Latest news with #U.S.EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Cincinnati police officers sue city, chief alleging bias against White lieutenants
Several high-ranking Cincinnati police officers are suing the city and Police Chief Teresa Theetge on claims the department's leadership is discriminating against White lieutenants in making assignment decisions. The lawsuit, filed on May 19 in federal court in Cincinnati, alleges the city and Theetge discriminated against Capt. Robert Wilson and lieutenants Patrick Caton, Gerald Hodges and Andrew Mitchell by favoring women and persons of color for preferred assignments. The officers say they were skipped over for such assignments, which are generally regarded within the department as career-enhancing and include benefits like take-home cars and additional overtime opportunities. More: Cincinnati expands youth events in effort to engage teens and reduce violence 'The city and Chief Theetge have actively and systemically undertaken efforts to promote, advance, and make promotion and assignment decisions that are preferable to women and minorities, and to the exclusion of White men,' the lawsuit states. Cincinnati spokeswoman Mollie Lair said the city doesn't comment on pending litigation. A spokesperson for the Cincinnati Police Department also declined to comment. The lawsuit is seeking a jury trial and damages, including lost wages and benefits, as well as a court order halting the department's alleged discriminatory assignment practices. According to the lawsuit, while most of the department's lieutenants are White men, women and officers of color were given preferred assignments at higher rates. The civil complaint also cites several instances in which White male lieutenants, whom the lawsuit labels as better qualified, were passed over due to race and gender considerations. In one instance, a district commander requested that Hodges be assigned as the district's investigative lieutenant; however, Theetge chose a Black female officer for the role, the lawsuit states. The officers filed discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2023. They were notified in February of their right to sue. Since Theetge was elevated to the role of chief, 'there has been significant discrimination directed against White males regarding these assignments,' the officers wrote in their EEOC complaints. The lawsuit also claims that a race-based quota system was used to promote women and non-White officers to the rank of lieutenant, with the department's leadership continuing to make assignment decisions based solely on race and gender. A federal judge ruled in 2021 that the department could no longer use race- or sex-based goals in hiring or when awarding promotions. Those goals were related to a consent decree from 1981 that was intended to address discrimination against Black people and women in both hiring as well as promotions. This isn't the first time White officers have filed suit against the department over alleged discriminatory behavior. Earlier this year, the city paid a $95,000 settlement to a White police officer who sued over comments about White people made by her supervisor and colleagues. In 2021, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed by two White Cincinnati police officers who alleged a Black lieutenant was 'vindictive and openly racist.' The officers said the lieutenant discriminated against them and created a hostile work environment based on race and sex. Enquirer staff writer Kevin Grasha contributed. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: White Cincinnati police officers sue city, chief alleging racial bias
Newsweek
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Judge Strikes Down Rule Requiring Employers to Give Time Off for Abortions
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A federal judge in Louisiana struck down a key provision of a regulation that required U.S. employers to provide workplace accommodations for abortions, marking a significant win for conservative lawmakers and religious groups opposed to expanding abortion-related protections. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge David Joseph ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its authority when it included abortion under the list of pregnancy-related conditions in its implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The emblem of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is shown on a podium in Vail, Colorado, Feb. 16, 2016, in Denver. The emblem of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is shown on a podium in Vail, Colorado, Feb. 16, 2016, in Denver. Associated Press The PWFA, passed in December 2022 with broad bipartisan support, was designed to strengthen protections for pregnant workers by requiring employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical needs. However, when the EEOC released its rules earlier this year—including abortion as a covered condition—it ignited backlash from Republican lawmakers and sparked lawsuits. In his decision, Judge Joseph wrote that had Congress intended to include abortion, "it would have spoken clearly," especially given the sensitive and contentious nature of abortion in American society. The case was brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, along with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University, and two Catholic dioceses. Judge Joseph, appointed by President Donald Trump, sided with plaintiffs who argued that including abortion intruded upon states' rights and exceeded the scope of the statute. "The EEOC has exceeded its statutory authority to implement the PWFA and, in doing so, both unlawfully expropriated the authority of Congress and encroached upon the sovereignty of the Plaintiff States under basic principles of federalism," he wrote. The ruling invalidates only the section of the EEOC's regulation related to abortion; the broader protections for pregnant workers remain intact. The original intent of the law was to close a long-standing gap in workplace protections that left many pregnant employees—especially those in low-wage jobs—without accommodations for medical needs. While the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act bans firing workers for being pregnant, it does not require accommodations, leading many to work in unsafe conditions or take unpaid leave. Advocates condemned the ruling as a setback for reproductive rights. "This court's decision to deny workers reasonable accommodations for abortion-related needs is part of a broader attack on women's rights and reproductive freedom," said Inimai Chettiar, president of A Better Balance, the advocacy group that led efforts to pass the PWFA. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, meanwhile, celebrated the outcome, calling it "a win for Louisiana and for life." The decision comes amid broader upheaval at the EEOC, where Trump recently dismissed two Democratic commissioners, eliminating the agency's quorum. His nominee, Brittany Panuccio, awaits Senate confirmation. Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, who opposed the abortion provision, has vowed to revise the rules once the agency regains a voting majority. This article contains reporting by The Associated Press.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
This week in 5 numbers: Workers are staying put
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. More than half of workers said they didn't apply to any jobs last year, and foreign job seeker interest in U.S. roles is dropping. Here's a look at those and some of the other numbers making headlines in the HR world. By the numbers 10 The number of former U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and U.S. Department of Labor officials who published a statement questioning President Donald Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to stop enforcement of disparate-impact liability. 29% The amount foreign job seeker interest in U.S. jobs — as determined by the share of job ad clicks from other countries — has dropped in the past year, according to an Indeed report. 54% The percentage of full-time salaried employees who said they didn't apply for any jobs in 2024, according to a BambooHR report. 59% The percentage of workers who said they think their benefits are modern, compared to 86% of employers, according to the results of Prudential's 2025 Benefits and Beyond study. $4,400 The maximum annual amount individual employees may contribute to health savings accounts while enrolled in a high-deductible health plan for 2026, up slightly from $4,300 in 2025, per IRS said.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Morton Salt to pay $75K for unfair treatment of laborer at Rittman facility because he was Black, disabled
[Learn more about federal anti-discrimination laws in the player above.] CLEVELAND (WJW) — Morton Salt has been ordered to pay $75,000 to settle a retaliation and discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for discriminating against a Black worker. The commission found the company unfairly treated, then improperly fired, a laborer at its Rittman facility because he was Black and disabled, and because he had lodged a discrimination complaint, according to a Tuesday news release from the commission. Cleveland Clinic to soon require copays up front The commission handed down a two-year consent decree through which the company must give the worker $15,000 in back pay and benefits and $60,000 in compensation for his damages and also train employees on the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protect against such discrimination. The complaint was filed in September 2024, federal court records show. It alleged the man was mentored by a white employee who had a reported history dating back years of using racial and gender-specific slurs. That worker was terminated in June 2019 for creating a hostile work environment, but was reinstated a little more than a week later. Morton hired the complainant in May 2022. During a training in July 2022, he reportedly endured racially charged comments from the trainer, which were reported to human resources soon after. A high-level manager named in the complaint chose not to investigate, and no action was taken, according to the complaint. The very next day, the complainant received an 'unsatisfactory' evaluation from a supervisor alleging attendance issues and referencing an 'altercation' with his trainer. The commission deemed it to be unlawful retaliation. The following August, the complainant claimed someone had tampered with his vehicle's brakes, believing it was done by the trainer or someone supporting him, according to the complaint. He requested security footage from the company, which was never provided. The next day, the complainant was involuntarily transferred to another work area. NFL commissioner met with governor, Browns owners on proposed enclosed stadium: I-Team Later that month, the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation notified Morton Salt that the complainant was scheduled for an independent examination to determine whether he had permanent partial impairment due to injuries he suffered at a previous job. The complainant's supervisor, in an email that day to a manager, 'expressed concerns or reservations' about the man continuing to work at Morton Salt in light of his impairment, according to the complaint. Morton Salt fired the complainant the following September. After learning he had complained to the EEOC, executives opted not to reinstate him. Morton Salt manufactures and distributes salt at more than 20 facilities across the country, including in Lake and Wayne counties, according to the complaint — the latter of which is where the Rittman facility is located. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
San Francisco Chronicle
12-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Civil rights agency moves to fire judge fighting Trump directives
The federal agency tasked with protecting workers' civil rights has moved to terminate a New York administrative judge who has resisted compliance with directives from the White House, including President Donald Trump's executive order decreeing male and female as two 'immutable' sexes. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response to Trump's order has moved to drop at least seven of its own pending cases representing transgender workers alleging discrimination, and is classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, signaling a major departure from its prior interpretation of civil rights law. EEOC Administrative Judge Karen Ortiz, who in February criticized the agency's Trump-appointed head, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, in an email copied to more than 1,000 colleagues, on Wednesday was placed on administrative leave. She also received notice that the EEOC leadership sought to fire her, accusing her of 'profoundly unprofessional' conduct. 'Of particular concern, your February email was ultimately circulated to multiple press outlets, potentially resulting in significant reputational harm to the agency," according to the notice, which included a PDF of a March 10 article by The Associated Press on Ortiz along with other materials. An EEOC spokesperson said on Monday that the agency had no comment on Ortiz's termination proceedings. Ortiz may reply to the dismissal notice within 15 days, and has the right to request a time extension, an attorney, a union representative, or another representative of her choosing, according to the document, which was acquired by The AP. 'This proposed action does not pertain to the content of your disagreement with the Agency policy, but rather the disrespectful and disparaging manner in which you have conveyed your message,' the notice reads. A final decision will be issued after the reply period has passed. In her February mass-email criticizing the agency's efforts to comply with Trump's order, Ortiz wrote to Lucas that 'You are not fit to be our chair much less hold a license to practice law,' adding: 'I will not compromise my ethics and my duty to uphold the law.' The letter was leaked on Reddit, where it gained more than 10,000 'upvotes.' Many users cheered its author. The EEOC subsequently revoked her email privileges for about a week and issued her a written reprimand for 'discourteous conduct.' Ortiz's actions were cited in an April 18 White House proposal aimed to make it easier to fire some federal workers. It listed Ortiz as an example of bureaucrats who 'use the protections the system gives them to oppose presidential policies and impose their own preferences." Ortiz said she was unphased after being called out by the nation's highest office. Trump 'just gave me an even bigger platform,' she said in an April 19 message to The AP. Since February, Ortiz said she has continued to 'raise the alarm' and convey her opposition to the agency's actions, including in an April 24 email to Lucas and several other internal email groups with the subject line, 'If You're Seeking Power, Here's Power' and a link to Tears for Fears' 1985 hit 'Everybody Wants to Rule the World.' 'Take in the lyrics,' Ortiz wrote to Lucas. 'Ponder what you're allowing yourself to be a part of.' Ortiz said she plans to fight the termination, and is strategizing with her attorneys and union on how best to respond. 'I've been quite the thorn in the agency's side,' she said Monday in a phone interview with The AP. 'But, you know, it's warranted.' ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
