Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: there is continued instability and fluctuation with the (attempted) changes in federal labor and employment law resulting from executive orders (EOs) and court decisions, so check with us or another employment lawyer before taking any action based on something in our posts.
The post on Sunday 6/8/2025 told us Meathead Movers has fought age discrimination lawsuit for years. Now it has new tactic. (This is an odd case – look at the facts here …)
When he received an unassuming notice from a federal agency in November 2017 (during the first Trump Administration!), Meathead Movers CEO Aaron Steed did not know the trouble that was about to arrive on his doorstep. What he said about that moment is in the post. And now, nearly a decade and $1.5 million in legal fees later, Steed is still embroiled in messy litigation with the EEOC which claims that Meathead Movers discriminated against older workers with its “student-athlete” messaging. The EEOC is requesting the business pay $15 million. So now Steed is turning to social media in hopes that he can get his case in front of “someone with power.”
Steed posted a VID to his personal Instagram on February 20 – a link to it, with his message, is in the post. Prior to that his Instagram bio had read “being sued by the EEOC for absolutely nothing — gov’t overreach.” He says his company has never done anything wrong – and he wants everyone to know it. SO let’s go back in time and see where this all started.
Meathead Movers was founded by brothers Aaron and Evan Steed in 1997. It was a way to earn extra dough as high school students. They charged $20 and a pizza — or whatever customers felt was appropriate — and soon had recruited a bevy of friends to assist in their moving. Today the business spans seven locations across California; how it markets itself is in the post. Over the years it has racked up an impressive array of small-business accolades including numerous appearances on Inc. magazine’s list of the 5,000 fastest growing companies in the US. In 2011 the business was even recognized by the Obama administration as one of 100 companies that impact the economy and inspire young entrepreneurs to start their own businesses. But then just a few years later the notice of an impending employment discrimination investigation flipped the entire company on its head.
S0 why is Meathead Movers being sued? The November 22, 2017, notice from the EEOC was relatively brief – two pages. It noted that the EEOC was conducting an investigation into the business to determine its compliance with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The letter noted what the AFEA does (see the post). The notice did not include details about any complaints of discrimination.
A separate notice provided to the media elaborated slightly on the allegations against Meathead Movers, noting that the charge of employment discrimination had been filed by the then-director of the EEOC’s Fresno Field Office. Some contents from that letter are in the post. That kickstarted a years-long investigation into Meathead Movers’ hiring practices, specifically its focus on predominately hiring “student athletes” and whether it discriminated against qualified employees over the age of 40.
Then came a letter dated Aug. 22, 2019 wherein the EEOC said that its investigation had concluded. It also provided a conclusion – see the post. Then in 2023 (yes, 4 years later!) the EEOC instituted suit alleging that the company had failed to recruit and hire applicants over 40 for its moving, packing and customer service positions. What it said Meathead Movers did instead is in the post. And the EEOC’s LA District Director also issued a press release shortly after suit was filed – see the post for that too.
As part of the suit, the EEOC sought a permanent injunction to prevent the company from discriminating by age in its hiring and marketing practices. It also requested back pay and damages to a class of qualified aggrieved individuals age 40 and over adversely affected by the discrimination. How much that worked out to per class member, not including damages, is in the post. Steed’s attorney said the EEOC had previously estimated there would be about 500 class members who could seek back pay and damages; the total potential cost to the company is calculated as in the post.
The EEOC put a post on its website related to the suit – what it said is in the post. The EEOC did not response to requests for comment about the suit.
From Day 1, Steed has maintained that his business did nothing wrong. What he said about the company’s hiring practices is in the post (and makes sense). Would he hire someone over age 40? See his detailed response in the post. Steed thinks its just a “rogue federal agency” coming after a small business. And he may be partially correct since it is unusual for the EEOC to initiate an investigation on its own rather than a charge being brought by a member of the public. In fact, the EEOC’s website notes the annual percentage of its charge volume represented by “directed investigations” – see the post. And cases that lead to lawsuits are even more rare; the number of suits based on a directed investigation that were filed between 2014 and 2024 is also on the EEOC website (and in the post).
Steed noted what seems to be a large problem with the case – and for him – see the post.
The lawsuit is currently making its way through preliminary court procedure and is scheduled to go to trial in 2026. But Steed is hoping he can find a way to stop what has proven to be a lengthy and costly process for the company. Soon after President Donald Trump took office (again) in January, Steed took to his Instagram to post his first update on the litigation. (Again, see the post). And he’s had other VIDs posted on Insta and X since then demanding attention to the suit. Ther is also more socmed activity – see the post.
Interestingly, since Steed started speaking out about the issue (which is a publicly filed suit) online, he’s also been sent a cease-and-desist letter from the EEOC. See the post for more on that. Steed has also enlisted the support of local business leaders to help advocate against the EEOC’s allegations.
The Tri-County Chamber Alliance wrote a letter in support of Meathead Movers on April 21 – who it represents and what it says (at least in part) is in the post.
Steed’s attitude about the case now, after all these years? Yep, see the post.
TAKEAWAY: As noted, it is very unusual for the EEOC to investigate, and even more unusual for it to file suit, without an external (public) charge. What remains to be seen is if this will go to trial, the outcome, and how much the EEOC will be required to reimburse Meathead for attorneys’ fees and costs if the verdict goes against the EEOC.
The post on Monday 6/9/2025 explained the ADA does not excuse disruptive employee behavior but may require accommodations to help avoid outbursts.
There appears to have been an unusual spike in situations involving legal claims associated with discipline or discharge of employees who engage in threatening or disruptive behavior in the workplace. When disciplined for such behavior, employees typically retain legal counsel who then threaten the employer with claims based on the employee’s alleged disability. In some cases, the employee alleges that a mental disability caused the behavior, and in others the employee claims that their actions were the result of side effects or withdrawal from medication used to treat the disabling medical condition.
The employee may well have the condition noted by their counsel. But case law about and regulations under the ADA make clear that employers do not have to excuse or ignore significant violations of their conduct policies even if such behavior is caused by an underlying disability. One example of what an employer need not do is in the post.
On the other hand, the ADA may require employers to implement accommodations needed to prevent those outbursts from occurring in the first place. If the employee provides advance notice of potential behavioral issues associated with a medical condition, the employer should work with the employee to determine if there are measures that can be taken to avoid such behavior. An example of the type of accommodation that might be offered is in the post.
And if the employee continues to display aggressive or disruptive behavior despite the accommodations, the employer need not ignore or excuse the occurrences. The fact that the employee provided advance notice of the potential for such behavior does not provide him or her with carte blanche to violate the employer’s conduct policy.
And what if the employee did not disclose a potential medical issue prior to receiving discipline for behavioral misconduct? See the post for the employer’s accommodation obligation.
TAKEAWAY: Know if, when and how you are required to accommodate employees in the performance of their essential duties. Talk to an employment lawyer.
The post on Tuesday 6/10/2025 explained neighborhood frustrated after fight for mail service – big issue in some condo/homeowner associations.
People living in the Mathom Landing community say getting their mail is a toss-up. Broken mailboxes have left them chasing answers, and their mail, for over a year. One resident, Amber, said she feels helpless after spending months being bounced around between the US Postal Service (USPS) and the homeowner’s association (HOA). What she said about that is in the post. She also called the District Attorney and the Attorney General before reaching out to the media.
Amber and her neighbor, Angela Garcia, said their mail has been rerouted to the nearest post office, delayed, and even lost. And a sign now hangs above the broken mailboxes, encouraging residents to buy a P.O. box, noting that mail for broken boxes will be returned to the Post Office or the sender. Amber had a good question: see the post.
A lockless gate stands in front of the mailboxes, along with security cameras, meant to protect them after previous break-ins. Mailbox panels behind it have bent and broken doors, but Amber said she was told mail carriers may have to start filling the slots anyway.
The media reached out to both the USPS and the HOA for comment. Both sent statements. USPS shifted responsibility to the HOA (see the post) and the HOA said that they are working on bids to replace all of the boxes. But that doesn’t help the people in the middle – what Amber and Angela said is in the post. The HOA did not provide to the media a timeline when requested.
Both the full statement from the USPS and that for the HOA (through its management company) are in the post. The HOA statement contains some facts that are becoming more common in community associations around the country.
TAKEAWAY: Condo and HOA boards are responsible for maintenance of common property, including, if applicable, mailbox clusters). But what happens if there is no Board? Talk to a community association lawyer.
The post on Wednesday 6/11/2025 alerted that the EEOC may have a quorum soon: 4 things employers can expect. It is so important to be prepared …
As noted in our post of Sun. 5/25/2025, the Administration nominated Brittany Bull Panuccio to the spot on the EEOC that has been vacant since Keith Sonderling’s term expired last December. (In case you were wondering, Mr. Sonderling, another Trump appointee, is now Assistant Secretary of Labor.)
Ms. Panuccio received her undergraduate and law degrees from Northwestern University and after one year in private practice worked for the US government, primarily with the Department of Education under then-Secretary Betsy DeVos. She also worked with the Trump Administration on the Supreme Court nomination of then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. She is currently an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Florida.
Although it isn’t clear whether Ms. Panuccio has employment law experience, she does have civil rights experience, having been involved in putting together the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulations. See the post for more on that.
Let’s come full circle. If Ms. Panuccio is confirmed, the overarching big deal is that the five-member EEOC will have three members and therefore a quorum, this time with a Republican majority. Remember that at the beginning of this year, the EEOC had four members: Chair Charlotte Burrows, Jocelyn Samuels, and Kalpana Kotagal – all Democrats – and Andrea Lucas, a Republican. Shortly after he took office, President Trump appointed Ms. Lucas as Acting Chair and fired Ms. Burrows and Ms. Samuels, leaving only two Commissioners and no more quorum. Ms. Samuels has filed suit over the termination (see our post of Sun. 4/20/2025) but Ms. Burrows has not. Ms. Panuccio’s confirmation will allow the EEOC to issue guidance and regulations – and to rescind Biden-era guidance and regulations.
So if Ms. Panuccio is confirmed, there are (at least) four things employers can expect from the new EEOC:
No. 1: Complete or partial repeal of the regulations issued last summer under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Or at least some parts – see the post. See our post of Sun. 5/4/2025 for more on this.
No. 2: Aggressive stance against Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs where distinctions are based on race, sex, or another characteristic protected under the federal anti-discrimination laws. (Acting) Chair Lucas has already made her opinion clear on this. How she views DEI programs is in the post.
No. 3: More aggressive enforcement against employers who discriminate based on religion or fail to accommodate religion, and more interest than before in protecting employees who are discriminated against because they are Christian or Jewish. This is playing out in somewhat related ways in DOJ’s actions against colleges and universities.
No. 4: No more pronoun enforcement and less-aggressive stance on gender identity. The EEOC is bound by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (a redux is in the post), which means the EEOC can’t just thumb its nose at the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court didn’t address pronouns so the EEOC potentially has more latitude there. But even as to gender identity (under Bostock), the EEOC can and is expected to lighten up on enforcement. Contrast that with the prior Administration (as noted in the post) and then tickle January 2029 for the next potential change in enforcement.
No. 5 (BONUS): A less aggressive stance (if any) on disparate impact claims. This has nothing to do with Ms. Panuccio’s potential confirmation, but rather Trumps’ Executive Order that essentially directs the federal government not to enforce disparate impact claims. For more on that, see our posts of Sat. 5/10/2025 and Sat. 5/3/2025. So while the EEOC probably will show little to no enforcement activity in this area, private plaintiffs are still free to pursue these claims.
TAKEAWAY: More of the see-saw that has become daily life in the employment law world.Keep in touch with your employment lawyer to know what the EEOC is now or will prioritize once it obtains a quorum.
In the post on Thursday 6/12/2025, we saw that auto auctioneer settles EEOC suit alleging that Black worker was called racial slur up to 15x per day. Just look at the facts!
A regional attorney for the EEOC reminded employers on May 14 that managers are responsible for ensuring workplace compliance with the Civil Rights Act. The statement is in the post. The statement referenced a recent settlement and consent decree entered into by the EEOC in which Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc. (IAAI), a vehicle auctioneer, must pay a Black worker $175,000 to settle a racial harassment violation of Title VII. The breakdown of that amount between emotional distress, pain and suffering and additional wages is in the post.
The complaint alleges that the employee plaintiff was continually called the N-word by a co-worker, despite the worker’s opposition to it. That would allegedly happen up to 15 times a day; other colleagues would gang up on the charging party and join in. And to make matters worse, the general manager was allegedly aware of the conduct.
The EEOC filed suit on Sept. 30, 2024, alleging that the employer subjected the worker to “racial harassment resulting in constructive discharge.” The consent decree requires monetary payment but also has non-monetary terms. Those are detailed in the post.
From the statement issued by the EEOC, it appears that IAAI changed owners during the pendency of the suit. See the post. IAAI did not respond to request for comment.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t treat any employee differently based on a protected characteristic. And train your managers to stop any such behavior of they see or hear about it. Save yourself and your business the eventual cost …
The post on Friday 6/13/2025 noted Judge dismisses HOA parking lawsuit – what the municipality giveth, it apparently can taketh away.
A civil lawsuit filed against the Town of Payson over new parking spaces on Phoenix Street has been dismissed. The Boulder Creek Property Owners Association (Association”) sued the Town after it installed more than two dozen parking spots at the end of Phoenix Street, near several popular hiking and biking trails. The Town moved to have the case dismissed on March 5. The Judge granted the motion and dismissed the complaint two months later.
The Boulders Loop Trailhead, located at the end of Phoenix Street, is part of the Payson Area Trails System and attracts hikers and mountain bikers year-round. As trail use increased and more homes were built in the area, tensions rose between homeowners and trail users over limited parking. What happened in 2022 and 2023 is detailed in the post. And then in April 2024 the Association filed suit. Let’s go back a bit.
In 2004, the Association’s streets were dedicated for public use (meaning the municipality took them over). One parcel, Tract A—located between Phoenix Street and the Tonto National Forest—was set aside for development. In 2006, the Town amended the plat for Tract A to allow public pedestrian, equestrian and nonmotorized access to the national forest. That same year, the Association adopted covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) that prohibited on-street parking. A year later, the Trail System adopted a uniform development code (UDC) which also restricted on-street parking in certain zoning districts (including Boulder Creek). What the court said was the basis of the Association’s claim, and why it failed, is in the post.
The Judge acknowledged the frustration of the Association but ultimately found no wrongdoing by the Town. The ruling’s conclusion is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Municipalities are not bound by what community associations might do – but the converse is not true. Be conscious of local and state ordinances/law as they affect your community. A community association lawyer can help.
Finally, in the post yesterday 6/14/2025, we saw that Starbucks union workers strike over dress code changes. Yes, many people don’t like their uniform, but this appears to go deeper.
Baristas at more than 50 Starbucks cafes walked off the job over the chain’s more restrictive clothing requirements because they say the changes deviate from agreements made at the bargaining table. Let’s dive deeper …
Starbucks Workers United members walked off the job to protest unilateral changes to Starbucks’ dress code. The changes were announced in April and implemented more recently. What are the changes? See the post.
The union also filed an amendment to an unfair labor charge (with the NLRB) alleging that the dress code changes “materially differed from both the status quo and what the parties had tentatively agreed to at the bargaining table.”
And is this the end? No. It is expected that more barista walkouts are likely. How one union member and shift supervisor from Hanover, Maryland characterized the dress code changes is in the post. But her statement is partially incorrect as also noted in the post.
Starbucks framed the recent dress code changes using a similar explanation to that it has employed about in-store aesthetics, ceramic coffee mugs and condiment bars since CEO Brian Niccol took the helm last year and pledged to bring the brand back to its coffeehouse roots. See the post for that explanation (and decide for yourself if it holds water).
You may recall that the relationship between Starbuck and the union has soured since late last year. In early 2024, the union and Starbucks announced a framework agreement for resolving outstanding litigation and began to meet for new bargaining sessions. Then there were public statements by Starbucks that it hoped to have a contract hammered out by the end of 2024. But then came mid-December 2024 – see the post for what happened.
How a Starbucks spokesperson described the walkouts, continuing operations, and dress code effect is also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers are free to impose dress codes as long as there is no intent to illegally discriminate – which will be a fact-intensive question. Run your dress code by your employment lawyer to ensure legal compliance.