Federal Law > Discipline & Termination > Discipline and Termination

Discipline and Termination

By far, most employee claims and lawsuits arise from incidents of employment discipline and termination. Discipline attacks an individual's judgment or character and, at the very least, "rubs away" at an employee's self-esteem. When self-esteem is bruised, people react defensively. As such, an employer must approach the issues of employee discipline and termination very carefully. This chapter provides some suggestions on how employers might minimize legal exposure in the discipline and termination process.


Why do progressive discipline? Doesn't it only create a greater administrative burden for an employer?

Gone are the days when an employer could discipline or terminate employees without any concern about the lawsuits. It's been said that employees today "sue at the drop of a hat". We are a litigious society. However, there remain a number of other sound reasons for utilizing a progressive discipline system apart from the concern that a legal claim may be filed.

Employers should utilize progressive discipline to "salvage" or "rehabilitate" an employee for return to the status of a productive worker. Further, with rehabilitation, the employer avoids the increasingly expensive process of recruiting and training a new employee. In addition, the morale of other employees will be elevated when a friend and co-worker is given a second opportunity to succeed. Finally, should a legal claim be filed, a jury will be much more receptive to an employer's position if the facts show that the employer has utilized progressive discipline in dealing with the employee. Jurors empathize with employees perhaps because everyone has been someone's employee at one time or another. Jurors believe every person should be given an opportunity to improve their performance except under the most egregious circumstances.

How to do progressive discipline. As the name implies, a progressive discipline system is administered in steps. The discipline becomes increasingly harsh if the employee's performance fails to improve. Most progressive disciplinary systems involve the following steps:

1. The publication of company work rules and policies.

2. Verbal warning for breach of the rules and policies.

3. Written warning for breach of the rules and policies.

4. Suspension if the offending behavior continues.

5. Termination

The whole purpose for a progressive disciplinary system is to give the offending employee an opportunity to improve. If the employee fails to heed the admonishment, discipline, up to and including, termination may result.

There is no legal requirement that each of the aforementioned steps be followed. Indeed, many companies "merge" the verbal and written steps depending upon the nature of the work rule violation. Further, most companies reserve the right to forego the steps of the progressive disciplinary system depending upon the nature of the work rule offense. For serious work rule violations, such as theft, substance abuse at work, flagrant insubordination, etc., the company reserves the right to move immediately to the more harsh disciplinary steps of suspension or even termination. This flexibility should be preserved by an employer. Certain types of employee actions can simply not be condoned and must be dealt with immediately and severely.

Publication of work rules. There are other important points for consideration as a company structures such a disciplinary process. Initially, employees can only be expected to follow company work rules and procedures if they are aware of them. In other words, an employer must clearly define and publicize the rules of conduct for its work force. No employee can follow a rule of which he/she has no knowledge. Employees (and jurors) do not like games of hide and seek when it comes to the clarity of work rules in the employment setting.

Once a system has been drawn up and published to the work force, an employer is also wise to insure that its management staff is adequately trained in use of the system. Supervisors must uniformly enforce the system. Supervisors must carefully follow the procedural steps of the system. Failure to do so can result in discrimination suits and other claims (inequitable enforcement of work rules) if the management staff doesn't understand and appropriately follow its own progressive discipline system.

Document, document, document. Employees occasionally embellish the truth. Documents do not lie. Any adequate system for employment discipline must rest upon appropriate documentation. Supervisors must be instructed on how to document incidents of employee discipline. Personnel files must contain a chronological history of problems and disciplinary incidents to assist an employer in defending against employment claims. A paper trail is a must do. The Human Resources department should be responsible for seeing to it that adequate documentation is contained in any file before moving ahead with increasingly severe discipline. Supervisors who fail to document should be instructed that they may be subject to discipline if they fail or refuse to document their files.

A progressive disciplinary program is an essential element of a well rounded employment relations system. Further, it will pay great dividends in a lawsuit should the employer be forced into court to defend its discipline of an employee.


More employment litigation is spawned from employee terminations than any other type of employer action. As a consequence, there are a number of guidelines of which an employer should be aware before proceeding with the discharge of an employee. These guidelines simply assist a business in double checking the propriety of the proposed termination before pulling the trigger. Precipitous, ill-considered terminations are the greatest source of employer liability in the work setting. To minimize this liability, the following guidelines should be observed:

Avoid the obvious "sinkholes". By now, most employers understand that there are a number of protected classifications which prohibit an employer from attempting to terminate an employee based upon these classes: age, race, sex, national origin, color, creed, religion and disability. In addition to ensuring that the motivation for terminating a person never rests, even partially, upon a prohibited classification, employers should also keep in mind that other statutes exist which prohibit retaliatory discharges of employees. Some examples of federal "no retaliation" laws include the following:

  • Whistle Blower Protection Act of 1989 (prohibits reprisals against employees for lawful disclosure of information which may evidence a violation of law).
  • False Claims Act (prohibits retaliation against an employee for providing information under the Act).
  • Surface Transportation Act (prohibits retaliation for participation in a proceeding relating to a violation of commercial motor vehicle safety regulations).
  • Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (prohibits retaliation against a person providing information to a regulatory body concerning potential violations of the law).

The list of anti-retaliation federal statutes is lengthy. In addition, most states have their own laws which prohibit retaliation against employees for engaging in lawful acts or for seeking the privileges provided under law. (i.e., pursuit of Workers' Compensation benefits, etc.)

Educate your supervisors and managers. Because the manner in which a termination is handled is critical, it is vital that all individuals having authority to terminate be given sufficient training to know what types of actions are lawful and which actions are illegal. In addition, supervisors should be educated to make judgments concerning when legal advice may be necessary before proceeding with the termination. It is recommended that the company conduct training seminars for supervisors and managers to make sure that they understand the various "do's and don'ts" related to terminations.

In addition, if an employer utilizes a system of progressive discipline, the company should also see to it that supervisors understand and use the progressive discipline system. In many states, an employer's failure to follow its own internal procedures may provide the foundation for a wrongful discharge breach of contract cause of action.

Give your employees due process or the process may give you what's due . . . In the private sector, absent an employer promise of "due process", employees are usually not entitled to any particular due process protections at the time of discharge. However, where legally appropriate, juries have been quick to send a strong message to employers who run roughshod over the perceived "due process" rights of employees in a termination process. Juries often look for evidence that the employer treated the employee "fairly". A basic element of the "fairness" analysis is whether the employer provided the employee an opportunity to be heard on the termination charges before moving forward with discharge.

The "due process" afforded need not be a full fledged "hearing" utilizing attorneys, witnesses and so on. However, at the very least, there should be some "opportunity" for the individual to present his/her side of the story before termination. Obviously, an employer should listen carefully to any explanations offered by the employee and give appropriate consideration to any excuses. If the employee offers some evidence which tends to indicate that the employer's rationale for termination is inappropriate, the employer should be prepared to "put on the brakes" in a hurry. On the other hand, if the employee is simply interested in "debating" the employer's judgment, that discussion should be terminated quickly.

Before moving forward with a termination decision, the employer must conduct a thorough and complete investigation of the allegations of misconduct. Remember some of these simple rules in conducting your investigation:

Checklist for misconduct investigation.

1. Common sense is still your best guide. Listen carefully when you receive a complaint and exercise your good judgment concerning the pertinent facts and the need to investigate the foundation for the complaint. Get legal advice where appropriate and do not neglect to follow up on investigative matters simply because you are "busy".

2. Doing nothing is worse than doing something. You must conduct an investigation into allegations such as sexual harassment. The failure to follow up and ascertain facts is often more detrimental to an employer than making a judgment which could be questioned at a later date.

3. You don't know what to investigate until you speak with the person who has made the complaint. Carefully plan your interviews and document the factual assertions and the follow up efforts made by the company to get to the "nugget of truth". Make sure that you are dealing with "facts" not emotions and general allegations. A statement that someone is being "harassed" or "picked on" is insufficient to provide you with the necessary facts to investigate. Consider having the employee write a narrative of what occurred along with a listing of any witnesses. Plan your investigation carefully to interview those persons with actual knowledge of the incident as you compile the necessary facts to determine whether a disciplinary problem exists.

4. Once you have spoken to the employee and witnesses who have made the charges, speak to the person who supposedly violated the rules or engaged in the harassment. Again, remember the necessity for due process. A person should not be prejudged and should be given an ample opportunity to explain his/her version of the events while being treated in a courteous manner.

5. Conduct a "pre-termination" evaluation conference. The individual who conducted the investigation should meet with human resources, the supervisor involved, and any other management officials responsible for disciplinary action. In addition, it may be appropriate to confer with outside legal counsel.

While you must include the "players" in any potential termination event, you also want to keep the number of employees involved at this stage to an absolute minimum. Only those employees who have a need to know the information should be involved to minimize the likelihood of an inadvertent disclosure which could fuel rumors in the workplace or defamation concerns by the inclusion of persons not necessary to the deliberation process.

During this meeting, a careful evaluation of all of the facts should be undertaken. Are there other questions which need to be asked or other information which needs to be compiled? After thoroughly evaluating the facts, the company needs to apply not only "the law of the shop" (the rules or policies bearing upon the conduct) but also the "law of the land" (any state or federal legal requirements which may bear upon the contemplated termination). Depending upon the results of these evaluations, the company can then properly chart a course for disciplinary action.

Resolving credibility disputes - rely upon your instincts and error on the side of caution. Sometimes, an employer investigating a "terminable" offense may discover that there is a clear credibility dispute between the accuser and the accused. In that instance, the employer may be faced with a difficult decision on whose side of the story to honor. As an example, how would you handle a sex harassment charge where a credibility dispute is difficult to determine? In this instance, an employer may wish to consider (depending upon the nature and severity of the allegations) a written memorandum to the supervisor stating that the company was unable to determine whether internal policies and the law were violated while admonishing the supervisor that his/her actions created at least an appearance of impropriety (although not proven). The company could reiterate its policy with respect to sex harassment and make it clear that such activity, if proven in the future, will not be tolerated and will provide grounds for discipline, up to and including, termination.

The company could then meet with the complaining employee, explain what the company has done in its investigation, the results of the investigation, and the issuance of the memorandum. The employee should also be encouraged to come forward to report any future problems.

Credibility disputes should be resolved, giving due consideration to the individual's veracity and history of truthfulness, in addition to a comparative analysis of the facts offered. However, employers should be cautioned against always resolving employee credibility disputes in favor of supervisors and managers. The mere fact that an individual has management title should not provide any preferential gloss to an employer's determination of a credibility issue.

Consider the practical elements of any termination before pulling the trigger. An employer should also give due regard to the "practical" considerations of any contemplated termination. If the termination is challenged, can the employer handle any adverse publicity? To what extent has the organization of the employer conceivably failed the employee? If the employee is not terminated and the problem does not improve, can the employer stand continuation of the problem? Is the employee the type of person likely to "fight back" and file suit?

What is the likely impact of terminating or failing to terminate the employee on employee morale and the employer's credibility? What has been the immediate supervisor's history in terms of having such problems with his/her people? Does the employee have any potential for success by working in a different job or under another supervisor if transferred? Are there any non-job problems which have created or significantly contributed to the problems at work? has the employee tried to improve? Even if the termination is legally defensible, is it a wise decision to terminate? Test your tentative decision by letting an independent source evaluate it. Obviously, seek legal counsel if there appears to be any legal issue with the termination.

Handling the termination conference. In handling the termination conference, remember that "anything you say can, and will, be held against you". An employer who becomes angry, abusive, or who misstates the pertinent facts places the company in an extremely tenuous legal position should the termination be challenged. Jurors absolutely detest "angry/abusive" employers. Even if the employee deserved to be terminated, the shock and magnitude of discharge is something with which all jurors can empathize. An employer who "pours salt in the wound" by "kicking" the employee when he/she is down will offend all but the most callous juror who is examining the termination conference after the fact. The employer's representative should be prepared to handle an employment termination conference in a calm, cool and collected fashion or the management representative should find someone else to do the discharge session.

Termination conferences. In planning for the termination of an employee, the employer should carefully script and rehearse what will be said and how the situation will be handled. While each termination conference will obviously turn on the unique facts requiring the discharge, there are some common rules which should be adhered to for any termination conference. Among the more commonly recognized "necessary" steps are the following:

1. Two employer representatives should be present at the conference.

2. The employment history should be reviewed briefly with comments on specific problems which have occurred and efforts on the part of the employer to correct the behaviors.

3. Within the first few minutes of the interview, the employee should be informed that he/she is being terminated. Don't "beat around the bush" and drag out the inevitable announcement.

4. Explain the decision to terminate briefly and clearly. Don't engage in a "debate" with the employee in an effort to justify your decision. Counseling, at this late date, serves no useful purpose. It should have already been done.

5. Be empathetic of the employee's feelings of being terminated. The employee should be helped to understand that the employer recognizes the disruption and hurt caused by the termination. Illustrating empathic concern is not the same as some admission by the employer that the termination action is ill-considered or wrong.

6. In showing empathy, do not be overly complimentary of the employee in an effort to assuage feelings. The employer must remain firm concerning the necessity and reason for the termination.

7. Give an explanation of the reason for the termination. Juries detest terminations in which the employee argues that he/she was not even told the reason for the discharge. Fundamental "fairness" at least demands a disclosure of the reason for discharge.

8. Fully explain any benefits that the employee is entitled to receive and the time frame for receipt of those benefits. Also explain the reasons why an employee may not receive other benefits which could be expected.

9. Give the employee an opportunity to explain their position and listen closely to that which is said.

10. Rehearse with another management representative how the termination conference will be handled to ensure that the supervisor conducting the conference feels comfortable with the format and substance.

11. In addition, the supervisor or management representative should also appear to be comfortable that the decision is consistent with the "best interests" of the company.

12. Obviously, no reference should be made in the termination conference to any impermissible criteria or protected classifications (i.e., sex age, race, religion, etc.). However, if the employee raises such an issue, the employer should firmly and emphatically deny that such criteria had any impact on the employer's decision to terminate.

13. Seek to obtain the employee's agreement that he/she has had problems on the job and that overall job performance has not been satisfactory (assuming a termination for poor performance).

14. Document carefully the reasons for the termination and the substance of the termination conference.

Post termination conduct. In order to avoid adding insult to injury, an employer should see to it that all money or benefits owed to the employee are promptly paid. In addition, the employer should be prepared to offer a separation notice at the time of termination. Obviously, the separation notice should accurately recite the reason for the termination.

An employer should carefully consider how the announcement of the employee's separation will be offered to other members of the work force. Clearly, concerns over issues like defamation should caution an employer to avoid circulation of false or inaccurate reasons for the employee's termination. In most circumstances, it is best that the notice of the employee's separation be extremely succinct and generally somewhat ambiguous. A simple statement that the employee is no longer with the company, or, if appropriate, that the employee voluntarily chose to resign to pursue other business interests should be sufficient to inform members of the work force that this employee is no longer employed.

In the event that employees request additional information with regard to the resignation or termination, the company is wise to defer providing any detail to such questions to preserve the confidentiality of the employee's personnel file. If a company does not already have a policy insuring that personnel files will remain confidential, such a policy should be immediately drafted. It is rarely appropriate for an employer to give the "full story" concerning an employee's termination. Despite the existence of a "qualified privilege" to protect against most defamation claims, seldom does an employer need to provide detailed information concerning an employee's termination.

An employer should also have a policy concerning what information the employer should release in response to a reference inquiry with regard to a former employee. Because of defamation concerns, most employers are reluctant to provide any detailed information concerning an employee's employment or termination of employment. As a general rule, employers respond to reference inquiries by simply providing the fact of past employment, dates of employment and title or position (i.e., "name, rank and serial number" responses). If there exists such a policy limiting information to be given to prospective employers, the policy should also specify that the employer to whom the reference is to be given should not take the limitation of information to be either a positive or negative statement concerning the employee but rather simply a recitation of the former employer's policy.

Employers should also pay careful attention to the handling of unemployment compensation claims filed by former employees. While most states do not permit adjudications in unemployment hearings to be "fact" or "issue" determinative in subsequent court proceedings, employers should remember that statements in unemployment compensation matters can still be of great significance in subsequent legal proceedings. Employees or employers can be discredited by statements made in unemployment compensation proceedings such that employer testimony should be carefully given to ensure that it is candid, accurate and carefully phrased.

Finally, an employer should pay particular attention to the matter of replacing a terminated employee. While the employer always wants to hire the best employee for the position, an employer should be mindful of the fact that replacing an employee with another person of the same race, sex, national origin or age will often better insulate the employer against charges of discrimination.

Before terminating the employee, do a risk profile. Unless the conduct of an employee requires immediate termination, do a risk profile before "pulling the trigger". Evaluate the potential risks and determine whether there are any gaps or deficiencies in documentation or rationale for the termination. Weigh the decision against the possibility of grappling with an attenuated and expensive piece of litigation.

Unless the conduct of the employee requires immediate termination, make sure that the employee has been given ample opportunities to correct the problem and that any termination for failure to perform is consistent with any written disciplinary procedures or performance plan.

Evaluate the possibility of a discrimination claim or wrongful discharge suit. How old is the employee? Is the employee pregnant? What will be the impact of the termination decision on the percentage of minority employees or employees in the over-40 age bands? Who will replace the employee? How long has the employee been with the employer (length of service may not matter to you in the termination but many juries appear to think that long term employees are deserving of some special consideration). Was the documentation in the personnel file supportive of termination? Is the reason for termination something which has been used to terminate employees in the past? If so, is the termination decision in this case consistent with earlier decisions? Has the rule violated been uniformly enforced? Is the rule itself fair?

Do not give references over the phone. Ask the inquirer to send you a written request for the information. Following this procedure allows you to maintain a record of the information requested as well as the information sent in response.

Maintain records of all communications concerning references. Designate one individual to give references and also to handle inquiries form the media or public. Communicate to all other employees that their job duties do not include providing references or commenting on existing or potential litigation.

In closing, employers who handle the difficult employment tasks of discipline and termination carefully and deliberately will often make sound decisions. Those who do not can experience the unpleasant process of facing a jury's review of their decisions.


This checklist is only an illustrative example of some of the issues which should be examined by an employer before imposing discipline or termination. The checklist should be modified and revised as appropriate to your business operation.

1. Has the employee's conduct violated a written rule or standard of performance developed to guide employee conduct in the workplace?

2. If so, has the work rule or standard of conduct been distributed in the workplace? (Specifically, has this employee received a copy of the work rule allegedly violated?)

3. Has the employee signed some type of "acknowledgment" of the work rule verifying that the employee has been made aware of the existence of the rule?

4. With regard to the specific incident in question, has the employer conducted a thorough investigation to verify the facts substantiating the alleged violation?

5. Does the personnel file contain appropriate documentation verifying the facts establishing violation of the work rule or standard? Is the employer's decision to discipline based upon compiled facts (as opposed to inference, suspicion or emotion)?

6. Has the employer followed the procedures of the progressive disciplinary system (where appropriate)?

7. Has the employee been given sufficient opportunity to rectify the offending behavior?

8. Was a specific timetable set governing the period of time available to the employee for correcting the deficient performance?

9. Was the employee given an opportunity to be heard concerning the violation of the work rule or standard?

10. Was the employee's position given adequate consideration and evaluation?

11. Were any "mitigating" or exceptional personal circumstances given consideration?

12. Is it possible that some other form of action or discipline might be appropriate under the circumstances (i.e., transfer, demotion, etc.)?

13. Is the discipline assigned in this case consistent with past practice for similar violations?

14. Has the company uniformly and consistently imposed this type of discipline in other cases?

15. Could an impartial finder of fact conclude that the discipline imposed in this case was "fair" under all the circumstances?

16. Has the discipline been discussed with, and reviewed by, upper management?

17. Has the company appropriately prepared for the disciplinary/termination conference?

18. Have arrangements been made to have a witness present at the conference, if necessary?

19. Has the disciplinary conference been arranged at a time and place appropriate under the circumstances?

20. If the employee is to be terminated, have arrangements been made to escort the employee from the facility in an appropriate manner?

21. If the employee is to be escorted from the premises, have arrangements been made for returning to the employee any and all personal property at an appropriate time?

22. If the employee is to be terminated, has the company made arrangements for payment of the employee's final check and other compensable benefits?

23. Has the company made arrangements for return of any and all company property, including physical equipment and keys, as well as proprietary information, software, etc.?

24. Has the company prepared explanations pertaining to continuation of health insurance under COBRA and other applicable benefits information?

25. Will the company be conducting an exit interview in conjunction with the disciplinary conference?

26. Has the company determined what information concerning the disciplinary incident, if any, will be disseminated to other members of the workforce?

27. Has the company taken steps to ensure that information pertaining to the discipline and/or termination is to be held as confidential with only those employees having a "need to know" being given access to the information?

28. In a termination incident, has the company determined how it will handle reference inquiries concerning the employee in question?

29. If references are to be disseminated, does the company have a validly executed waiver and release from the employee in question?

30. Are there any other factors or issues which need to be examined before the company is in a position to take the disciplinary action in question?
Login to read more.

Related Articles

04/12/2022 Software People, Inc. Settles EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit
03/16/2021 Security Company Discharged a Uniformed Security Guard in Baton Rouge Due to Her Pregnancy
03/01/2021 Tennessee Dealership Fired Service Consultant Because of Her Sex
03/25/2019 Real Estate Investment Firm Fired Employee Because of Pregnancy, Federal Agency Charged
03/18/2019 Retailer Unlawfully Fired Pregnant Employee Upon Receipt of Medical Information, Federal Agency Charges
03/14/2019 Casino Fired Employee for Asking for Medical Leave for Cancer Treatment, Federal Agency Charged
03/13/2019 Tool Manufacturer Fired Employee Who Needed Leave for Medical Treatment, Federal Agency Charged
03/05/2019 Employer Harassed Line Worker and Then Retaliated Against Her for Complaining, Federal Agency Charges
03/01/2019 Chain of Franchises Subjected Employees to Sexual Harassment and Retaliation, Federal Agency Charges
02/28/2019 Staffing Agencies Discriminated Against Latino Workers, Federal Agency Charged
02/22/2019 Country Club Unlawfully Subjected Groundskeeper to Seasonal Layoffs and Discharge Because of Age, Federal Agency Charged
02/18/2019 Restaurants Allowed Employees to Grope Male and Female Workers, Federal Agency Charges
02/11/2019 Pest Control and Landscaping Company Fired and Refused to Rehire Employee After Denying Her Request for Leave as Accommodation, Federal Agency Charged
02/10/2019 Atlantic Capes Fisheries and BJ s Service to Pay $675,000 to Settle EEOC Sex Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit
03/24/2017 Janitorial Cleaning Services Company to Pay $70,000 to Settle Unlawful Retaliation Lawsuit
03/23/2017 $110,000 Settlement in National Origin and Religious Discrimination and Retaliation Case
03/09/2017 $325,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Health Care and Assisted Living Facilities Operator, Training Ordered
02/08/2017 $725,000 Settlement Against Precious Metals Dealer to Resolve Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
01/30/2017 $125,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Papa John's Pizza in Utah
01/23/2017 OSHA Orders Amtrak to Reinstate and Pay an Employee $892,551 for Violations of the Federal Railroad Safety Act
09/22/2016 $1.4 Million Payout Ordered for Texas Roadhouse Restaurant in Class Sexual Harassment Suit, Training Ordered
09/20/2016 Dollar General to Pay $277,565 in Back Pay and Compensatory Damages in Disability Discrimination Case
09/19/2016 $210,000 Settlement in Race Discrimination and Termination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
09/13/2016 National Labor Relations Board Decides Case Regarding Social Media Code of Conduct
09/07/2016 $165,000 Settlement in Associational Disability Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
08/29/2016 NLRB Finds That Current Backpay Formula in Unlawful Discharge Cases is Inadequate
08/17/2016 Wal-Mart to Pay $90,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit - Training Required
08/15/2016 Prohibition of Guns in Parking Lot Could Lead to Wrongful Discharge Claim
08/08/2016 $150,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Dunkin' Donuts Franchise
07/12/2016 Company Must Pay $105,000 for Firing Employee After She Filed Complaint With OSHA
05/25/2016 $250,000 Settlement in Race and National Origin Harassment Suit Against Oilfield Service Company, Training Ordered
05/16/2016 $8.6 Million Settlement in Disability Discrimination Case Against Lowe's, Training Ordered
05/06/2016 $140,000 to be Paid by Higher Education Technology Services Company for Discrimination Based on Transgender Status
04/19/2016 $187,500 Settlement in Disability Lawsuit Against Paper and Packaging Manufacturer
03/11/2016 $250,000 Settlement and Reinstatement in ADA Lawsuit Against Telecommunications Company
03/08/2016 $500,000 Conciliation Agreement For Complaints Filed Pursuant to ADA
03/02/2016 EEOC Files First Sex Discrimination Cases Based on Sexual Orientation
02/23/2016 $250,000 in Back Wages and Liquidated Damages to be Paid by Pancake Houses for Requiring Servers to Pay $2 an Hour From Tips to the Employer
02/18/2016 Vacation Resorts International to Pay $125,000 to Settle Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
02/17/2016 Jury Verdict of $31.2 Million in Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Walmart
02/15/2016 $1,020,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment and National Origin Discrimination Lawsuit Brought Against Resort and Its Management Company, Training Ordered
01/07/2016 $63,500 in Back Pay, Damages and Attorney's Fees in Equal Pay Discrimination Case Against Food Distributor
12/24/2015 EEOC Issues Documents Addressing Discrimination Against Muslim or Middle Eastern People
12/16/2015 $332,469 in Back Wages and Damages to be Paid by Company for Termination in Retaliation For Reporting Work-Related Injury
12/09/2015 $151,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Dunkin' Donuts Operator
11/18/2015 Restaurant Franchise to Pay $45,000 to Settle Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
11/06/2015 $1.7 Million to be Paid by Packing Solutions Company for Disability Discrimination, Training Ordered
11/05/2015 $60,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Plasma Drawing Company, Training Ordered
11/04/2015 Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against AutoZone to Go Forward Without Limitation in Scope
10/23/2015 $240,000 Jury Award in Religious Discrimination Case
10/05/2015 Blinded Veterans Association to Pay $150,123 to Two Employees to Settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit
09/22/2015 $140,000 Settlement in Age Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Heating and Plumbing Contractor
09/18/2015 EEOC Joins Lawsuit Against Financial Loan Company in Transgender Sex Discrimination Lawsuit
09/16/2015 $190,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Case Against Kidney Care Provider
09/15/2015 $600,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Provider of Call Center Services, Training Ordered
09/11/2015 $17,425,000 Verdict in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Packaging House
08/31/2015 Coal Company to Pay $586,860 in Compensatory Damages, Back Pay and Front Pay in Religious Discrimination Case
08/26/2015 $120,000 to be Paid in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Again Accordion Partitions Manufacturer, Training Ordered
08/20/2015 $100,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Home Healthcare Provider, Training Ordered
08/14/2015 $365,000 in Monetary Relief to be Paid by Adult Entertainment Club for Race Discrimination
07/29/2015 Court Enjoins Termination of Employee While It Decides Merits of the Case
07/21/2015 Settlement in Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
07/17/2015 $100,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Case Against Police Department
06/17/2015 Railroad Company to Pay Back Wages and Reinstate Employee Against Whom the Company Retaliated
06/08/2015 $137,500 to be Paid by Subsidiary of Staples for Lost Wages and Liquidated Damages
04/28/2015 Federal Appeals Court Upholds $1.5 Million Jury Verdict in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit
04/21/2015 Drilling Company to Pay $14.5 Million to Settle Race and National Origin Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation, Training Ordered
04/15/2015 $150,000 Settlement in First of Two Lawsuits Filed by EEOC Alleging Sex Discrimination Against a Transgender Individual
04/08/2015 Over $1.3 Million in Back Wages and Damages to be Paid by Restaurant and Spa Owners for Wage and Hour Violations
03/18/2015 Union Pacific Railroad to Pay $350,000 for Disciplining Employee Who Reported Workplace Injuries
03/16/2015 $125,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Packaging Company
02/12/2015 Medical Center to Pay $300,000 for Disability Discrimination, Training Ordered
01/27/2015 $359,253 Settlement in Race Discrimination Case Against Johns Hopkins University
12/03/2014 $1.2 Million Settlement in Race and National Origin Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
11/11/2014 $128,750 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Car Dealership
10/30/2014 $215,000 Settlement in Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Construction Contractor, Training Ordered
10/28/2014 $499,000 Award For Sexual Harassment and Retaliation by Provider of Physician Services
10/17/2014 Railroad Company Violated Safety Act, Ordered to Pay $225,385
10/06/2014 EEOC Files First Lawsuits By the Agency for Alleged Sex Discrimination Against Transgender Individuals
10/02/2014 $200,000 Settlement in Race Discrimination LawsuitAgainst Prestige Transportation Service, Training Ordered
09/02/2014 NLRB Extends Weingarten Rights to Drug and Alcohol Test Scenarios
08/27/2014 Nuclear Facility Contractor Ordered to Reinstate Worker Fired for Raising Environmental Safety Concerns
08/21/2014 Asphalt Paving Company Ordered to Pay $953,916 in Back Wages and Penalties for Violating Mandated Hours of Service for Commercial Truck Drivers
08/15/2014 Driver Reinstated By Trucking Company After Investigation by OSHA Found Unlawful Termination
07/29/2014 Corporation Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
07/24/2014 $100,000 Settlement in Retaliation Lawsuit Against Goodwill Industries
07/07/2014 $180,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Case Against Walgreens, Training Ordered
07/01/2014 $1.35 Million Settlement in Disability Discrimination Suit Against Healthcare System, Training Ordered
06/03/2014 Louisiana Enacts Social Media Policy to Limit Employers' Access to Online Accounts
06/02/2014 Italian Restaurants to Pay $200,000 as Relief for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation, Training Ordered
05/29/2014 Railway Company Settles Disability Discrimination Lawsuit with Railroad Worker
05/02/2014 Insurance Sales Company to Pay $300,000 for Age Based Harassment and Discrimination and Retaliation, Training Ordered
04/02/2014 Car Dealership Settles Same-Sex Sexual Harassment Suit for Over $2 Million, Training Ordered
03/31/2014 EEOC Issues Latest Edition of Federal Sector Digest
03/27/2014 $363,419 to be Paid by Wal-Mart to Settle Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Intellectually Disabled Employee
03/24/2014 $100,000 to Resolve Racial Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
03/18/2014 Waste and Recycling Company Ordered to Pay $228,603 for Racial Discrimination
03/07/2014 Weingarten Rights Reviewed
02/24/2014 $215,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Health Care Organization
02/12/2014 Restaurant to Pay $56,000 for Retaliation Against Employee for Complaints About Racially Offensive Drawings
01/14/2014 $370,000 Settlement in Genetic Information Discrimination Lawsuit Against Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
01/02/2014 $170,000 Settlement in Religious Discrimination Lawsuit where Employer Required Employees to Participate in Religious Practices of Scientology, Training Ordered
12/13/2013 $135,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
12/03/2013 New Mexico Hotel to Pay $100,000 to Settle Lawsuit for Religious Discrimination Against Employee, Training Ordered
10/01/2013 $450,000 Settlement for National Origin Discrimination By Transportation Company, Training Ordered
09/25/2013 Abercrombie & Fitch Settles Two Religious Discrimination Lawsuits, Changes Policies Regarding Religious Accommodation Requests
09/17/2013 $50,000 for Discrimination Against Transgender Employee, Training Ordered
09/11/2013 Court Found Abercrombie & Fitch Liable for Religious Discrimination Against Muslim Employee
09/03/2013 $250,000 Settlement in Age Discrimination Case Against AT & T, Training Ordered
07/30/2013 $112,573 Settlement in Back Wages by Federal Contractor to Workers Terminated for Reporting Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
07/26/2013 $302,500 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Suit Against Home Healthcare Provider, Training Ordered
07/15/2013 Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Case of Termination Due to Wife's Concern About Relationship Between Employer Husband and His Employee
07/01/2013 $370,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against HoneyBaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Training Ordered
06/27/2013 Plastic Surgery Center Settles with Employees Over Violations of Protected Concerted Activities
06/05/2013 $150,000 Settlement in Race Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
05/28/2013 $192,500 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Church and Dioceses, Training Ordered
05/21/2013 $150,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Onion Grower
05/14/2013 $1,513,094 Award Against Company for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation
04/17/2013 $230,000 in Racial Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Utah Construction Company, Training Ordered
04/09/2013 $80,000 Settlement in Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
04/02/2013 $65,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Outback Steakhouse, Training Ordered
03/14/2013 Supplier of Maintenance, Labor and Construction Services to Power Industry AGrees to Pay $190,000 in Race Discrimination Case
02/21/2013 $100,000 Decree to Settle a Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
02/12/2013 $200,000 Award in Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Trucking Company
02/07/2013 $130,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
02/05/2013 $500,000 Settlement in Retaliation Case Against BASF Corporation
01/18/2013 $2.5 Million Settlement in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Largest Burger King Franchisee, Training Ordered
01/08/2013 $350,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Health Care Consulting Firm, Training Ordered
12/31/2012 Iowa Supreme Court Finds That Dentist's Termination of Employee Because She Was Threat to Marriage Was Not Employment Discrimination
12/28/2012 $99,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against the Scooter Store, Training Ordered
12/27/2012 $85,000 Settlement in Race Discrimination Lawsuit Against OfficeMax
12/04/2012 $201,000 Settlement in National Origin Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against DHL Global Forwarding, Training Ordered
12/03/2012 $150,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Plastic Bag Manufacturer, Training Ordered
11/29/2012 $150,000 in Back Wages to Settle Gender-Based Sex Discrimination
11/19/2012 $600,000 Settlement in Same-Sex Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against New York Steakhouse, Training Ordered
11/13/2012 $250,000 Settlement with Rite Aid Pharmacy in Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
11/12/2012 $4.85 Million Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Trucking Company, Training Ordered
11/09/2012 $195,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Case Against Hotel and Resort, Training Ordered
11/07/2012 NLRB Releases Advice Memos About At-Will Employment Clauses in Two Employee Handbooks
11/06/2012 NLRB Finds that Employer's Social Media Policy Does Not Violate NLRA
10/31/2012 EEOC Publishes Questions and Answers About Applicants and Employees who Experience Domestic or Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking
10/24/2012 $103,987 in Back Wages for FMLA and FLSA's Overtime Pay Violations
10/23/2012 $120,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against BellSouth Telecommunications
10/22/2012 $235,000 Settlement in Age Discrimination Lawsuit Against Municipality, Training Ordered
10/04/2012 National Labor Relations Board Rules on Discharge Due to Facebook Posting
09/25/2012 $187,000 Awarded to RadioShack Employee for Age Discrimination and Retaliation
09/07/2012 $750,000 Settlement in ADA Lawsuit Against Automotive and Specialty Vehicle Parts Provider, Training Ordered
08/31/2012 First Whistleblower Award by SEC Under Dodd-Frank
08/13/2012 $400,000 Settlement in National Origin Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit
08/07/2012 The NLRB Invites Briefs on Issues of Tax Payments and Social Security Contributions in Back Pay Lump Sum Payments
08/03/2012 $75,000 Settlement in Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit
07/27/2012 $150,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Suit Against Gannett Newspaper, Training Ordered
07/26/2012 $350,000 Jury Verdict in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Medical Practice
07/24/2012 Home Heath Care Services Company Ordered to Pay $193,236 in Age Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
07/18/2012 $365,000 Settlement in Sex, Pregnancy, Race and Religious Discrimination by Manager at Hotel, Training Ordered
06/25/2012 $160,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Home Care Group, Training Ordered
06/20/2012 $125,000 Settlement in Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Heavy Equipment Dealer, Training Ordered
06/11/2012 $70,000 Settlement in Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart, Training Ordered
05/22/2012 $37,409 in Back Wages for a Former Employee of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections for Family and Medical Leave Act Violations
05/21/2012 $201,000 Settlement in Age Discrimination Lawsuit Against Texas Company, Training Ordered
05/14/2012 $400,000 Settlement in Age Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
05/10/2012 $80,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit by Cement Truck Driver, Training Ordered
04/24/2012 EEOC to Hold Meeting on Wednesday, April 25
04/16/2012 $125,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination of Obese Employee, Training Ordered
03/19/2012 $70,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Case Against Family Video
03/15/2012 $120,000 Settlement in Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit
03/08/2012 $90,000 to Settle A Discrimination and Retaliation Suit Against Plastics Manufacturer, Training Ordered
03/05/2012 $148,430 Payment for Pregnancy Discrimination by Medical Staffing Company
03/01/2012 $40,000 Settlement in Case of Illegal Inquiries into Legal Medication Used by Employee
02/28/2012 $200,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Hurricane Grill and Wings, Training Ordered
02/23/2012 $205,000 Payment in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Restaurant, Training Ordered
02/09/2012 $50,000 in Back Wages for Wrongful Termination as a Result of Family and Medical Leave Violation
02/07/2012 $120,000 Settlement in Disability and Age Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
01/18/2012 AirTran Airways Ordered to Pay More Than $1 Million in Back Wages and Other Damages in Whistleblower Protection Program
01/10/2012 $450,000 Settlement Against Cleaning Company for Race Discrimination and Retaliation, Training Ordered
12/14/2011 $80,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Supermarket Chain, Training Ordered
12/07/2011 $190,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Store for Failure to Accommodate, Training Ordered
12/05/2011 $240,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Lawsuit Against Orchid Farm
12/01/2011 $264,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Real Estate Developer
11/28/2011 $530,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Medical Center, Training Ordered
11/22/2011 $365,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Credit Card Payment Processing Company
11/21/2011 $80,000 Settlement in Discrimination Lawsuit Against Chicago Hospital, Training Ordered
11/14/2011 $110,000 Settlement in Religious Discrimination Against Jehovah's Witness, Training Ordered
11/11/2011 $132,500 Settlement Against Comfort Suites in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
11/10/2011 $115,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against Gas Station/Convenience Stores, Training Ordered
11/09/2011 $100,000 Settlement by Sears in Race, Age, Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Suit, Training Ordered
10/19/2011 Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit Against American Laser Center -- $125,000 Settlement, Training Ordered
10/12/2011 $300,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Trucking Company, Training Ordered
10/07/2011 $230,000 in Damages in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit Against Medical Insurance Company
10/06/2011 $98,900 Settlement Against GES Global Energy Services For Race Discrimination, Training Ordered
09/22/2011 $37,000 Settlement in Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
09/21/2011 $43,500 Settlement in Religious Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
09/19/2011 National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge Rules on First Case Involving Termination Due to Facebook Postings
08/31/2011 $86,000 Settlement in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit, Training Ordered
08/24/2011 $3 Million Settlement by 3M to Settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
08/17/2011 $210,000 Settlement in Race and National Origin Harassment Lawsuit Against NYU
08/16/2011 $35,000 Decree in Disability Discrimination Suit, Training Ordered
08/10/2011 $50,000 Settlement in Age Bias and Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
08/01/2011 $225,000 Settlement in Sex Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuit Against Plastics Company
07/28/2011 $335,000 Settlement in Age Discrimination Lawsuit Against Property Management Corporation
07/25/2011 $1 Million Settlement in Age Discrimination Lawsuit Against Cavalier Telephone, Training Ordered
07/22/2011 $900,000 Settlement in Sex Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
07/19/2011 $80,000 Settlement in Racial Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
07/15/2011 $20 Million Settlement by Verizon in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
06/24/2011 $77,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Suit, Training Ordered
06/23/2011 $100,000 in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit For Termination Based on Perceived Disability, Training Ordered
06/16/2011 $2 million Settlement in Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Sonic Drive-In, Training Ordered
06/10/2011 $35,000 Settlement in Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
06/09/2011 $101,000 to be Paid by Veterinary Center for Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment and Retaliation, Training Ordered
06/06/2011 $40,000 to Settle Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against ACT Teleconferencing Services, Training Ordered
06/03/2011 $55,000 Settlement to Settle Disability Discrimination Suit, Training Ordered
06/03/2011 $60,000 to be Paid by Chrysler in Retaliation Lawsuit, Training Ordered
06/02/2011 $50,000 to Settle Age Discrimination Suit Against Dillard's
05/31/2011 $535,000 Settlement in EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit, Training Ordered
05/30/2011 $188,000 Settlement Against Hyundai Ideal Electric Company for Sex Bias and Retaliation, Training Ordered
05/26/2011 $150,000 Settlement by Fisher Nut Company in EEOC Retaliation Case, Training Ordered
05/18/2011 $87,500 Settlement for Retaliation Case, Training Ordered
05/17/2011 $10,000 Settlement in Pregnancy Discrimination Suit, Training Ordered
05/03/2011 Restaurant Settles EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit, Training Ordered
11/01/2010 GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $750 Million to Resolve Criminal and Civil Liability Regarding Manufacturing Deficiencies at Puerto Rico Plant -- Includes Whistleblower Claim
09/22/2010 Hospice Provider To Pay $50,000 To Settle EEOC Suit For National Origin Discrimination, Retaliation
04/15/2009 Race Bias Suit Settled for $495,000


Username: *

Password: *
Accept terms *
Login failed.
copyright 2000 - 2022 Curtis Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. | Access to the HR Care publications is subject to certain terms and conditions.
Learn about our online compliance training at www.hrclassroom.com