EEOC Litigation Review – 2025

American” bias. In the accompanying press release, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas announced, ““Federal anti-discrimination laws ensure equal employment opportunity for jobs performed by all workers regardless of national origin. The President’s Executive Order on Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity recognizes that the longstanding federal civil rights laws serve as a bedrock to support equality of opportunity for all Americans. This case is an important reminder that unlawful national origin discrimination includes discrimination against American workers in favor of foreign workers.” See EEOC Newsroom, LeoPalace Resort to Pay Over $1.4 Million in EEOC National Origin Discrimination Lawsuit (Feb. 18, 2025). This is the Commission’s first publicized settlement since Lucas was appointed Acting Chair of the EEOC on January 21, 2025. One day after the settlement was announced, the EEOC published a second press release on its Newsroom “putting employers and other covered entities on notice” that the Commission was committed to protecting all workers from unlawful national origin discrimination, including American workers. See EEOC Newsroom, EEOC Acting Chair Vows to Protect American Workers from Anti-American Bias (Feb. 19, 2025). The Commission further explained that, although Title VII’s national origin nondiscrimination requirement generally meant that employers could not prefer American workers, it also meant that employers could not prefer non-American workers, or otherwise disfavor Americans. Id . It concluded its press release by stating that while employers may have “many excuses” for preferring non-American workers (including lower labor cost, client preference, or a biased perception that foreign workers have a better work ethic than Americans), none of these were legally permissible reasons to violate Title VII. Id . Every new presidential administration brings with it an array of objectives focused on different policy priorities. Since President Trump took office, he has taken unique steps to reshape the Commission by firing its Chair, two Commissioners, and its general counsel, all within the course of a few weeks. The Commission has already indicated it is committed to carrying out President Trump’s policy agenda, consistent with his executive orders related to “unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination,” “defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights,” “protecting workers from religious bias and harassment, including antisemitism” and, as the above settlement illustrates, “anti-American national origin discrimination.” See EEOC Newsroom, President Appoints Andrea R. Lucas EEOC Acting Chair (Jan. 21, 2025). Employers should take note of the EEOC’s new policy priorities and can likely expect increased enforcement activity in each of these areas for the next four years. IV. EEOC Litigation 1. EEOC Cases Under The ADA Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) remains a core priority of the Commission. In 2024, it pursued a myriad of ADA-related lawsuits. In early 2024, the court in EEOC v. Western Distributing Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17225 (D. Colo. Jan. 31, 2024), denied the defendants’ post-trial motions in a disabilities discrimination lawsuit over employees taking medical leave. The EEOC filed suit on behalf of individuals with disabilities who worked for Western Distributing Co. (Western), a trucking company, alleging that Western’s employment policies disparately impacted these individuals under the ADA. Western’s policies required employees to return to work on a “full-duty” basis after medical leave; required certain drivers to static push and pull 130 pounds of weight; and required certain drivers to be able to static push and pull 130 pounds of weight at 58 inches above the ground. Id. at *2. In January 2023, a jury decided that Western’s full-duty policy had a disparate impact on disabled drivers. In post-trial motions following the jury’s decision, Western moved to dismiss for lack of standing and moved to reconsider the court’s denial of its yet-to-be-filed Rule 50(b) motion. The court denied Western’s standing motion, in which it challenged the standing of the EEOC to pursue a disparate impact claim because the specific policies that allegedly caused discrimination were discontinued before the lawsuit began. Western claimed that the EEOC did not have standing to seek a remedy because there was no current harm to address. The court rejected this

EEOC Litigation Review - 2025

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online