Recent EEOC Cases Highlight Workplace Discrimination Risks for Employers

Over the past week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the outcomes of four court cases involving workplace harassment and discrimination claims. Specifically, these cases involved religious discrimination, disability discrimination, and pregnancy discrimination. The EEOC filed all four cases, which resulted in heavy fines and penalties for the accused employers. Generally, the federal agency releases information about these cases as warnings to affected employers about what not to do in the office. This blog post will address the four most recent cases involving workplace harassment and discrimination.  Earlier this month, the EEOC adopted its 2026–2030 Strategic Plan, which is a framework for how the agency plans to achieve its core mission of preventing and remedying employment discrimination.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits workplace harassment and discrimination on federally protected classes such as 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 for exercising their rights.

Case #1: Poultry Company Settles Disability Discrimination Suit for $230K

In general, on September 15, the EEOC announced that a North Carolina poultry processing company will pay $230,000 and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, a long-term employee informed the company of her cancer diagnosis and need for intermittent leave. Basically, the leave was needed to receive chemotherapy and recover from those treatments. Consequently, the company referred the employee to its third-party benefits administrator, but it never granted the leave. As a result, the employee accrued attendance points for the cancer-related absences and was fired for violating the company’s attendance policy.

The EEOC rightly believed that this conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the ADA, employers must provide reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. The law also prohibits workplace harassment and discrimination because of any disability.

The company settled the matter and agreed to a two-year consent decree to resolve the lawsuit. Explicitly, in addition to paying the ex-employer $230,000, the poultry processing company will:

• ensure effective policies and procedures are in place to govern the receipt and processing of requests for reasonable accommodations under the ADA;
• provide leave policies to employees in English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole;
• identify a liaison to facilitate communications and assist employees with submission of requests or claims to a third-party administrator;
• provide training on the ADA to human resources and benefits employees; and
• provide periodic reports to the EEOC.

Cases #2 and #3: EEOC Recovers Over $97K in Pregnancy Discrimination Charges

Secondly, the EEOC brought charges against two West Coast employers for violating both Title VII and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). In a September 16th, 2026, press release, the agency discussed the two cases, which led to combined judgments totaling nearly $100,000.

In one case, the agency found that a pregnant worker at a Reno, NV-based company specializing in electronic equipment was forced to ignore her doctor’s orders or face termination. The employee alleged she was denied a reasonable accommodation and discharged because of her pregnancy. Significantly, the EEOC’s investigation found that, upon learning of her pregnancy, the company attempted to impose an unwanted and unnecessary accommodation on her. This accommodation involved reassigning her to a role operating machinery that used X-ray radiation. In brief, the employee provided a doctor’s note specifying that she should not be exposed to any form of radiation. On this occasion, the company fired her on the spot.

As a result, the EEOC filed workplace harassment and discrimination charges against the company, and the matter settled through a conciliation agreement. In this case, the electronics company agreed to pay more than $57,000 in back pay and compensatory damages to the former employee. It also agreed to provide strong injunctive relief, including updating its reasonable accommodation policies and procedures. Finally, the company agreed to:

• create a recordkeeping mechanism to track accommodation requests;
• provide extensive training to employees, managers, and HR personnel; and
• provide periodic reporting to the EEOC on its compliance with the agreement for four years.

In the next case, the EEOC discovered that management at a nightclub refused to allow an employee to work her shifts after she disclosed her pregnancy. Markedly, the employee expressed her openness to work other roles due to her condition. Furthermore, she followed up with a note from her doctor stating she had no restrictions on her work activities. Despite that, the employer purposely failed to schedule her for any shifts, effectively discharging her, and refused to consider any accommodation, including reassignment. The federal agency also found that the employer failed to consistently retain personnel records, including any records of communications concerning the interactive process and requests for pregnancy accommodation.

Under the conciliation agreement resolving this matter, the club agreed to pay $40,000 in compensatory damages to the former employee. Additionally, the club agreed to:

• enact measures aimed at preventing future discrimination by conducting a review of its reasonable accommodation policies and procedures;
• create a recordkeeping mechanism to track accommodation requests;
• implement extensive training for employees, managers, and HR personnel; and
• provide compliance reporting every six months to the EEOC for three years.

Case #4: Security Company Fined Over $65K Involving Religious Discrimination

Lastly, the EEOC announced on September 14th, 2026, that a Durham, NC, security company will pay $65,231 in compensatory damages and back pay for workplace harassment and discrimination claims. Correspondingly, the company must take other corrective actions to resolve a religious discrimination lawsuit.

Specifically, an employee requested to be excused from work due to a Muslim religious holiday. However, the request was denied. The company knew the employee needed a religious accommodation but did not engage in the legally required interactive process. Instead, it terminated her after she did not report for duty.

Treating the situation as a Title VII violation, the EEOC and the employer entered into a conciliation agreement with the employee. In addition to paying the employee $65,231, the company must also establish:

• written policies prohibiting religious discrimination and
• procedures for addressing religious accommodation requests in the future.

Finally, the company must train all employees, including supervisors, on equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities, focusing on Title VII and its requirements. The agreement also requires the company to post a notice in the workplace concerning equal employment opportunity rights.

Employer Takeaways

In conclusion, the EEOC received 88,201 workplace harassment and discrimination charges in Fiscal Year 2025. Of those total charges, nearly 49.3% involved claims of disability, pregnancy, and religious discrimination. That percentage of overall discrimination claims has risen from nearly 45.3% in Fiscal Year 2024. In addition to EEOC regulations, many state and local laws prohibit harassment and discrimination against employees, job applicants, and visitors. Various court decisions and agency guidance clarify that employers must take reasonable steps to prevent such illegal actions. Failure to take reasonable prevention measures can result in a finding of employer liability during a harassment and discrimination lawsuit.

Before such accusations arise, workplaces should review their hiring and firing practices to ensure they don’t discriminate against members of federally protected classes. Likewise, employers should train employees and supervisors in anti-discrimination and workplace harassment.