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 still some instability and fluctuation with the (attempted) changes in federal labor and employment law, so check with us or another employment lawyer before taking any action based on something in our posts.
The post on Sunday 7/13/2025 said that ditched by Trump’s EEOC, job applicant advances bias lawsuit against Sheetz. The agency said it would drop the lawsuit because it no longer aligned with the president’s executive order ending enforcement targeting disparate-impact discrimination (something that is becoming more and more common now). Let’s look at the facts and procedural history here.
The EEOC had filed a class-action lawsuit in April 2024 suit alleging that gas station chain Sheetz disproportionately screened out Black, Native American, Alaskan Native and multiracial applicants in violation of Title VII. The EEOC alleged that there was a disparate impact as noted in the post (and linked press release). Despite having initiated the suit, the EEOC recently (June 5) moved to have the case dismissed because it determined that the disparate-impact claims that it had brought would conflict with Trump’s April 23rd EO directing agencies to cease enforcement of such claims.
But the EEOC did leave the door ajar, asking the court to defer dismissal for 60 days to allow the commission to notify class members so that they could obtain private representation. And now one Black class member did just that, moving to continue his case after EEOC abandonment of it.
As noted in many, many of our prior posts, the legality of the EO on disparate-impact claims proved contentious, with one of the EEOC’s own administrative judges called the order “highly illegal”. But the EEOC’s June 5 filing in federal court in the Western District of Pennsylvania is one of the first examples in which the order has been put into practice.
What Trump said about the end of disparate-impact liability enforcement is in the post. And not surprisingly, the push to end disparate-impact liability is one of the goals stated by the conservative Heritage Foundation in its “Project 2025” presidential transition document (with what is said also being in the post). Of course, that “logic” was been countered by many former officials from the U.S. Department of Labor and EEOC; what they said is in the post (and see our post of Sat. 5/3/2025 by way of example). Those former officials even issued a caution to employers: again, see the post and our prior posts (and Sat. 5/3/2025 for example).
The law firm which is partly representing the job applicant in the Sheetz case said that the EEOC had spent nearly a decade investigating the claims at issue and had found a basis to allege evidence of systemic discrimination. The firm’s statement is in the post.
A dynamic similar to what happened in this case played out following the EEOC’s abandonment of several suits it filed on behalf of transgender workers alleging discrimination following an EO from Trump (a link to that is in the post). Advocacy groups have since filed to intervene in those cases on behalf of the plaintiffs there.
TAKEAWAY: It is difficult when a federal agency changes its enforcement policies and priorities based on a presidential order, not a statute or court decision – employers (and employees) now must sometimes swing into the wind to keep challenges or defenses alive. This is definitely the environment where you need an employment lawyer.
The post on Monday 7/14/2025 told us that after 4 years, worker may proceed with claim Dave Ramsey’s The Lamp Group fired her for pregnancy out of wedlock. A federal judge reopened this case involving a worker who was allegedly fired for having premarital sex after previously ruling in favor of the defendants four years ago. Let’s take a closer look.
The unmarried plaintiff claimed in 2021 that she was fired after becoming pregnant due to Lampo Group’s alleged policy prohibiting employees from engaging in premarital sex. She alleged violations of laws including Title VII and state law on the bases noted in the post.
The court initially dismissed the Title VII and state law claims, holding that the plaintiff’s disagreement with Lampo Group’s policy was insufficient to prove discrimination. She filed a motion to reconsider in 2024 after a decision by the related appellate court (which decision is linked in the post). The trial court granted her motion.
The court’s decision involves a long discussion on the nature of the plaintiff’s religious beliefs and whether they in fact conflicted with Lampo Group’s employee conduct policies. The wording of the policy, why the judge initially dismissed the case, and why it the dismissal was then reconsidered and vacated is all in the post.
An interesting note is that the appellate decision this plaintiff referred to in her motion to reconsider the dismissal was issued in a different case brought against the Lampo Group. More on that is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employment lawyers always have their eyes and ears to the ground, especially when it comes to their client’s cases; keep your lawyer close by.
The bonus post on Monday 7/14/2025 was an EEOC reminder that owners cannot dodge liability ‘simply by closing a business’. That warning came as part of a settlement of a lawsuit which we will look at more closely.
The lawsuit was filed against the owner of Western-themed Starlite Station bar and dance hall. The suit alleged that the owner and his mother, a co-owner, were individually liable because they both used the company for their own personal interests (as detailed in the post). ’Murica LLC closed in November 2021 and has not operated or had employees since then. Because of the alleged misappropriation of funds, the EEOC argued it could “reach beyond the closed bar and satisfy any judgment with the two owners’ personal assets,” (i.e., pierce the corporate veil).
According to the complaint, the owner of Starlite Station, a “country restaurant, dancehall, and bar,” allegedly made sexual comments about female applicants, such as stating that they were “too ugly” to be hired or that he had already had sex with them. And (sadly) there’s more the owner did – see the post.
The EEOC also alleged that the company retaliated against workers who complained or spoke out against the owner’s conduct by firing or threatening to discipline them. And as before, that’s not all – the post notes what else the company did by way of retaliation.
As part of the 5-year consent decree (settlement), ’Murica LLC and its owners agreed to pay $100,000 and provide the non-monetary relief listed in the post.
The EEOC reminded owners that “This case demonstrates why owners should not think that they can escape liability simply by closing a business and filing retaliatory defamation lawsuits in an attempt to silence victims.” More of the statement is also in the post. The consent decree also included the facts that
TAKEAWAY: Owners should be careful of what they do (or do not do if applicable); they could have personal liability in some situations. Again, contact an employment lawyer.
The post on Tuesday 7/15/2025 might scare you: the EEOC acting chair said EEOC is NOT independent and may follow White House directives. Read on – she said different things at the same time during her confirmation hearing.
Andrea Lucas told senators recently that the EEOC continues to accept transgender workers’ discrimination charges despite exiting some lawsuits. She also said during her confirmation hearing that the EEOC is not an independent agency and may follow a presidential order to take up or dismiss a charge filed against an employer if that order is lawful.
Lucas spoke in response to questions from Democratic lawmakers. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., asked Lucas if she believed that the EEOC is an independent agency. Murray cited a 2021 X post by Lucas (described in the post) contradicting Lucas’ response. How did Lucas justify the two opposite statements (besides blind fealty to trump)? See the post.
And then during a later exchange with Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., Lucas again confirmed her belief that EEOC is not independent. See her quote in the post. The EEOC’s status as an independent federal agency has been recognized by authorities including the US Dept. of Labor on its website (to which there is a link in the post). But Lucas tried to back down from that and asserted something different as to the EEOC’s status and jurisdiction. See the post for what she said.
In what now looks to be prescient questioning, Kim then asked Lucas if the EEOC’s status meant that the White House could direct the EEOC to dismiss a case or to decide a case before the agency in a certain way. Lucas said she was unable to state whether Trump had asked EEOC to do so under her leadership but that the agency could comply with lawful orders from the president. Lucas then kowtowed to the president and his directives – also see the post for what she said in that regard.
The confirmation hearing followed a series of decisions by the EEOC (linked in the post) to pull back from discrimination lawsuits it had previously filed on behalf of transgender and nonbinary workers alleging gender identity discrimination. Murray referenced one of the cases (linked in the post) and asked Lucas whether she had approved that dismissal. Lucas’ response is in the post along with the basis of the response.
Interestingly, Lucas then said that the EEOC would continue to accept such charges (even though she just admitted that it could not take any enforcement action based on the corner into which it was now backed).
Later, in response to a question by Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., Lucas did confirm that transgender and nonbinary employees are protected from unlawful termination in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. But Lucas declined to comment on reports as to how the EEOC designated such suits – see the post for more. (But given what Lucas previously said about enforcement in this area, it seems likely the report is correct.)
And what about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ames where it found in favor of a straight female former employee as to the burden of proof required of a member of a majority in alleging discrimination (see our posts of Sun. 6/29/2025, Mon. 6/30/2025 and Tues. 7/1/2025 for more on Ames). Lucas said the decision bolstered the EEOC’s longstanding position on the matter. How she explained it is also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: we noted earlier in this blog that it is difficult when a federal agency changes its enforcement policies and priorities based on a presidential order and that employers now must sometimes swing into the wind to keep defenses alive. Lucas’s statements on how she will run the EEOC (either as continuing acting chair or if confirmed) certainly bear that out.
The post on Wednesday 7/16/2025 noted that one year after fireworks mishap causes clubhouse fire, residents complain of lack of repairs. What would you do if you lived in this association?
A year ago fireworks ignited a massive fire that destroyed the clubhouse and pool area in the Wilson Preserve community. But frustrated residents say the damaged pool area remains and they’re demanding answers.
On July 4, 2024, the County Fire Rescue responded to a fire caused by mishandled fireworks. The flames quickly engulfed the small community clubhouse and adjacent pool area.
Sylvia Johnson, who lives in the neighborhood, said residents expected repairs to begin promptly, but a year later, the damage remains untouched, and weathered yellow caution tape is tied around a metal fence to keep people out of the area. How Johnson said that has affected the properties is in the post.
Johnson also said that Folio Association Management, the company handling the neighborhood’s homeowner’s association, has not communicated clear plans or timelines for reconstruction. Her quote on this is also in the post. And that is a year after the damage …
Attempts to reach Folio Association Management and the HOA representative for comment were unsuccessful. Johnson also talked of plans by some residents to move this along – see the post.
TAKEAWAY: This situation might be at the interplay of insurance coverage and vendor ability to provide labor and materials for repairs, but there should be communication as to that, not silence.
In the post on Thursday 7/17/2025, we read that appeals court held condo operators owe $58K in short-term rental suit. The facts here might seem drastic, but may not be uncommon given the prevalence of short-term rentals in community associations. Let’s take a closer look.
Robert and Amber Thompson owned three units at Spader Bay Condominiums and routinely rented them out to third parties through their own property manager. When the Spader Bay association adopted new rules to govern short-term rentals in 2019, the Thompsons refused to comply. As in many community associations nationwide, the rules were adopted as the condo sought to cope with an influx of renters through AirBnB, VRBO and similar online services. What the policy provides is detailed in the post (and does not seem unreasonable). But the Thompsons wouldn’t sign the new rental agreement and otherwise refused to comply with the policy, going so far as to tell their renters not to communicate with Spader Bay’s rental manager but instead to check in with their personal rental manager.
Enough was enough and the association sued. In 2022 the trial court found in the association’s favor. What he ordered by way of relief is in the post. The Thompsons paid some of what was ordered but appealed other aspects of the ruling. The state appeals court upheld the trial court in a ruling issued July 10.
TAKEAWAY: Short-term rental restrictions in community associations are common and owners who had been receiving (substantial) income have become upset. Facts vary and, as such, so have the resulting court decisions. Consult a community association lawyer with questions in this legal area.
The post on Friday 7/18/2025 noted discount store Ollies can’t dodge lawsuit for quid pro quo sexual harassment scheduling scheme. Let’s see what this is all about.
Court documents show that the plaintiff had a neurological condition that prevented her from accurately assessing social situations. She told her mother that her manager was flirting with her; what the mother did is in the post. Shortly after that, the employer cut her hours. Then when a co-worker sexually harassed her, the plaintiff wrote a letter detailing his conduct to her direct supervisor and a manager at another Ollie’s location, but allegedly, nothing was done. Oh but there’s more, ugly more – see the post. Eventually suit was filed.
The lawsuit, Leavines v. Ollie’s Bargain Outlet, Inc., alleged quid pro quo sexual harassment (what that means is in the post) and retaliation for complaining. What the employer told the court by way of defense is in the post. A judge however, was not persuaded and let the suit move forward.
Quid pro quo cases are prevalent. Lawyers have often emphasized the importance of documentation when it comes to investigating harassment complaints along with the other things mentioned in the post.
UPDATE: The parties in Leavines v. Ollie’s Bargain Outlet, Inc. reached a settlement after mediation on June 23, 2025.
TAKEAWAY: Managers must be trained in what they can and cannot do; their actions can result in liability by your business.
Finally, in the post yesterday 7/19/2025, we saw ‘impossible’ PIP revives age bias lawsuit against Caterpillar. The plaintiff had already won an age-discrimination jury verdict against the company years before. But they go another round …
The decision noted that Murphy had previously won an age-discrimination jury verdict against Caterpillar after allegedly being passed over for a promotion. The parties settled and Caterpillar reinstated him and agreed not to retaliate against him. Fast forward … Years later, Caterpillar allegedly presented Murphy with a PIP in which one of the plan’s deadlines had already passed, indicating that he had already violated the plan. What Murphy requested, and what his supervisors did, is in the post. Murphy sued for age discrimination and retaliation. The trial court ruled in favor of granted summary judgment for Caterpillar, but in mid-June the appellate court reversed on the age discrimination claim only, holding that the PIP supported a reasonable inference of discriminatory pretext. The court found that Murphy demonstrated that the PIP that preceded his firing was “impossible” to complete successfully.
What the ADEA provides is in the post along with how Murphy fits into that scheme. The court said that the fact that Murphy was technically in violation of the PIP before even agreeing to sign was an oddity that could not be explained away as an oversight. The inference the court said a jury could draw from that is discussed in the post.
Citing to a prior decision, the court wrote that “the handwriting may not have been on the wall, but it was certainly etched into the signature block of the action plan, and the axe was poised to fall because [the plaintiff] was already in breach of the plan’s terms.”
Caterpillar offered several justifications for the PIP as well as the termination decision. Those are noted in the post along with the facts in the record that under those defenses.
The post also mentions other age discrimination suits, including large settlements, and the prevalence of same in the workplace.
TAKEAWAY: Employers should not discriminate on the basis of age; employers should also not assert a defense that is cut off at the knees by their own employees’ words or actions or documents. An employment lawyer can help you.