©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 50 anti-discrimination, and anti-retaliation training for all employees. Moreover, the employer agreed to institute policy updates to ensure compliance, improve its reporting mechanisms, and provide periodic reporting to the EEOC regarding complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. EEOC v. Elaine’s Pet Resorts, et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-01422-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.) The Commission alleged that the employer, which operated facilities in Fresno and Madera, CA, violated the ADA by failing to hire or terminating applicants and employees who tested positive on post-offer drug screens, even when the results were due to lawfully prescribed medications. The agency contended that the employer failed to engage in the interactive process or provide reasonable accommodations. The parties resolved the litigation through a three-year consent decree that includes both monetary and injunctive relief. Specifically, the employer agreed to pay $35,000 and implement ADA policy revisions to ensure proper handling of reasonable accommodation requests. The decree also requires the appointment of an external EEO monitor and mandatory training for managers and staff on reasonable accommodation obligations. KEY CASES FILED IN FY 2025 EEOC v. NASG Realty, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00066 (M.D. Tenn.) The EEOC filed a lawsuit against NASG Realty, LLC alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC claims that NASG engaged in a pattern or practice of sex discrimination by systematically failing to hire and promote women into certain production positions traditionally dominated by men. In addition to these discriminatory hiring and promotion practices, the EEOC asserts that NASG subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment. According to the allegations, women at NASG experienced offensive remarks, dismissive and demeaning treatment, and even physical misconduct based on their sex. Despite multiple reports of this behavior to human resources, the company allegedly failed to take appropriate corrective action, allowing the hostility and anti-female animus to persist. KEY SETTLEMENTS SECURED IN FY 2025 EEOC v. Simply Slims, L.L.C., Case No. 6:23-cv-06090 (W.D. Ark.) The EEOC brought claims against Slim Chickens alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the EEOC, the company failed to prevent and address sexual harassment at an Arkansas location. The allegations centered on a shift manager who repeatedly harassed teenage and young female employees. Despite receiving two complaints about this behavior by April 2022, the employer did not take effective action, allowing the harassment to continue. By July 2022, four additional young female workers reported similar misconduct by the same manager, creating a hostile work environment. Ultimately, the parties reached a EEOC Memphis District Office DISTRICT PROFILE Director: Delner Franklin-Thomas Regional Attorney: Faye Williams Merit Cases Filed in FY 2025: 3 Average Days Between Determination Letter & Failure to Conciliate: 36 Average Days Between Failure to Conciliate & Complaint: 572 Average Days Between Determination Letter & Complaint: 608 AR MS TN Memphis ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4