What's New:

Upcoming Events:

  • TBA

In the News

EEOC Sues Paycom for Disability Discrimination

07/01/2026

Federal suit alleges software company fired employee rather than providing reasonable accommodation for a food allergy

OKLAHOMA CITY — Paycom Payroll, LLC, an Oklahoma software company specializing in payroll and human capital software, violated federal law when it failed to provide effective reasonable accommodations to an employee with a life‑threatening food allergy and fired her instead, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.

The EEOC’s suit said that shortly after being hired, an employee with a severe allergy repeatedly suffered anaphylactic reactions from exposure to food brought in by coworkers. Although she promptly informed supervisors and human resources of her condition and submitted medical documentation recommending she work in a secluded space or from home, Paycom provided only limited temporary workspace adjustments which failed to provide an effective accommodation. It did not notify nearby employees to avoid bringing the allergen to the workspace and declined to allow her to work remotely despite having established policies permitting the practice.

The employee continued to experience multiple allergic reactions — including two requiring ambulance transport to the hospital — when exposed to food in nearby breakrooms and hallways. The day after her most severe reaction in June 2024, the company terminated her, stating it could not accommodate her disability, according to the EEOC’s complaint.

“Employers have a legal obligation to explore and provide reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities — especially when the potential consequences of inaction are life-threatening,” said Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District. “No employee should be forced to choose between their health and their livelihood.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires the accommodation of disabilities absent undue hardship, and prohibits employers from discharging an employee because of their disability or because they requested an accommodation. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Paycom Payroll, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01622-R) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

David S. Davis, director of the EEOC’s St. Louis District, said, “Federal law requires employers to engage in an interactive process and consider reasonable solutions. The EEOC will continue to enforce protections ensuring that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from the workplace because of unsupported assumptions or insufficient effort.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

EEOC Sues Buc-ee’s, Ltd. for Disability Discrimination

05/26/2026

Federal lawsuit says travel center refused reasonable accommodation for cashier with myasthenia gravis, then fired him

AUSTIN, Texas — Buc-ee’s, Ltd., a travel center retailer with locations throughout Texas and in 10 other states, violated federal law when it denied a disabled employee reasonable accommodations and subsequently terminated him, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a Buc-ee’s cashier in Bastrop, Texas requested a reasonable accommodation in October 2024 for physician-imposed restrictions related to his disability, myasthenia gravis, a chronic neuromuscular condition. Among the accommodations he requested was to have seating available at his workstation so that he could avoid standing continuously for more than 15 minutes at a time and regain his stamina after standing. But Buc-ee’s denied the cashier’s request, requiring that he stand continuously, and eventually the company fired him after he was unable to return to work due to denial of his accommodation request, the EEOC charged.

“All too often, employers run afoul of their duty under federal law to provide reasonable accommodations because of inflexible thinking, unwarranted assumptions, and failure to seek technical assistance that is available, often at little or no cost,” said acting EEOC Dallas Regional Attorney Ronald L. Phillips. “Compliance with disability law begins with having the right mindset – a genuine desire to help your workers, listening to their concerns, and being open to new ideas and technical assistance are keys to avoiding liability.”

The type of conduct alleged in the EEOC’s complaint violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for workers’ disabilities unless doing so would cause an undue hardship on the business. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Buc-ee’s, Ltd., Case No. 1:26-CV-0139) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

“Employers must understand that disability accommodations are not optional suggestions; they are legal obligations.” said EEOC San Antonio Field Office Director Norma Guzman. “When employees come forward asking for support that allows them to do their jobs, employers must act diligently and in good faith. Rejecting those requests without legal justification doesn’t just break the law, it harms workers’ economic security and ultimately damages the employers themselves through loss of experienced workers and reduction of employee morale and productivity.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

A G Equipment to Pay $4.25 Million to Settle EEOC Discrimination Charges Over COVID Vaccine-Related Mandate

05/18/2026

Oklahoma-based manufacturer settles federal suit alleging religious and disability-based discrimination after mass firing of unvaccinated employees

TULSA, Okla. — A G Equipment Company, a Broken Arrow, Oklahoma compressor packaging manufacturer, will pay $4,250,000 to over 40 workers and provide other relief to settle a religious and disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, in the fall of 2021, A G Equipment mandated that all employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination and told workers no exemptions would be permitted for any reason. Nonetheless, several employees requested exemptions based on their religious beliefs. One worker supplemented their request with a doctor’s note requesting an exemption due to a medical condition. The company refused to discuss the employees’ requests and fired all individuals who did not provide proof of vaccination, on Oct. 15, 2021, including workers who requested accommodations.

“When these workers asked for a simple religious accommodation, the company didn’t pause to listen or even consider the impact,” said Patrick J. Holman, trial attorney for the EEOC’s Oklahoma City Area Office. “It fired every one of them outright — without a conversation and without any real inquiry into whether granting an accommodation would have caused the business any hardship at all. This is unlawful as well as unfair.”

EEOC Chair Andrea R. Lucas said, “Where an accommodation can be provided without undue hardship, the law requires it — the pandemic did not exempt employers from their legal obligations under Title VII and the ADA. The EEOC under my leadership will continue to hold employers accountable, deliver meaningful results, and restore dignity to American workers harmed by widespread COVID-19 vaccine–related civil rights violations.”

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibit religious and disability-based discrimination. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC, et al., v. A G Equipment Company, Case No. 24-cv-00403-SEH) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

In addition to providing $4.25 million in monetary relief for 43 workers who were fired because they were unvaccinated, the three-year consent decree resolving the suit enjoins A G Equipment from discriminating based on religion or disability in the future. The decree also requires the company to train managers in compliance with Title VII and the ADA; inform employees regarding their right to reasonable accommodation for religion and disability; and report to the EEOC about handling future accommodation requests.

“The EEOC is committed to ensuring that workers receive the religious and disability accommodations they are entitled to,” said David S. Davis, district director of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office. “Our doors are open to serve American workers.”

For more information on religious and disability-based discrimination, please visit www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination and www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-disability-related-resources.

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Opens Disability Discrimination Investigation into Texas School District

05/08/2026

Public schools are required – to the maximum extent appropriate – to ensure that children with disabilities are educated alongside their nondisabled peers and to follow specific procedures when making placement decisions about how and where children with disabilities are educated. Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened an investigation into the Houston Independent School District (the District) in Houston, Texas to determine whether the District violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by not following these requirements, and are thereby discriminating against students with disabilities.   

The District is allegedly centralizing certain special education services and proposing to separate students with disabilities from the larger student population beginning in the 2026-27 school year, despite parental concerns that their children should be in general education classrooms where their social skills improve more significantly around their peers. Parents have also expressed concerns that longer transportation times to the proposed specialty schools would be challenging for children with medical and behavioral needs. 

“Schools cannot exclude students with disabilities simply because of their disability status. Placement decisions must be made individually, based on each student’s needs, rather than by blanket policies that segregate students by disability category,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “The allegations described here are alarming. The Trump Administration will fully investigate this situation and fight to ensure every child with a disability receives the education and support guaranteed under the law.”

EEOC Sues St. Vincent Hospital for Disability Discrimination

03/31/2026

Federal lawsuit claims medical center refused to accommodate worker and then fired her because of her disability

SANTA FE, N.M. – St. Vincent Hospital, a medical facility operating Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center (CSV) in Santa Fe, violated federal law by failing to accommodate an employee with a disability and firing her because of her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, in or around 2021, a long-term employee of CSV fractured her foot and tore tendons in her ankle. After returning from medical leave and working light duty in a patient care position for months, the employee requested reassignment as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Although a vacant receptionist position in which the employee could perform with her restrictions existed, CSV did not reassign her. Instead, CSV fired the employee and stated in its termination letter that she would not be eligible for rehire until she was “fully recovered” or had “a release for full duty.”

“Policies or practices requiring an employee with a disability to be fully recovered or to return to work at full duty levels violate the ADA,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “Employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, absent undue hardship, including reassignment to an open position.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to reasonably accommodate qualified employees with disabilities and includes reassignment to a vacant position as a possible accommodation. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. St. Vincent Hospital d/b/a Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, Case No. 1:26-cv-00968) in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

“Requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations is a crucial part of the ADA and allows employees with disabilities to successfully participate in the workforce,” said EEOC Phoenix District Director Melinda Caraballo. “When an employee can no longer perform the essential duties of her current job due to a disability, reassignment to a vacant position should be considered as an accommodation under the ADA.”

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

EEOC Sues Kroger for Firing Employee with Disability After Stripping Her Of Existing Accommodation

03/30/2026

Federal lawsuit charges that grocery store terminated employee with neuropathy after denying access to previously settled accommodation

HOUSTON – Kroger Texas L.P. – Houston Division, operator of Kroger grocery store #300 in Houston’s Clear Lake/NASA area, violated federal employment law when it failed to accommodate and then fired an employee because of her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed last week.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that a self-service checkout attendant suffering from neuropathy, who for three preceding years worked successfully using a walker, was stripped of that reasonable accommodation by new management. The employee’s neuropathy limited her ability to walk and move, and her feet went numb if she was required to stand for too long.

Kroger’s new management failed to interact with the employee to determine if the previously granted accommodation was reasonable or if another was potentially available. Instead, management told her to seek leave – which she did not want or need – until she could return to work without an accommodation. The employee was terminated by Kroger when she could not support a need for leave with medical documentation, according to the suit.

“Disability discrimination in the workplace, which includes failure to accommodate and discharge because of disability, will not be tolerated by the EEOC,” said Rayford Irvin, director of the EEOC’s Houston District Office. “We encourage any employee who believes they have been the victim of workplace discrimination based on disability to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their disabilities, including denying such individuals a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, and firing them because they need an accommodation. The EEOC filed suit (U.S. EEOC v. Kroger Texas L.P. – Houston Division, Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-02448) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“An employer, in consultation with an employee facing a disability, must consider whether an accommodation is reasonable,” EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Claudia Molina said. “Revoking a previously granted reasonable accommodation can violate the ADA.”

In the lawsuit, the EEOC seeks back pay and instatement or front pay for the aggrieved employee, plus compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined at trial. In addition, the EEOC is seeking a permanent injunction enjoining Kroger from engaging in disability discrimination in the future, and an order requiring Kroger to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which govern requesting, processing and granting reasonable accommodations for disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of Kroger’s alleged discriminatory employment practices.

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma to Pay $90,000 in EEOC Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

02/20/2026

Medical practice settles federal lawsuit charging medical assistant was denied reasonable accommodations during high-risk pregnancy

OKLAHOMA CITY – Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc., a medical practice that operates five clinics employing two dozen physicians in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Missouri, will pay $90,000 and furnish other relief to settle a pregnancy and disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, in 2023, Urologic Specialists denied reasonable accommodations to a medical assistant at its Tulsa facility during the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy. Rather than allow the medical assistant to sit, take short breaks, or work part-time, as recommended by her doctor to protect her health and safety, the medical practice forced her to take unpaid leave, refused to guarantee her job when she returned to work following the birth of her child, and refused to guarantee that it would provide breaks for her to express breast milk. When the assistant stated she could not return to work without those guaranteed breaks, Urologic Specialists fired her.

“Federal law provides robust protections for pregnant women and new mothers in the workplace,” said Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District. “Employers must follow the law, train their supervisors, and ensure that they provide required accommodations to women who are pregnant or have pregnancy-related disabilities.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Americas with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibit pregnancy and disability discrimination. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-00452-JFJ) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

“The EEOC vigorously protects pregnant women in the workplace,” said David S. Davis, district director of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office. “The EEOC is committed to ensuring that expectant and new mothers will not be denied equal employment opportunities because of pregnancy.”

In addition to the required monetary relief, the four-year consent decree settling the suit obligates Urologic Specialists to designate personnel tasked with ensuring compliance with the PWFA and ADA going forward, adopt strong policies and procedures for the provision of reasonable accommodations for pregnant or disabled employees, and train supervisors and other employees. The decree also requires Urologic Specialists to adopt and use a system to track and maintain all requests for pregnancy or disability accommodations, post a notice to employees about their federal right to be free from pregnancy and disability discrimination, and report periodically to the EEOC.

Joshua C. Stockton, lead EEOC trial attorney, said, “The PWFA’s requirements are simple and fair. The policies and procedures required by this decree are a model that all employers should follow to ensure that pregnant women are never forced to choose between their jobs and their health and safety.”

For more information about pregnancy discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination