81 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION ©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC v Goodsell/Wilkins, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01765 (C.D. Cal.) A construction company in Orange County, California agreed to pay $730,000 and provide extensive injunctive relief to resolve a race/national origin harassment action brought under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that the employer’s supervisors, leads and coworkers subjected a class of male Latino workers to severe or pervasive harassment based on their race or national origin. Further, the EEOC alleged the employer did not take prompt and effective action despite receiving complaints and also terminated employees who did complain. For a period of four years, the court required that the employer change its employment practices to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, including providing substantial training to its managers, supervisors, leads and human resource employees. EEOC v. Trebor USA Corp. et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-61817 (S.D. Fla.) A trio of companies agreed to resolve an EEOC lawsuit alleging race and national origin discrimination claims on behalf of Black and Latino employees who were allegedly subjected to racial slurs. The EEOC contended the companies know of the ongoing harassment but fired a complaining employee anyway. On top of the $215,000 damages figure, the court affirmed a three-year Consent Decree that required the companies to make changes to its employment opportunity policies and provide training to all if its employees. EEOC v. Waller’s Trucking Company, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00197 (D. Wyo.) A family-owned trucking company agreed to pay $124,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought on behalf of two female employees who claimed to have been harassed for several years by the company’s owner. The employer allegedly made sexually explicit comments to female employees in front of their coworkers and over the radio, and he grabbed female employees without their permission. The two female employees resigned after the employer failed to take action to stop the owner’s misconduct despite their complaints. Under the five-year consent decree, the owner had to issue a letter of apology to the two female employees, revise and disseminate its anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies as well as provide specialized training to supervisors an employees. C. EEOC Settlement Agreements The vast majority of matters resolved by the EEOC are memorialized in a Consent Decree or Conciliation Agreement. But another settlement instrument is gaining popularity: EEOC “Settlement Agreements.” An EEOC Settlement Agreement, as the name suggests, is a two party agreement between the agency and an employer to resolve any government-initiated claims. The EEOC typically offers a Settlement Agreement at some point during the investigation, but before it has made any merits conclusions. In other words, it seeks to settle a case before a Determination is issued and the “conciliation” phase begins. There are a couple of reasons why the EEOC seeks this sort of resolution instrument. In some cases, the EEOC wishes to resolve the matter, but the Charging Party will not cooperate in the negotiations and wishes to move forward with their claims in federal court. A two-party Settlement Agreement allows the EEOC to obtain a certain level of non-monetary relief to address any concerns it has with the employer’s policies or practices, and allows it to nevertheless issue a right to sue to the Charging Party. In other instances, the EEOC is fully aware that it intends to issue a right to sue, but a Settlement Agreement gives the agency a “nothing ventured, nothing gained” opportunity to obtain a Commission “win.” Anecdotal reports from the field suggest that some Districts seek a Settlement Agreement in virtually all cases. EEOC Settlement Agreements are typically short (two to three pages) with much more limited non‑monetary terms than one sees in either a Conciliation Agreement or Consent Decree. Some employers are willing to accept these non-monetary provisions, as it guarantees that the EEOC will extract itself from any future litigation on the matter. This peace of mind is a priority for some would-be defendants, even if the risk that the EEOC would actually move forward in litigation is remote.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4