©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 48 due to her sporadic use of a cane necessitated by her disability. In March 2020, the employer laid off its workers due to the pandemic; however, after the layoff, the company allowed only men to resume their apprenticeships. While it recalled the female employee, it refused allow her to re-enter the apprenticeship program, denying her a higher wage and opportunities for overtime. Furthermore, according to the EEOC, the company likewise allowed three younger men to enter the program in 2022 as new apprentices. Though the company ultimately reinstated her as an apprentice in 2025, it also paid her at a lower apprentice rate. KEY SETTLEMENTS SECURED IN FY 2025 EEOC v. Navitas Sys., LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-12478 (E.D. Mich.). The employer agreed to pay $95,000 and provide non-monetary relief to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the EEOC, the employer maintained a policy requiring employees returning from medical leave to be “restriction-free.” When a divisional controller sought to return to work after a serious arm injury with limited use of one arm, the company refused his request for accommodation and terminated his employment rather than engaging in the interactive process required under the ADA. To resolve the lawsuit, the parties entered into a three-year consent decree. The employer agreed to pay $95,000 to the former employee and implement injunctive relief. This will include rescinding its “100% restriction-free” return-to-work policy, adopting ADA-compliant procedures, and providing annual ADA training for managers, supervisors, and human resources personnel. In addition, the employer must submit annual reports to the EEOC detailing accommodation requests, their outcomes, and instances of employees returning from medical leave. EEOC v. The Phoenix Ctr., Case No. 1:23-cv-592 (S.D. Ohio). The EEOC filed suit against a mental health and substance-abuse recovery facility alleging multiple violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the employer refused to hire a qualified applicant for a case manager position at one of its locations after learning she suffered from chronic migraines that required medication. Additionally, the employer terminated another employee due to her history of alcohol dependence. The EEOC further alleged that the employer subjected at least fifteen applicants to impermissible medical inquiries, asking questions and conducting medical examinations before extending conditional job offers in contravention of the ADA. To resolve the suit, the parties entered into a five-year consent decree incorporating both monetary and equitable relief. The employer will pay a total of $65,610 to the aggrieved individuals. Beyond financial compensation, the decree requires the employer to provide ADA training to its executives, directors, managers, and HR personnel. It will also post workplace notices informing employees of their rights under the ADA.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4