Tag: EEOC

Posted on

Smiths Detection Pays $100K in Disability Discrimination Case

End sex / gender discrimination in hiring, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Smiths Detection Pays $100K for Demoting Employee With Hearing Loss

In the bustling, high-decibel environment of modern manufacturing, one employee’s simple request for safety set off a chain of events that forever altered her career. A worker navigating the constant roar of heavy machinery recognized the severe toll the noise was taking on her health. She courageously asked her employer for a basic, reasonable accommodation: hearing protection.

Rather than receiving understanding, support, or a pair of earplugs, she faced immediate resistance. Her employer, Smiths Detection Inc., denied her request. Worse still, the company demoted her. This swift retaliation highlighted a severe failure to protect vulnerable workers and sparked a federal disability discrimination lawsuit.

 “Demoting an employee so as to avoid providing a reasonable accommodation does not discharge an employer’s obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation; it merely compounds the employer’s unlawful behavior.”

When companies prioritize the status quo over basic human safety, they violate fundamental civil rights. This case emphasizes the severe legal implications of denying reasonable accommodations and retaliating against workers. It also serves as a vital reminder of the importance of workplace safety, employee advocacy, and the robust legal protections available to those who face discrimination.

The Human Cost of Denying Workplace Safety

The employee at the center of this case worked as a team lead in a manufacturing area for Smiths Detection Inc., a manufacturer of threat detection equipment. She suffered from complete hearing loss in her left ear. To protect her remaining residual hearing from the damaging effects of loud manufacturing equipment, she requested personal protective equipment in the fall of 2023.

Her request was rooted in self-advocacy and a fundamental desire for a safe workspace. Yet, in December 2023, the employer responded by demoting her from her team lead position and reassigning her to a quieter area. This reassignment resulted in a direct reduction in her pay.

This demotion was not merely a professional setback. It was a deeply personal blow. The company sent a clear, chilling message: her physical well-being and her career progression were mutually exclusive. Her story is a stark reminder of the immense challenges workers face when raising health concerns on the job. In seeking to protect herself from total deafness, she encountered the stigma and retaliation that far too often greet those who dare to advocate for their own safety.

Legal Framework and ADA Violations

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities. Instead of engaging in a good-faith effort to find a solution, Smiths Detection Inc. chose the path of retaliation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recognized this blatant violation and filed a lawsuit (Case No. 1:24-cv-2510) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. After attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process, the agency took decisive legal action.

To resolve the federal disability discrimination lawsuit, Smiths Detection Inc. agreed to pay $100,000 and furnish significant remedial relief.

Debra Lawrence, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, outlined the severity of the violation. “An employer must provide a reasonable accommodation absent undue hardship,” Lawrence stated. “Demoting an employee so as to avoid providing a reasonable accommodation does not discharge an employer’s obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation; it merely compounds the employer’s unlawful behavior.”

Understanding Reasonable Accommodation Laws

To fully grasp the gravity of this case, workers and employers alike must understand the legal definitions of disability and accommodation. Under the ADA and similar state laws, such as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a disability includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

When an employee has a recognized disability, the employer must explore all possibilities of reasonable accommodation. This requirement applies unless the accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” on the business, which generally means requiring significant difficulty or expense.

Reasonable accommodations can take many forms, including:

  • Changing job duties or modifying work schedules.
  • Providing leave for medical care.
  • Relocating the work area or reassignment to an available vacant position.
  • Providing mechanical, electrical, or protective aids.

Employers often try to justify discrimination using invalid excuses. However, the law explicitly outlines what is legally unacceptable. For instance, an employer cannot deny an accommodation simply because they fear a possibility of future harm to the person. Likewise, claiming that employing individuals with a disability will cause the company’s insurance rates to rise is not a legally acceptable excuse for discrimination.

Furthermore, employers have strict responsibilities regarding health and medical inquiries. During the hiring process, they cannot ask verbal or written questions about an applicant’s health or medical history. They may only inquire about an applicant’s ability to perform specific job tasks.

The Broader Impact on Worker Rights

The Smiths Detection Inc. settlement is more than a legal victory for one individual. It represents a critical intervention in the fight for workplace equity. When companies retaliate against disabled workers, they create a culture of silence. Employees become terrified to voice legitimate concerns, leading to dangerous work environments and declining physical and mental health.

Workplace discrimination and retaliation carry massive societal and economic costs. Businesses lose talented, dedicated employees, face expensive litigation, and suffer severe reputational damage. Conversely, fostering environments where employees can voice concerns without fear drives innovation, loyalty, and long-term success.

Employers must listen, protect, and value the people who make their organizations thrive. The bravery shown by the team lead at Smiths Detection Inc. honors the dignity and rights of all workers. As EEOC’s Philadelphia District Director Jaime Williamson noted, “An employer violates the ADA when it uses its leverage to deal out a career setback instead of a reasonable accommodation.”

What to Do If Denied a Reasonable Accommodation

If you find yourself facing resistance, demotion, or hostility after requesting a reasonable accommodation, you must take immediate and strategic action to protect your career and your civil rights.

Avoid Using AI for Legal Research

Do not rely on artificial intelligence or generic internet searches to navigate the complexities of your specific legal situation. Employment law varies heavily by jurisdiction, and AI tools frequently provide outdated, generalized, or entirely incorrect legal advice. Relying on an algorithm can severely damage your potential case.

Contact an Experienced Employment Law Attorney

Reach out to a highly experienced employment law firm with a proven record of success. Firms like Helmer Friedman LLP offer confidential consultations and possess the extensive legal expertise required to hold negligent employers accountable. You need an advocate who understands the nuances of the ADA, state-specific laws like FEHA, and the tactics corporations use to avoid liability.

Document Everything Thoroughly

Start building a paper trail immediately. Save all emails, text messages, and internal memos related to your accommodation request. Write down the dates, times, and contents of any verbal conversations you have with human resources or management regarding your health and your job duties. Comprehensive documentation is the strongest weapon against a company attempting to deny discriminatory actions.

Continuing the Fight for Workplace Equity

The demotion of a dedicated worker seeking nothing more than basic hearing protection stands as a glaring example of corporate negligence. By prioritizing convenience over compliance, Smiths Detection Inc. inflicted severe personal and professional damage on their employee. The resulting $100,000 EEOC settlement reinforces the fact that the federal government will hold companies accountable for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This case serves as a loud, undeniable reminder that ongoing vigilance is required to protect worker rights and safety. Discrimination thrives in silence. By speaking out, documenting abuses, and seeking expert legal representation, workers can defend their livelihoods and force corporations to respect the fundamental dignity of their workforce.

Posted on

Wrongful Termination Dressed Up as Standard HR Practice

Shocked by Wrongful Termination, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Your Rights as a Disabled Employee: What the Law Requires

Every year, thousands of workers with disabilities are quietly pushed out of their jobs—not through outright hostility, but through policies that appear neutral on the surface while stripping away federally protected rights against wrongful termination and disability discrimination. Understanding what the law demands of your employer is the first step to protecting yourself.

Under both federal and California law, employees with disabilities have robust legal protections. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, and other terms of employment. In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides even broader protections, covering employers with five or more employees and applying strict standards to the accommodation process. Together, these laws form a powerful framework—one that employers routinely underestimate, often at significant financial cost.

Who Qualifies as a “Qualified Individual” Under the ADA?

Not every medical condition triggers ADA protections, but the law’s reach is broader than many employees realize. Under the ADA, a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, have a record of such impairment, or are regarded by their employer as having such an impairment.

A “qualified individual” is someone who can perform the essential functions of a job—with or without reasonable accommodation. This distinction matters enormously. An employer cannot lawfully refuse to hire or retain someone simply because they have a disability, so long as the employee can fulfill the core duties of the role, either independently or with appropriate support.

Major life activities covered by the ADA include walking, lifting, sleeping, working, thinking, and communicating, among others. Courts have made clear that even temporary impairments can qualify—and that being cleared to return to work does not automatically mean an employee is no longer disabled.

What Are “Reasonable Accommodations”?

A reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment that allows a qualified individual with a disability to perform their job. Both the ADA and FEHA impose a legal duty on employers to explore and provide these accommodations—unless doing so would constitute an “undue hardship.”

Reasonable accommodations can include:

  • Medical leave for treatment or recovery
  • Job restructuring or modified schedules
  • Reassignment to a vacant position
  • Relocation of the work area
  • Modification of equipment or devices

The “undue hardship” exception is narrower than many employers claim. It requires proof of significant difficulty or expense, taking into account the employer’s size, financial resources, and operational structure. It is not a blanket excuse to avoid the interactive process.

Critically, when an employee requests an accommodation, the law requires employers to engage in a good-faith interactive process—a dialogue aimed at identifying effective solutions. Refusing to participate in that process is itself a violation.

Case Study: EEOC v. Geisinger Health — When “Most Qualified” Becomes Wrongful Termination

The case of EEOC v. Geisinger Health serves as a poignant reminder of the potential pitfalls associated with seemingly neutral workplace policies. At the heart of this story is Rosemary Casterline, a dedicated registered nurse at Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center who devoted 30 years to her profession. After undergoing shoulder replacement surgery in October 2018 due to a rotator cuff injury, she faced unexpected challenges during her recovery. Fortunately, she received medical clearance to return to work in January 2019.

What happened next was a textbook example of ADA violations dressed up as standard HR practice. Rather than returning Casterline to her position, Geisinger posted the position as vacant and informed her that she would need to reapply and compete for her role. When she attempted to apply, the posting had already been removed. The hospital then gave her a hard deadline—obtain a new position by March 28, 2019, or be fired. She applied for numerous roles and was rejected from each. Geisinger terminated her employment on March 28 for failing to secure another position.

“Disability discrimination has no place in the workplace,” said Debra Lawrence, regional attorney for EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office. “Federal law prohibits employers from retaliating against or interfering with employees’ rights secured under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including when they seek a reasonable accommodation.”

Despite Casterline’s diligent efforts to apply for various roles, she faced rejection at every turn. Ultimately, Geisinger terminated her employment on March 28, citing her inability to find a new position.

In response, the EEOC stepped in, arguing that Geisinger’s “most qualified applicant” policy—mandating that employees returning from non-FMLA medical leave compete for reassignments—violated her rights under the ADA. The EEOC noted in its Letter of Determination that there was no substantial evidence indicating that it would have been an undue hardship for Geisinger to accommodate Casterline by holding her position open for her.

The court upheld the EEOC’s claims, finding sufficient grounds to believe that Geisinger interfered with employees’ efforts to exercise their ADA rights. This case emphasizes the critical importance of adopting compassionate policies that support individuals who are navigating health challenges. It serves as a reminder that practices requiring disabled employees on leave to compete for their own positions can lead to significant hardships and may attract scrutiny from the EEOC.

Case Study: Western Distributing’s $919,000 Settlement

The space where the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the ADA meet is a complex legal landscape, one where employees are frequently and unjustly failed. These laws are not just regulations; they are lifelines. The FMLA offers up to twelve weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave, promising that an employee can return to their original or an equivalent role. The ADA builds on this, requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations.

For Clinton Kallenbach, a long-serving driver at Western Distributing Company, these weren’t abstract legal concepts—they were promises of stability during a health crisis. After taking FMLA leave, he was cleared by his doctor to return to work, ready to get back behind the wheel. But Western Distributing refused to accept it. Instead of welcoming him back, they created a maze of demands for second opinions and further evaluations. It was a heart-wrenching series of delays that felt less like due diligence and more like a deliberate effort to push him out.

The courts saw through the charade, recognizing the company’s actions as a violation of both the ADA and the FMLA. Western Distributing was ordered to pay $919,000 to settle the disability discrimination lawsuit—a sum that reflects the profound harm inflicted on Kallenbach and the company’s blatant disregard for his rights.

His story is a painful reminder of what happens when the return-to-work process is weaponized. For an employee recovering from a medical condition, the path back to work should be one of support, not suspicion. Employers who use this vulnerable moment as an excuse for termination are not only breaking the law but also breaking faith with the people who depend on them, exposing themselves to severe legal and financial consequences.

In this case, the EEOC was represented in-house by trial attorneys Karl Tetzlaff, Michael LaGarde, Lauren Duke, Jeff Lee, and Assistant Regional Attorneys Rita Byrnes Kittle and Laurie Jaeckel.

What Employers Cannot Do: Prohibited Actions Under the ADA and FEHA

Beyond the duty to accommodate, both the ADA and FEHA impose specific prohibitions that employers frequently overlook or deliberately ignore.

Illegal Medical Inquiries: During the interview process, employers may not ask applicants about the existence, nature, or severity of a disability. Questions must be limited to whether the applicant can perform specific job functions. Under FEHA, employers are also prohibited from inquiring about prior Workers’ Compensation claims. Post-offer medical examinations are permissible only when required of all employees in similar roles and treated as confidential records.

The “Future Harm” Excuse: An employer cannot refuse to hire or retain a disabled employee on the basis that the person might pose a future risk to themselves or others. California law is explicit: the possibility of future harm is not a legally acceptable reason for discrimination. Each individual must be evaluated based on their current, actual condition—not hypothetical risk.

Retaliation: It is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for requesting an accommodation, filing a discrimination charge, or participating in any investigation or proceeding under the ADA. Requesting an accommodation is a protected activity. So is seeking additional medical leave. Employers who respond to these requests with adverse employment actions—demotion, termination, reassignment to inferior positions—face serious legal exposure.

Blanket Exclusion Policies: Any employment policy that automatically excludes entire groups based on a medical condition is generally unlawful. Individuals must be assessed on their specific condition and its actual effect on job performance—not on generalizations about their diagnosis.

Navigating a Complex Legal Framework

Disability rights law is not simple. It requires understanding the interaction between federal and state statutes, the procedural requirements of filing charges with the EEOC or the California Civil Rights Department, and the factual nuances that determine whether an employer’s conduct crosses the legal line.

The cases of Rosemary Casterline and Clinton Kallenbach demonstrate that even experienced employers with legal teams and established HR policies can—and do—violate the law. Their stories also demonstrate something else: that workers who know their rights and pursue them, with the right legal support, can achieve justice.

Protect Your Rights Before It’s Too Late

If you have been denied a reasonable accommodation, forced to compete for your own job after medical leave, subjected to illegal medical inquiries, or terminated after returning from a disability-related absence, the law may be on your side.

The attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP have spent more than two decades representing employees in complex discrimination and wrongful termination cases. With a proven track record of significant settlements and court victories, the firm provides personalized, confidential advocacy for clients navigating the most challenging workplace situations.

Contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a free, confidential consultation. Your rights matter—and so does the outcome of your case.

Posted on

Wrongful Termination at Hilton: EEOC Sues Over Discrimination

Large hand removing little guy, representing Religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, Disability discrimination, Age discrimination wrongful termination.

Front Desk to Defendant: Inside the Hilton Wrongful Termination Case

Imagine showing up to work every day, doing your job diligently, and then being fired simply for asking for a chair to sit on while pregnant. Or, picture being a pastor who requests a schedule change to lead Sunday service, only to have your hours slashed in retaliation.

These aren’t hypothetical scenarios. They are the allegations at the center of a federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Hotel Equities Group, LLC, regarding their management of a Hilton-branded hotel in Oak Lawn, Illinois. The suit charges the company with violating federal law by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and subsequently retaliating against the employees who requested them.

For employees navigating the complex world of workplace rights, this case serves as a stark reminder of the legal protections that exist—and the consequences employers face when they ignore them.

The EEOC Takes Action Against Hotel Equities Group

“Employees have a right to request and receive religious and pregnancy-related accommodations in the workplace without fear of retaliation. When employers deny lawful accommodations and retaliate against workers for speaking up, the EEOC will take action.” Catherine Eschbach, acting EEOC General Counsel

In a press release dated February 4, 2026, the EEOC announced it had filed a lawsuit against Hotel Equities Group, LLC. This company, which provides management and consulting services for hotels across the United States, is accused of violating federal law by failing to provide pregnancy and religious accommodations to two separate employees.

The lawsuit (EEOC v. Hotel Equities Group, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01217) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It represents a significant move by the federal agency to enforce the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A Closer Look at the Allegations

The details of the lawsuit paint a troubling picture of management practices at the Oak Lawn hotel. The EEOC’s complaint outlines two distinct instances of alleged discrimination and retaliation occurring in 2023.

The Pregnancy Accommodation Request

The first incident involved a pregnant front desk clerk who requested a simple accommodation: the ability to sit while working due to medical needs related to her pregnancy.

According to the lawsuit, a coworker initially provided her with a suitable chair. However, management intervened, removing the chair and replacing it with a small, backless stool while discouraging her from using it. Shortly after this incident, the employee was discharged. The EEOC alleges that this termination was a direct act of retaliation for her request for accommodation.

The Religious Accommodation Request

In the same year, another front desk clerk—who also served as an assistant pastor at a Baptist church—requested a schedule adjustment. He asked not to be scheduled for Saturday overnight shifts, as they interfered with his ability to attend and lead Sunday morning services.

While the company verbally approved his request, its actions told a different story. The lawsuit claims that management continued to schedule him for Saturday nights, even after he objected. When he persisted in his objection, the company allegedly retaliated by cutting his hours, effectively penalizing him for exercising his religious rights.

The Legal Framework Protecting Employees

These incidents highlight critical protections under federal law that every employee should understand.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)

The PWFA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Unless the accommodation would cause an “undue hardship” for the employer, the employer is legally obligated to provide it. In the Hilton case, providing a chair for a front desk clerk is a classic example of a reasonable accommodation that allows an employee to continue working safely.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII is a landmark statute that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Specifically regarding religion, employers must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so imposes an undue hardship on the business. Scheduling changes for religious observances, like the Sunday services mentioned in the lawsuit, generally fall under this protection.

Both statutes strictly prohibit retaliation. This means an employer cannot fire, demote, cut hours, or harass an employee simply because they requested an accommodation or complained about discrimination.

Your Rights: Accommodations Without Retaliation

It is crucial for workers to know that requesting an accommodation is a protected activity. Whether you need a modification to your duties due to a disability or pregnancy, or a schedule change for religious observance, you have the right to ask.

If an employer responds to your request with hostility, creates a hostile work environment, reduces your hours, or terminates your employment, they may be breaking the law. As demonstrated by the EEOC’s stance in the Hotel Equities case, federal agencies are actively seeking to hold non-compliant employers accountable.

Recognizing Wrongful Termination Beyond This Case

While the Hilton case focuses on pregnancy and religious discrimination, wrongful termination can occur in many other contexts. In California, state and federal laws provide robust shields against illegal firing.

“Employees have a right to request and receive religious and pregnancy-related accommodations in the workplace without fear of retaliation,” said Catherine Eschbach, acting EEOC General Counsel. “When employers deny lawful accommodations and retaliate against workers for speaking up, the EEOC will take action.”

What Qualifies as Wrongful Termination?

Wrongful termination occurs when an employee is fired for an illegal reason or in violation of public policy. Even “at-will” employees—those who can be fired at any time for any reason—cannot be fired for illegal reasons.

Common examples of wrongful termination include:

  • Discrimination: Firing someone based on race, gender, age (over 40), disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
  • Whistleblowing: Terminating an employee for reporting illegal activities or unsafe working conditions. California Labor Code § 1102.5 explicitly protects whistleblowers.
  • Retaliation: Firing an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim, complaining about unpaid wages, requesting reasonable accommodations during pregnancy or for religious reasons, or reporting harassment.
  • Taking Protected Leave: Dismissing an employee for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).

Empowering Action Against Injustice

The recent allegations involving Hotel Equities Group underscore the critical need for robust legal protections for workers. Every employee deserves a safe environment where they never have to compromise their health, beliefs, or income.

If you feel you’ve been wrongly dismissed or are facing retaliation for seeking necessary accommodations, remember that you’re not alone in this journey. It’s vital to meticulously document your experiences—keeping records of emails, performance reviews, and timelines. To protect your interests, avoid relying on AI tools for legal research as these discussions might not remain confidential. Instead, connect with a trusted legal expert.

At Helmer Friedman LLP, we proudly bring over 20 years of dedicated experience fighting for employees’ rights. We offer confidential consultations designed to empower you with knowledge about your rights and guide you on the best next steps. Justice is more than just a concept; it’s a fundamental right that’s absolutely worth standing up for! Together, we can strive for a better and fairer workplace for everyone.

Posted on

Denied for Your Faith? The Reality of Religious Discrimination

Freedom to worship - Workplace discrimination lawyers represent victims of religious discrimination.

Denied for Your Faith? The Reality of Religious Discrimination

For many, faith is not merely a weekend activity; it is the compass that guides daily life, influencing diet, dress, and ethical decisions. Yet, in the modern workplace, employees are often forced to make an impossible choice between their career and their conscience. Despite robust legal protections at both the state and federal levels, religious discrimination remains a pervasive issue in American offices, factories, and retail floors.

No worker should have to hide their identity or compromise their sincerely held beliefs to keep a paycheck. Understanding the nuances of the law—and the obligations of employers—is the first step toward combating unlawful treatment. Whether you are an employee seeking to understand your rights or a manager aiming to foster an inclusive environment, recognizing the signs of discrimination is essential for maintaining a just workplace.

Defining Religious Discrimination

At its core, religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of their religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), protection extends beyond belief to include religious observance and practice. Crucially, the law also protects those who have no religious beliefs, shielding atheists and agnostics from forced participation in religious activities or discrimination based on their lack of faith.

Discrimination can manifest in various employment decisions, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, and fringe benefits. It can also appear in the form of harassment—such as offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices—that is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment.

What Discrimination Looks Like in Practice

Religious discrimination is often subtle, but it can also be overt. It frequently arises when workplace rules collide with religious obligations. Here are several scenarios that may constitute unlawful conduct:

  • Refusal to Hire: An employer refuses to hire a qualified Jewish applicant because they disclose that they cannot work on Saturdays due to Sabbath observance.
  • Scheduling Conflicts: An employee is fired for missing work to attend a significant religious service, even after providing ample notice, while employees taking time off for secular reasons are accommodated.
  • Dress Code Violations: A company enforces a strict “no headwear” policy that disproportionately impacts Muslim women who wear hijabs or Sikh men who wear turbans, without offering a valid safety justification.
  • Harassment: A supervisor or colleague persistently mocks an employee’s religious garments, prayer habits, or dietary restrictions, isolating the employee from the team.
  • Forced Work: A manager demands that an employee work on their Sabbath, ignoring the fact that other qualified employees were willing to swap shifts.

Employer Obligations: The Duty to Accommodate

The law requires more than just “not discriminating.” Employers have an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause an “undue hardship” on the operation of the business.

Common accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or dress codes.

The Shift in “Undue Hardship”

For decades, employers could deny accommodations by proving that the request imposed more than a “de minimis”—or trifling—cost. This low bar allowed companies to reject requests for Sabbath observance or prayer breaks easily.

However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. USPS. The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian postal carrier who refused to work Sundays. The Justices clarified that “undue hardship” must mean substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer’s particular business.

This decision significantly strengthens protections for employees. Employers can no longer deny an accommodation simply because it is inconvenient or causes minor administrative annoyance; they must demonstrate that the accommodation would substantially burden the business.

Recent Legal Battles and Settlements

Recent high-profile cases illustrate that the courts and government agencies are taking a firm stance against religious discrimination. These cases, while the parties were not represented by Helmer Friedman LLP, provide important precedents and show the real-world impact of successful advocacy.

Mavis Tire Supply LLC

In late 2025, Mavis Tire Supply LLC agreed to pay over $303,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit. The case involved a Jewish applicant who applied for a management position. During the interview, he disclosed that his observance of the Sabbath would prevent him from working Friday evenings and Saturdays.

Rather than discussing accommodation, the company offered him a lower-paying technician role, claiming it offered better flexibility. When he reiterated his schedule restrictions, they rescinded the offer entirely. The settlement highlighted that employers cannot steer applicants away from leadership roles simply to avoid granting religious accommodations.

Lisa Domski v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

In a landmark verdict regarding vaccine mandates, a federal jury awarded $12.7 million to Lisa Domski, a former IT specialist at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Domski, a devout Catholic, requested a religious exemption from the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, citing her objection to vaccines developed using fetal cell lines.

Despite working 100% remotely with no in-person contact, her request was denied, and she was terminated. The jury found that the company failed to accommodate her sincerely held beliefs. The massive award, which included $10 million in punitive damages, sends a clear message: employers cannot dismiss religious objections as insincere simply because they disagree with the employee’s theological interpretation.

Practical Steps for Employees

If you believe you are facing religious discrimination or have been denied a reasonable accommodation, taking immediate, organized action is vital to protecting your rights.

  1. Document Everything: Keep a detailed record of all incidents. Note dates, times, locations, witnesses, and the specific comments or actions taken. If you requested an accommodation, keep copies of all written requests and the employer’s responses.
  2. Review Company Policy: Check your employee handbook for policies regarding discrimination and accommodation. Follow the internal procedures for reporting grievances.
  3. Report the Incident: Formally report the discrimination or denial of accommodation to your Human Resources department or a manager. doing this in writing creates a paper trail proving the employer was on notice.
  4. Consult a Legal Professional: Employment law is complex and involves strict statutes of limitations. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in employment discrimination can help you navigate the EEOC complaint process or potential litigation.

Best Practices for Employers

To avoid litigation and foster a respectful work environment, employers should proactively review their policies in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.

  • Update Policies: Ensure the handbook explicitly prohibits religious discrimination and outlines a straightforward procedure for requesting accommodations.
  • Train Management: Managers are often the first point of contact for accommodation requests. They must be trained to recognize these requests and understand that “inconvenience” is not a valid reason for denial.
  • Engage in an Interactive Process: When an employee requests an accommodation, engage in a dialogue to understand their needs and explore potential solutions.
  • Assess “Undue Hardship” Carefully: Before denying a request, conduct a factual analysis. Will this truly cause substantial cost or disruption? If the answer is no, the accommodation should likely be granted.

Protecting Religious Freedom at Work

A workplace should be a space of professional contribution, not a battleground for personal identity. The freedom to practice one’s religion—or to practice no religion at all—is a fundamental right that does not evaporate when an employee clocks in.

As evidenced by the Groff decision and recent jury verdicts, the legal system is increasingly protective of these rights. Both employers and employees have a role to play in ensuring that the workplace remains diverse, inclusive, and compliant with the law.

Resources for Further Information

Posted on

Sex Discrimination: Nationwide Implications of Texas Ruling

Gender identity discrimination is illegal - Helmer Friedman LLP.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This order states that the federal government will use “biological” male and female categories. It also directed the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to remove parts of the Harassment Guidance that do not align with this order.

Since the Executive Order, the EEOC has been unable to make any changes to the Harassment Guidance. The EEOC needs a majority vote from its five members to do this. However, the Commission has not had enough members since late January 2025 because three positions are vacant. Although Acting Chair Andrea Lucas disagrees with the guidance parts that conflict with the Executive Order, she cannot change them without a quorum.

On May 15, 2025, a federal court in Texas ruled that the Harassment Guidance’s definition of “sex” was unlawful because it went beyond the biological categories of male and female. The court found that the guidance misinterpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. The Bostock case only addressed whether firing someone for being homosexual or transgender violated Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination. The court confirmed that Bostock did not expand the definition of “sex” and did not cover issues like bathrooms or locker rooms.

The Texas court’s decision vacated parts of the Harassment Guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity. This includes guidance on harassment in sex-segregated facilities and the use of preferred pronouns.

This decision affects not only the case parties but also applies nationwide. The Texas court decided that its ruling impacts agency action more broadly.

Despite this ruling, the EEOC cannot remove its vacated guidance parts because it still lacks a quorum. However, the EEOC has made some changes on its website to show which parts of the Harassment Guidance have been vacated, marking those sections in gray and adding alerts about the changes.

The Bostock decision is still in effect. Title VII continues to protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Although the EEOC may not pursue litigation on these issues based on its recent actions, it still has the authority to do so. Employees can still file private claims for such discrimination.

Posted on

Confronting Asian Racial Harassment in the Workplace: Lessons from the United Airlines Case

Racial harassment creates hostile work environment. It is illegal. Helmer Friedman LLP employment attorneys in Beverly Hills.

In a deeply troubling incident of racism and discrimination, a former United Airlines employee endured both assault and racial harassment at the hands of a senior manager. This distressing situation revealed in a recently settled federal discrimination lawsuit, emphasizes the critical need for companies to genuinely commit to fostering diversity, equality, and respect for every individual in the workplace.

United Airlines, a prominent American airline based in Chicago, plays a significant role in the aviation industry with its extensive domestic and international routes. The airline operates a high volume of daily flights from its bustling Chicago-O’Hare hub, serving all six inhabited continents.

Yet, despite its influential status, this incident shines a light on the serious shortcomings United Airlines has faced in addressing the legitimate concerns of safety and workplace equality for its employees.

The troubling event unfolded in January 2021 at United Airlines’ catering facility at Denver International Airport. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when a face mask policy was in effect, an Asian employee from Mongolia was unfortunately targeted by the manager during an innocent moment of disposing of trash—leading him to briefly remove his mask. The manager’s response was not only verbally abusive, using a racial slur, but escalated to physical violence. The employee reported the incident immediately, but United Airlines’ failure to take swift and effective action only deepened the trauma and insecurity he felt.

This occurrence happened amidst a broader climate of rising hostility and violence against Asian people, ignited by unfounded beliefs that Asians were to blame for the pandemic. Racial harassment was not just a rare incident; it became a disturbing trend in public spaces, stores, and workplaces alike.

United Airlines now faces serious allegations of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to protect employees from discrimination and harassment in the workplace. The lawsuit lays bare the company’s inadequate response to the complaint, even suggesting that the manager accused of this behavior received a pay raise while the investigation was ongoing. This left the employee feeling vulnerable and unprotected, ultimately resulting in his painful decision to resign.

While United Airlines has agreed to pay the former employee $99,000 and to implement additional measures to resolve the lawsuit, this situation serves as a critical reminder of the ongoing issue of racial harassment in workplaces everywhere. It underscores the urgent need for all employers, including United Airlines, to create a work environment that is not only safe and respectful but also celebrates diversity.

Anyone who has faced racial harassment in their workplace must seek help promptly. Employment lawyers can provide essential support, ensuring that the fight for justice is not only pursued but achieved.

Posted on

Asphalt Paving Systems Case: Costs of Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

Racial discrimination in the workplace lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

The Asphalt Paving Systems Case

A Stark Reminder of the Costs of Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

In a society that aspires to achieve equality and justice, the allegations against Asphalt Paving Systems (APS) by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2023 serve as a stark reminder of the harsh realities of racial discrimination in certain workplaces. This case involved 12 Black workers who endured a hostile environment at APS, a company based in Zephyrhills, Florida. Their experiences included being denied basic facilities such as access to indoor bathrooms and enduring continuous racial slurs from co-workers and supervisors.

Such incidents underscore the critical importance of laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to protect employees from racial discrimination and harassment in the workplace. APS’s violation of this law created a hostile environment for its Black employees, undermining their rights to equal employment opportunities and adversely affecting their emotional and mental well-being.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VII explicitly states, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This vital provision emphasizes that employment should be free from discrimination, ensuring a working environment where everyone can thrive, regardless of their racial or ethnic background. It also sets the expectation for employers to foster a workplace devoid of harassment based on these protected characteristics, reinforcing the necessity of equitable treatment in all aspects of employment.

Beyond the moral and ethical dimensions, businesses that engage in racial discrimination face significant financial and reputational repercussions. In July 2024, APS was ordered to pay a hefty $1.25 million in damages to compensate the victims of its discriminatory practices.

Moreover, cases like these highlight the necessity of robust anti-discrimination policies within organizations. Companies must not only comply with laws like Title VII but also actively cultivate an inclusive culture, implementing practices that protect against racial discrimination and harassment.

While monetary penalties for racial discrimination are substantial—and rightly so—the hidden costs to businesses can be even greater. Companies that persist in such behaviors risk damaging their reputation, potentially deterring high-quality talent from applying, customers from purchasing their products or services, and investors from supporting their business.

As illustrated by the APS case, the costs of racial discrimination extend beyond financial penalties. It undermines employee morale and productivity, and in some instances, it can threaten the commercial viability of the company itself. This serves as a powerful reminder that businesses should strive to create an inclusive work environment free from racial discrimination and harassment—not only because it is the law but because it is sound business practice.

Posted on

Healthcare Services Group settles English Only Rule Discrimination Lawsuit

Helping Employees Recover and Enforcing Employment Laws Helmer Friedman LLP.

Healthcare Services Group, Inc., a company that offers housekeeping and other services to healthcare facilities and has 35,000 employees across 48 states, has reached an agreement to provide compensation and corrective measures to an employee following an investigation.

The case involved a female employee working as a “light housekeeper” at a nursing home in Concord, California, who alleged that the company prohibited her from speaking Spanish while at work. The investigation confirmed the existence of an “English-only” rule, a policy that, if enforced without justification by business necessity, constitutes a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Restrictive language policies are only allowed if they are required to ensure safe or efficient business operation and is put in place for nondiscriminatory reasons. Client relations and customer preference do not justify discriminatory policies,” said Rosa Salazar, acting director of the EEOC’s Oakland Local Office.

Title VII prohibits national origin discrimination unless there is a business necessity, making “English Only” policies a violation of federal law. Furthermore, these policies are considered discriminatory because they negatively impact workers who speak English as a second language, treating them differently when they use their native language and subjecting them to reprimands or other consequences.

Following the investigation, a settlement was reached after the parties engaged in a pre-litigation conciliation process. As part of the settlement, Healthcare Services Group will provide monetary damages to the housekeeper and offer training for all California employees, as well as specific training for California managers and human resources personnel.

The company also agreed to revise its California policies to explicitly state that employees not involved in patient care are not restricted in the languages they speak at work and have the right to use their preferred language. These policies will be issued in English, Spanish, and other languages spoken by 5% or more of its California workforce. Additionally, the company will remove English fluency requirements from the light housekeeper job description and post a notice of the agreement for two years.

Posted on

Iron Hill Brewery to Pay $115,000 in Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

Race discrimination, retaliation, workplace violation lawyers of Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

Federal Agency Charged Restaurant Discriminated and Retaliated Against Black Employee

In a recent settlement, the current federal administration reaffirmed its commitment to protecting employees from workplace discrimination and retaliation. This time, Iron Hill Brewery of Buckhead, LLC and Iron Hill Brewery, LLC, a chain of breweries and restaurants across several states, found themselves in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spotlight.

According to the settlement, Iron Hill Brewery agreed to pay $115,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The suit alleged Iron Hill Brewery discriminated against an African American employee at its Buckhead location.

The employee, a sous chef-in-training, was allegedly dismissed due to his race and for reporting discrimination against women and Hispanic colleagues. An unmerited disciplinary action was swiftly followed by termination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such alleged conduct is prohibited. This significant law prevents employers from carrying out retaliation for engaging in protected activity and discrimination based on race.

Protected activity, as outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, encompasses various actions taken by employees to oppose discrimination or participate in proceedings related to discriminatory practices. In this particular case involving Iron Hill Brewery, the protected activity refers to the sous chef-in-training reporting instances of discrimination within the workplace. Specifically, the employee raised concerns about discriminatory behavior targeting women and Hispanic colleagues, which is considered a protected act under federal law. By voicing these grievances, the employee engaged in a legally protected activity aimed at confronting and challenging unfair treatment. Consequently, when the employee faced unwarranted disciplinary action and subsequent termination, it was alleged to be retaliatory—an illegal response to their protected activity of reporting discrimination.

In addition to the considerable financial settlement, the decree necessitates nationwide training for Iron Hill Brewery employees centered on Title VII’s prohibitions against race discrimination and retaliation. Iron Hill Brewery must also institute an anti-retaliation policy providing examples of unlawful retaliation in the workplace. These moves illustrate the seriousness of the situation and the serious implications of breaching Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC Atlanta District Office Regional Attorney, Marcus G. Keegan, opined, “This settlement sends a strong message that the EEOC will continue to vindicate the rights of individuals with the courage to come forward to report discrimination against themselves or others in the workplace.”

This case serves as a stark reminder of employees’ rights. If you believe that you or someone you know may be experiencing or witnessing race discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the workplace, don’t hesitate to seek legal advice. Reach out to a lawyer in your area who specializes in employment law. Remember, everyone deserves a respectful and fair working environment.

Posted on

Race Discrimination – Unequal Work Assignments Based On Race

Refusing reasonable accommodations is disability discrimination and it is illegal. Contact the ADA Lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

Delivery company DHL is to pay $8.7 million in compensation and will be monitored by a court-appointed overseer to settle a class race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The federal agency filed a suit claiming that DHL had segregated its Black and white employees, discriminated against Black employees based on race in the terms and conditions of their employment, and given them unequal and heavier work assignments. Black employees were also assigned to routes in neighbourhoods with higher crime rates, which put them at risk of witnessing or becoming victims of crime.

However, segregating employees and giving them unequal work assignments based on their race is just as unlawful. Such practices should not occur in any workplace. We are confident that the measures put in place by the consent decree will ensure that DHL’s employees are treated equally going forward.

The EEOC charged that DHL’s actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial segregation and discrimination in employment. Under the consent decree, DHL will compensate 83 Black employees who were subjected to the alleged discriminatory conduct and chose to participate in the lawsuit, with $8.7 million in total. The decree also requires DHL to train its workforce on federal laws prohibiting race discrimination and provide periodic reports to the court-appointed overseer and the EEOC on work assignments and complaints of race discrimination. DHL will be monitored for four years by former EEOC Commissioner Leslie Silverman to ensure compliance with the decree.

According to Gregory Gochanour, Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, DHL’s segregating employees and giving them unequal work assignments based on their race is just as unlawful as paying them less or denying promotions. The measures put in place by the consent decree will ensure that DHL’s employees are treated equally going forward. Karla Gilbride, General Counsel of the EEOC, stated that if an employer orders Black workers to continue working in areas perceived as dangerous while accommodating the requests of white workers, it sends a message that the lives and safety concerns of Black workers are valued less than those of their white colleagues, which is plainly unlawful.

EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows emphasised that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racially segregated workplaces sixty years ago, and the EEOC remains committed to enforcing it vigorously so that race-based job segregation becomes a thing of the past. It’s time for employers to realise that discriminating based on race has no place in any workplace.