Your Top Destination for Human Resources Compliance Knowledge

What happened?

The EEOC’s suit charged that the company intentionally violated federal law by engaging in a long-standing pattern of refusing to hire female laborers at one of its plants. This potentially impacted thousands of women, according to the EEOC.

Hiring compliance problems allegedly began in 2006 when the company purchased the plant. Through late 2022, the company intentionally hired only men for laborer positions and converted showers and locker rooms to male-only facilities.

When the company began outsourcing its labor staffing to third-party agencies, it directed them to refer only male applicants even when qualified female candidates were available.

The lawsuit also alleged that the company’s discriminatory practices continued even after the EEOC investigated a whistleblower complaint made by a long-tenured employee who was terminated for telling the truth about its hiring practice. The EEOC previously settled the whistleblower’s retaliation case for $90,000.

More than just a fine

Under the 3-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, the company will not only pay $2.6 million in monetary damages to compensate women who were denied employment, it must also:

• Hire a Title VII coordinator
• Provide mandatory anti-discrimination training to its managers and employees
• Notify all staffing agencies it works with not to comply with any discriminatory requests, and
• Post a notice to employees about the settlement and how to report any future discrimination.

Staffing agencies dinged, too

The EEOC also fined the two staffing agencies that went along with the company’s illegal hiring scheme. Although the fines were substantially lower for the agencies, chances are they’re on the EEOC’s radar now, as well.

‘Why can’t we just hire men?’

This might’ve been the question company leaders asked prior to the EEOC lawsuit. And, in RARE cases an employer can consider sex when hiring. Sex can be considered where it’s a bona fide requirement. For example, an employer looking to hire models for women’s clothing wouldn’t need to consider male applicants.

But for anyone wondering why the recycling plant couldn’t only hire men, here’s the reason:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law enforced by the EEOC. The law prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics, like:

• Race
• Color
• Religion
• Sex
• National origin

Title VII says it’s illegal to discriminate based on protected categories (like sex) in any aspect of employment, like:

• Hiring and firing;
• Compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
• Transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
• Job advertisements;
• Recruitment;
• Testing;
• Use of company facilities;
• Training and apprenticeship programs;
• Fringe benefits;
• Pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
• Other terms and conditions of employment.

While that’s a long list of rules, it’s a lot easier to digest than a $2.6 million fine.

Key to remember: Costly lessons in a hiring discrimination case can be a “don’t do what we did” moment for other employers wondering why they can’t hire only men.

Paid vacation

On August 6, several senators introduced a bill that would require employers to provide paid annual time off to employees. The measure would cover employers with one or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding year.

Under the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act, employees would accrue at least 1 hour of paid annual time off for every 25 hours worked, for up to 2 weeks of paid vacation. It wouldn’t, however, run concurrently with leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

If the Act is passed into law, employees could use the paid time off for any reason (other than FMLA leave), while being paid at their standard rate of pay.

The law would also protect workers against discrimination for exercising their rights under the Act.

I-PLAN

Other members of Congress are also interested in paid leave, but under a different format.

On July 16, several senators introduced bipartisan legislation, the More Paid Leave for More Americans Act.

If passed into law, the measure would establish a competitive 3-year pilot grant program, administered by the Department of Labor, to states that enact a paid leave program meeting the following requirements:

• Provides a minimum of 6 weeks of leave for any qualifying reason (parental, medical, or caregiving);
• Is delivered by the state in partnership with a private entity, such as an insurance company or benefits administrator;
• Provides, depending on earnings, a minimum of 50–67 percent wage replacement, with benefits capped at 150 percent of the state’s average weekly wage; and
• Establish the Interstate Paid Leave Action Network (I-PLAN) to coordinate and harmonize paid leave benefits across participating states. This would benefit employers, states, and employees by facilitating streamlined benefit delivery and reducing administrative burdens.

States would receive a conforming grant between $1.5 and $8 million annually to participate in “good faith” in the I-PLAN.

States would also be eligible for implementation grants of between $1.5 and $8 million annually to help with costs associated with aligning their state paid leave program with the I-PLAN requirements, including administrative costs, technology, staffing and training, and outreach.

No need to worry yet

These bills have a slim chance of being enacted, but they illustrate a continuing effort on the part of Congressional members to change the way employers treat employee time off.

Key to remember: Members of Congress introduced two bills that would require employers to give employees paid time off.

The story

Angela began working for the company in 2018. Part of her job included setting up and operating equipment The job description indicated that she had to stand for up to 12 hours, bend over, turn, pull, squat, walk, and lift at least 25 pounds overhead.

In late April 2021, Angela slipped at work. A few days later, she went to the emergency room for ongoing back pain and was diagnosed with muscle spasms and possible sciatica. At a follow-up appointment the next week, her doctor cleared her to return to work without restrictions.

In June, however, Angela came to work with a doctor’s note requesting that she be allowed to sit occasionally due to her sciatica flare-ups.

The employer provided this accommodation for several months. Despite this temporary accommodation, the employer viewed its standing requirement as particularly important for the position.

The employer then requested an updated doctor’s note and held a meeting with Angela. In mid-September, she provided a doctor’s note that stated she could work while sitting but couldn’t crawl under equipment; it didn’t indicate that she could work while standing.

Then, in early October, Angela met with HR to discuss the status of her restrictions and accommodations. Because of Angela’s inability to stand for an extended period, the employer placed her on medical leave following the meeting.

Later in October, while on leave, Angela submitted an updated doctor’s note that stated: “Angela needs to be able to sit down immediately after standing to change paper. She cannot crawl around on the floor.” This note indicated that these restrictions were permanent. The employer fired her in January, after Angela exhausted her 12 weeks of leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

The claim and ruling

Angela sued, claiming the employer violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that standing wasn’t really an essential job function.

The court said that determining the essential functions of a job is a fact-intensive issue. It considered factors such as the employer’s judgment, the written job description prepared before interviewing applicants, the consequence of not requiring the plaintiff to perform the functions, and the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.

The job description showed that the position required standing during the entire 12-hour shift.

The court also said that employers don’t admit that a job function isn’t essential simply by voluntarily providing a temporary accommodation.

In ruling for the employer to have the case thrown out, the court held that the physical requirements identified in the job description were essential, and because Angela couldn’t perform them, she wasn’t qualified.

Kendall v. Zoltek Corporation, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1411, May 18, 2026.

Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws and seeking advice when needed.

Key to remember: Employers get to determine a job’s essential functions, and having them clearly identified in a written job description can help defend them.

Is menopause an FMLA-qualifying condition?

The FMLA doesn’t have a list of conditions or symptoms that entitle eligible employees to FMLA leave. Employers must consider whether a condition meets the law’s definition of a serious health condition. That information can be gathered when employers ask for a certification supporting leave.

An FMLA serious health condition is an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider.

Inpatient care generally refers to an overnight stay in a health care facility (like a hospital).

A menopause-related serious health condition involving continuing treatment can include the following:

• A period of incapacity of more than 3 consecutive, full calendar days, and any subsequent treatment.
• Any period of incapacity (or treatment for) a chronic serious health condition requiring treatment at least twice per year and continuing over an extended period of time. These may cause episodic rather than continuing periods of incapacity.
• A period of incapacity for a permanent or long-term condition in which treatment may not be effective.
• Any period of absence to receive multiple treatments or a condition that would likely result in a period of incapacity of more than 3 consecutive, full calendar days in the absence of treatment.

Given the wide variety of menopause symptoms and their severity, an employee who’s incapacitated by them would be entitled to take FMLA leave. Menopause isn’t a diagnosis, but a life stage. It could, however, lead to chronic conditions, such as anxiety or depression, hormonal therapy side effects, insomnia, mood swings, and cognitive changes, such as difficulty concentrating or memory lapses.

An employee may also take FMLA leave to care for a family member (such as a spouse) who’s suffering from menopause issues or is seeking medical treatment to curb the symptoms.

Key to remember: Employees aren’t automatically entitled to FMLA leave for menopause but can be if their symptoms are severe.