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 in federal labor and employment law, so check with us or another employment lawyer before taking action based on something in our posts.
The post on Sunday 8/10/2025 told us Texas Roadhouse hit with civil rights complaint alleging DEI discrimination in hiring practices.
Author’s query: what provides standing for the plaintiff to bring this suit?
In this case, America First Legal (AFL), a conservative legal group, filed a civil rights charge with the EEOC against the Texas Roadhouse restaurant chain, alleging that it illegally discriminates by using DEI, gender and racial demographic criteria in its hiring practices. In its charge AFL alleged that Texas Roadhouse used race and gender as factors in determining who should be appointed to its Board of Directors and for the other things listed in the post, all of which are alleged to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In its 2024 10-K annual report (linked in the post), Texas Roadhouse said that it is committed to “attracting, retaining, engaging, recognizing, and developing a workforce that mirrors the diversity of our guests.” It also provided a chart breaking down the percentages of employees and managers who were women or people of color.
AFL’s charge also alleges that because of increased pressure from the government and investors to disclose its Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) targets (including those related to DEI efforts), Texas Roadhouse is exposing itself to reputational risk as well as the threat of potential litigation. What the charge said as to that is in the post.
Does Texas Roadhouse’s 2024 sustainability report (also linked in the post) support AFL’s charge? The report notes that the company takes into consideration DEI factors such as gender and race – along with other factors such as Board experience and financial acumen – when determining nominees to its Board of Directors. There is also other information in that report that AFL uses to support its charge – see the post. AFL’s statement as to that is in the post.
DEI initiatives have been in retreat in corporate America since President Trump returned to office earlier this year. Trump signed a flurry of executive orders starting on his first day back in the Oval Office. By way of example, see our posts of Sun. 2/23/2025, Thurs. 3/6/2025, Tues. 3/6/2025, and Mon. 3/17/2025.
Companies like Disney, Paramount and Facebook have all rolled back or eliminated their DEI programs entirely. Other companies, such as Costco and Apple, have resisted activist shareholder pressure to reform or eliminate their DEI initiatives. Crackel Barrel, another restaurant chain, is also facing an AFL civil rights complaint over its DEI policies. What that complaint alleges is in the post.
Texas Roadhouse did not respond to media’s request for comment.
TAKEAWAY: It’s not just the administration gunning for DEI, it’s some in the private sector too.
The post on Monday 8/11/2025 noted federal court holds that intervening events do not erase retaliation claims. Employers beware.
On July 25, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Finley v. Kraft Heinz Inc., reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to an employer in a retaliation case. Even though the case considered only a narrow claim for retaliation under the Food Safety Modernization Act, its reasoning may well have ramifications far beyond that for employers facing retaliation claims under federal or state whistleblower laws.
Finley alleged that he was fired after repeatedly raising concerns about leaking packaging and bone fragments in Heinz’s production of bacon. The frequency of his complaints increased over time and culminated with a complaint on March 12, 2020. Fourteen days later, Heinz fired him. Like many other whistleblower laws, the statute at issue required Finley to show that his complaints were a contributing factor to the adverse action. How that burden of proof compares to other contexts such as Title VII is noted in the post.
Heinz moved for summary judgment, arguing that Finley was fired for an intervening act (that Finley had signed the termination form for one of his employees on March 12 but failed to inform the employee, who continued to work until March 24, and when HR asked him about the situation, Finley allegedly falsely claimed that he had walked her out and deactivated her badge). Heinz said it terminated Finley for this alleged dishonesty.
At the trial court level, it was found that the intervening act broke the chain of causation. The appellate court did not agree. What that court said an intervening event is not is in the post. Rather, the court said that intervening events should be considered in conjunction with other evidence of causation. When viewing the evidence in the case as a whole, the Circuit Court concluded that summary judgment was improper on the bases detailed in the post. The court therefore determined that a jury must ultimately decide if Finley’s “dishonesty” was the sole reason for termination or instead whether his internal complaints contributed to the decision.
Employers (even those outside of the Fourth Circuit) should use this as a roadmap in case it is their case that will be used by another appellate court to follow this road. An “intervening event” may not be a get-out-of-jail free card when firing a chronic complainer. To the contrary, it will be just another fact to be weighed against all others when assessing whether the plaintiff (former) employee can show causation.
TAKEAWAY: Before terminating an employee with a history of complaints, employers should carefully assess the basis for termination, especially whether they would terminate if the employee had not complained, and discuss the situation with an employment lawyer to an extra layer of potential risk avoidance.
The post on Tuesday 8/12/2025 explained that Water District deals with overdue dues dustup. Interesting – and perhaps based on definitions in applicable statute or the HOA Governing Documents.
We’ll pay the homeowners association dues. But that’s it, the Water Improvement District board concluded at its July 24 meeting. The board hopes that a compromise will settle a longstanding dispute with the Strawberry Hollow Homeowners Association.
The District’s attorney said that the District doesn’t have to pay HOA dues at all since it owns a “tract” not a buildable lot. [Query: is this where the statues and definitions come in?] But the board concluded they’d like to get along with the neighbors and pay up – at least to a point.
The dispute with the HOA dates all the way back to 2010 when the District bought a well in the subdivision. The HOA asked the District to pay the $718 annual dues. The District paid the dues until 2015. But at that point, the District stopped getting an annual bill and the payments stopped. Recently the HOA contacted the District and asked it to start making annual payments again, including $1,435 to catch up on the last two years. Did the District agree? Sort of. See the post.
Board members thought there should be additional considerations. Those too are in the post. And then there is the District’s attorney who said that legally the District not only doesn’t have to pay special assessments – it doesn’t really have to pay the dues. What else he said is in the post.
The board ultimately voted to authorize payment of the back dues and the annual dues going forward, but it put a condition on that. See the post.
NOTE: there is a link to listen to the article if you prefer.
TAKEAWAY: Sometimes an issue will arise as to whether assessments are legally due – contact a community association lawyer.
The post on Wednesday 8/13/2025 told us lawsuit claims Mayo Clinic discriminated against worker’s religion by requiring COVID19 vaccine. Look at the facts.
A recently-filed federal lawsuit by the EEOC claims that the Mayo refused to grant a security guard’s 2021 request for an exemption to Mayo’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, citing his Pentecostal faith. What the employee told the Mayo relative to the vaccine is in the post. But it rejected the exemption request and allegedly threatened to fire the employee. The effect as alleged by the EEOC is noted in the post.
Mayo declined to provide comment due to the pending litigation. But the EEOC had a comment, through EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas. See the post.
The lawsuit alleges that the security guard explained the basis of his religious beliefs and even offered to test for COVID-19 and wear a mask rather than get the vaccine, but Mayo did not believe his religious beliefs were sincere.
The EEOC says it initially attempted to reach a settlement with Mayo before filing the lawsuit in federal court. What the EEOC seeks by way of damages is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: The law requires that employers reasonably accommodate the sincerely-held religious beliefs of employees – it is not easy to show that beliefs are not sincerely held.
In the post on Thursday 8/14/2025, we learned that the EEOC seeks summary judgment in manager’s discrimination case against the agency. Facts matter.
In its motion, the EEOC said a decision to pass over the plaintiff for a promotion was “consistent” with typical practice. But does that make it legal? Let’s take a closer look.
The EEOC asked a federal court to grant it summary judgment in an enforcement manager’s gender, race and national-origin discrimination lawsuit. The manager had filed a complaint against the EEOC in 2024 (which is linked in the post), alleging she was passed over for a promotion to field director of the agency’s New Orleans field office in favor of a US-born male employee with less experience. The plaintiff’s characteristics are in the post.
As part of its filing, the EEOC filed a document with supporting facts, including that three out of four members of an interview panel ranked the plaintiff the lowest out of three candidates on a 100-point scale. Other facts related to the panel’s scoring are in the post. The selecting official then followed the panel’s scoring as “consistent with his typical practice.” More details on the panelists’ scoring and on what the selecting official based the hiring decision also are in the post.
Kantan v. Burrows is unusual – the suit claims that the EEOC, which is supposed to enforce workplace anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII and the ADA, discriminated against one of its own employees on the basis of her protected characteristics. The suit does not agree with the EEOC’s position, but rather alleges contrary facts supporting discrimination – see the post.
Kantan is not the first time that EEOC has faced litigation from its own employees. In 2023 it settled a suit by a former Black female employee, the allegations in which are noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: The EEOC is not immune from suit; as a defendant employer it too must come forward with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to support the adverse action taken against the employee (and hope that there is nothing showing that reason to be merely pretextual).
The post on Friday 8/15/2025 explained Zurich challenges condo board insurance coverage in court battle. Know what your D&O policy does and does not cover.
Zurich is a heavyweight insurer; it is asking a federal court to decide if it’s on the hook for defending a condo board at the center of a bitter dispute over alleged mismanagement. On August 5th Zurich American Insurance Company filed suit seeking a ruling that it has no obligation to cover or defend several former board members of the Sherrin Square Condominium Association. The issue is whether Zurich’s policy extends to a raft of claims from condo owners who say the board’s actions left them out of pocket. Zurich stepped in as the successor to Assurance Company of America for its Precision Portfolio Policy, effective from November 1, 2011 to January 1, 2013 and the coverage under that policy is at issue.
Details about the underlying lawsuit (by whom filed, against whom filed, and the claims) are in the post. Zurich does not want to defend the suit and, in its recently filed suit, argues that its policy does not cover every dispute that might arise in the life of a condo association. Rather, what it says is covered is in the policy itself (as noted in the post). Zurich says that much of what is alleged in the underlying complaint occurred after the policy was cancelled or are specifically excluded from coverage (such as those things itemized in the post).
Zurich’s suit emphasizes that its Precision Portfolio Policy was crafted to address specific risks tied to condo association management — and not to serve as a catch-all for every possible grievance. Zurich wants the court to declare that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify the former board members against the owners’ claims in the underlying suit.
Nothing has yet been decided in Zurich’s suit. More pleadings are to come – including any argument to be made by the association and former board members (the insureds under the policy at issue). And what might determine the outcome? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: Insurance coverage is important to the association and directors and officers – make sure what is covered and the timing of that coverage vis a vis any claims to be made. Have your community association lawyer weigh in.
Finally, in the post yesterday 8/16/2025, we learned the EEOC targets two restaurants for sexual harassment on same day in line with 2025 priorities. Let’s get more details.
In a class-action suit filed July 14, the EEOC alleges that since at least November 2021, male cooks at Boss Man Tacos in Highland, Indiana, subjected female employees, many of whom were servers in their teams, to sexual harassment. The complaint alleges that male cooks, including the head chef, allegedly trapped female employees in restrooms and walk-in refrigerators and groped them while making lewd gestures. But that’s not all; alleged actions they took in front of the owners are also detailed in the post. The owners allegedly scoffed at the employees and dismissed their company out of hand (never a good thing for an employer to do!). The suit alleges that one owner told an employee in reference to a co-worker’s harassment against her that the behavior was “just how teenage boys are” — even though the harassers were adult men — and more as noted in the post. The EEOC sued for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (on the bases noted in the post).
Interestingly, on July 30, the same day the EEOC announced the Boss Man Taco lawsuit, it also announced a similar suit against Scalo Restaurant in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The EEOC alleges in that suit that two male managers at Scalo allegedly touched female employees and made vulgar comments (including those noted in the post). The suit further alleges that one manager reduced an employee’s hours and offered to give her more if she had sex with him. There are similarities between the two suits – see the post for what Scalo also allegedly did not do that it should have. A statement issued by the EEOC when it filed the Scalo suit is in the post.
Since her appointment by the new administration in January, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas has made it a priority to clamp down on businesses that allegedly perpetuate sexual harassment against female employees. A press conference in May talked about what the agency had done and recovered in the 120 days between January and May; details on that (including a settlement with Walmart) are in the post.
The still-intact portion of EEOC guidance on workplace harassment (to which a link is in the post) explains that under Title VII, an employer’s liability for sexual harassment depends on the harasser’s role. An example is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Train your employees (especially managers) on what constitutes harassment – and discipline them (up to and including termination) if they put your business at risk by discriminating against or harassing other employees.