EEOC Targets Staffing Firms in 2022
It was predicted that the Biden Administration would ramp up Equal Employment Opportunity Commision investigations and lawsuits against employers, and that has come to pass. An investigation or lawsuit initiated by the Agency itself, rather than by the employee, can present a higher level of exposure, both financially and from a public relations standpoint. On the financial side, the EEOC is a federal agency with substantial resources and little incentive to compromise, unlike most private party litigants. And the consequences often go beyond damage awards - the EEOC can seek multi-year "Conciliation Agreements" that basically dictate a firm's workforce management practices. On the public relations side, the EEOC will usually announce its victory with a press release naming the offending employer and describing its alleged violations. Below is a summary of EEOC headlines from the last 12 months announcing its lawsuits and victories against staffing and recruiting firms. Often, these cases include the staffing firm's client.
In a future edition, Staffing Legal News will analyze these charges for discernable patterns of conduct that attract the Agency's attention. The defendants in these cases include some of the largest staffing firms in the world, as well as small local agencies. No firm is immune from the EEOC's scrutiny. The most significant case below is the earliest one on the list, the October 2021 resolution of Aerotek's 10-year war with the Agency over allegations of systematic discrimination. The case illustrates that once a firm gets in the Agency's sights, the government has the resources to win just about any fight, regardless of the opponent's size or efforts in opposition.
09-30-2022
Staffing Companies Refused to Select, Refer, and Place Black Applicants or Assigned Them to Less Desirable and Lower-Paying Positions, Federal Agency Charges
09-29-2022
Health Care Company Fired Scheduling Coordinator Because of Her Pregnancy and Related Disability, Federal Agency Charges
09-28-2022
Staffing Company Failed to Refer Applicant because she is deaf, Federal Agency Says
09-13-2022
Nationwide Staffing Agency and Its Client Deny Employment Opportunities to Women and Minority Workers, Federal Agency Charged
08-30-2022
SmartTalent Sued by EEOC for Sex Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Federal Agency Seeks Workers Impacted by Staffing Agency’s Refusal to Place Females Due to Client Preferences
07-18-2022
Temporary Employees at Shipyard were Subjected to Sexual Harassment and Retaliation After Reporting Harassment
06-17-2022
ResourceMFG Rejected Naturalized Citizen Because She Was Born in Germany, Federal Agency Charges
06-13-2022
Settlement Resolves Federal Suit Charging Jivaro Professional Headhunters Unlawfully Fired Employee For Filing Disability Complaint
06-08-2022
Settlement Resolves Federal Suit Charging the Companies Unlawfully Rejected a Job Applicant Because of Deafness
04-12-2022
IT Staffing Agency Refused to Refer Applicant Who Objected to Recruiter’s Discriminatory Inquiry Concerning His Age, Federal Agency Charged
02-24-2022
Staffing Companies Fired Employee With Psychiatric Disability Instead of Providing Reasonable Accommodations, Federal Agency Charged
10-01-2021
Aerotek to Pay $3.525 Million to Conciliate EEOC Systemic Investigations
Placement Agency Denied Recruitment, Referrals, and/or Hire in Violation of Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws
CHICAGO – Aerotek, a national temporary placement agency, has agreed to pay $3.525 million to resolve federal systemic investigations relating to the hiring and placement of individuals assigned to work at Aerotek’s clients, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.
According to the EEOC, Aerotek failed to recruit and denied assignments/placements and/or hiring to individuals based on age (over 40), sex and race. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Aerotek denies it engaged in any discriminatory or unlawful conduct, but the company agreed to resolve the matter with the EEOC rather than through litigation.
Member discussion