No Items in Cart 
On June 5th, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that a New Bedford, Massachusetts-based company will pay $250,000 to settle, among other things, a retaliation lawsuit. The company is a used tire scrap and recycling facility. Notably, the settlement amount and additional injunctive relief resolve a sex, race, national origin harassment, and retaliation lawsuit. Employers must not discriminate against federally protected classes, which include race, sex, age, disability, and pregnancy status. Comparatively, the EEOC has intensified its enforcement efforts in recent years. In January 2025, the agency released its Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Performance Report, showcasing the EEOC’s highest monetary recovery amount in litigation in recent years.
Background of the Retaliation Lawsuit
According to the lawsuit, the EEOC charged that the company’s owner and a co-worker subjected a class of Hispanic laborers to egregious and constant harassment. Explicitly, such included inappropriate and unlawful comments, gestures, and slurs relating to sex, national origin, and race. At least one employee complained to the owner about the harassment, but instead of taking remedial action, the owner retaliated against the complaining employee. Specifically, the employer mocked the worker for being in a relationship with the harassing co-worker. Consequently, the EEOC believed these actions condoned the illegal harassment and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information. The law makes it clear that it is unlawful for an employer to:
- fail or refuse to hire an applicant,
- discharge any employee, or
- otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
In addition, the law requires employers to reasonably try to prevent and correct the behavior. Finally, Title VII protects employees who object to discrimination from retaliation or any adverse employment action against an employee exercising their rights.
Penalties in the Retaliation Lawsuit
Markedly, the company will pay $250,000 and provide other relief to resolve the allegations. This monetary relief is for the employees harmed by these illegal practices, as well as injunctive relief to prevent the business from engaging in further sexual, racial, and national origin harassment, and retaliation.
Employer Takeaways
In conclusion, according to the EEOC, the agency received 88,531 discrimination charges in Fiscal Year 2024. Of those total charges, nearly 48% involved retaliation. State, federal, and local laws prohibit retaliation against employees, job applicants, and visitors. Various court decisions and agency guidance have clarified that employers must take reasonable steps to prevent retaliation from occurring. Failure to take reasonable prevention measures can result in a finding of employer liability during a retaliation lawsuit.
To assist employers in training managers and supervisors on how to avoid costly retaliation claims and comply with anti-retaliation provisions of various major employment laws, WorkWise Compliance created the Anti-Retaliation Training for Employers & Managers. In addition to helping businesses demonstrate good-faith compliance and reduce the risk of liability, this interactive online training module explains what constitutes unlawful retaliation, which laws apply, and what steps business owners and managers can take to avoid common pitfalls that could lead to employee lawsuits.
