75 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC v. R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00528 (N.D. Ill.). On April 8, 2025, the EEOC filed its first subpoena enforcement action under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The EEOC sued R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC, a freight transportation and logistics company, after it refused to comply with a subpoena issued during an investigation into a charge of sex and pregnancy discrimination. The underlying charge alleges that R&L Carriers discriminated against a female truck driver by failing to accommodate pregnancy-related restrictions and placing her on involuntary unpaid leave. The EEOC’s subpoena seeks information including employee lists and accommodation requests from multiple states to determine whether the company violated the PWFA. The PWFA, effective June 27, 2023, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The EEOC’s enforcement action seeks a court order compelling R&L Carriers to produce the requested information. EEOC v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01987 (M.D. Fla.). On November 13, 2025, the EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that CEMEX Construction Materials Florida violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and terminating him. According to the EEOC, the employee, a Christian, requested not to work on Sundays to attend church services. CEMEX initially accommodated the request but later scheduled him for Sunday shifts. When the employee declined to work on Sundays due to his religious observance, CEMEX discharged him. The EEOC claims this conduct constitutes unlawful religious discrimination. The suit seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief, including policy changes and training to ensure compliance with Title VII’s accommodation requirements. EEOC v. Virginia International Terminals, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00487 (E.D. Va.). On November 6, 2025, the EEOC announced that Virginia International Terminals agreed to pay $20,000 and provide injunctive relief to settle a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC claimed that the company refused to hire an applicant because of his disability and failed to consider reasonable accommodations that would have allowed him to perform the job. The consent decree requires Virginia International Terminals to revise its hiring policies, train managers on ADA compliance, and report to the EEOC to ensure adherence. EEOC v. Western Distributing Co., Case No. 1:24-cv-02187 (D. Colo.). On November 12, 2025, the EEOC announced that Western Distributing agreed to pay $919,000 and provide injunctive relief to settle a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC claimed that the company refused to accommodate and then terminated a long-term employee after he disclosed that he had a disability and requested reasonable accommodations. According to the EEOC, the employee had successfully performed his job for years and sought minor adjustments to continue working. Instead of engaging in an interactive process, Western Distributing discharged him. The consent decree requires the company to revise its policies, train managers on ADA compliance, and report to the EEOC to ensure adherence.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4