that the refusal violated the ADA’s requirement to accommodate workers with mental health conditions. Acting Dallas Regional Attorney Ronald Phillips emphasized that “merely following the law is not too much to ask of employers,” noting the broader societal need to address the mental health crisis. EEOC San Antonio Field Office Director Norma Guzman added that the duty to accommodate applies equally to mental health disabilities such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Western District of Texas; the case is No. 1:25-cv-01551.

Pregnancy discrimination at dental manufacturer. iPro Dental Laboratory, Inc., a Fort Lauderdale-based dental restoration products manufacturer, is alleged to have fired a new office assistant just days after learning of her pregnancy in January 2023. The EEOC said the employee had been described as “perfect” for the position prior to her termination and had no history of discipline.

According to the complaint, the company terminated her employment within days of hiring, even though she had received no discipline or negative performance feedback. The agency’s suit alleges violations of Title VII, which bars pregnancy discrimination. EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Kristen Foslid said the “lawsuit seeks to provide relief for the affected worker and to raise awareness for all employees and employers that pregnancy discrimination is unlawful.”

District Director Hawthorne reiterated that pregnancy discrimination remains an enforcement priority, emphasizing that employers must provide equal opportunities for pregnant women in the workplace.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida; the case is No. 0:25-cv-61903.

Companies: iPro Dental Laboratory, Inc.; Peak Performers; St. Vincent de Paul Rehabilitation Services of Texas, Inc.; Renovation Flooring, LLC; Payfin Enterprises, LLC; Barnes & Noble College Booksellers; KGI Trading GA, Inc.; Moon N Sea

News: AgencyNews LitigationNewsTrends Discrimination PregnancyDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination EmployeeLeave Discharge Retaliation