Federal Regulatory Agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal regulatory agencies ranging from the Securities Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Featured Stories
Tucoemas Federal Credit Union Settles EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit for $450,000
FRESNO, California, Dec. 13 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:* * *
- Senior Female Employees Were Passed Over for Credit Union's Top Job in Favor of a Younger, Male Applicant, Federal Agency Charged
* * *
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the resolution of a sex, age and retaliatory discrimination lawsuit against Tulare County-based Tucoemas Federal Credit Union. The credit union has agreed to pay $450,000, along with certain injunctive relief, to resolve the complaint.
According to the EEOC, Tucoemas failed to ... Show Full Article FRESNO, California, Dec. 13 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release: * * * - Senior Female Employees Were Passed Over for Credit Union's Top Job in Favor of a Younger, Male Applicant, Federal Agency Charged * * * The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the resolution of a sex, age and retaliatory discrimination lawsuit against Tulare County-based Tucoemas Federal Credit Union. The credit union has agreed to pay $450,000, along with certain injunctive relief, to resolve the complaint. According to the EEOC, Tucoemas failed tohire three qualified internal female applicants over the age of 50 and instead hired a younger male applicant with no prior credit union experience. The charge further claims the company retaliated against two of the female employees after they filed complaints with the EEOC, constructively forcing one employee to quit and firing another.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 17 (EEOC v. Tucoemas Federal Credit Union, 1:19-cv-00896-AWI-SKO) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation agreement through its conciliation process.
In addition to monetary relief, the three-year consent decree, which sunsets at the end of the second year and remains under the court's jurisdiction during the term, includes injunctive relief intended to prevent workplace discrimination and retaliation in the future. Tucoemas has agreed to: retain an external equal employment opportunity consultant to monitor compliance with Title VII, ADEA, and the decree; review and if necessary revise policies and procedures against all discrimination and retaliation prohibited by Title VII and the ADEA; provide training to all employees on sex and age discrimination and retaliation; and establish a centralized tracking system for recruitment, hiring, promotions, terminations, and sex and age discrimination complaints, along with the monitoring of such complaints to prevent retaliation. The EEOC will monitor compliance with this agreement.
"We commend Tucoemas for its commitment to Title VII and the ADEA and for implementing measures that will have a positive impact on applicants and employees," said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District, which includes Fresno in its jurisdiction. "We encourage other employers to follow the lead of Tucoemas and review their hiring policies and practices to ensure they are in compliance with federal law."
Melissa Barrios, director of the EEOC's Fresno local office, added, "Retaliation can chill a workforce from coming forward and reporting illegal behavior. We are encouraged that Tucoemas has taken the allegations seriously and has agreed to measures that will benefit the workplace."
Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, especially class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate against racial, ethnic and religious groups, older workers, gender, and people with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the Commission's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at http://www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates. (https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USEEOC/subscriber/new)
SEC Issues Administrative Law Judges Order Involving Mark Feathers
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission's Administrative Law Judges issued the following order (File No. 3-15755) involving Mark Feathers:In the Matter of Mark Feathers
Order Following Prehearing Conference
I held a telephonic prehearing conference on December 10, 2019, at which the parties and I discussed scheduling and other prehearing matters.
Generally, a respondent who wishes to obtain a copy of a prehearing or hearing transcript must purchase it from the court reporting company. 17 C.F.R. Sec. 201.302(b). The reporting contract allows a respondent in an administrative ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission's Administrative Law Judges issued the following order (File No. 3-15755) involving Mark Feathers: In the Matter of Mark Feathers Order Following Prehearing Conference I held a telephonic prehearing conference on December 10, 2019, at which the parties and I discussed scheduling and other prehearing matters. Generally, a respondent who wishes to obtain a copy of a prehearing or hearing transcript must purchase it from the court reporting company. 17 C.F.R. Sec. 201.302(b). The reporting contract allows a respondent in an administrativeproceeding to obtain a free copy of the transcript if the
respondent is indigent. If Respondent wishes to assert an inability to pay for a transcript, he should file a Form D-A (model disclosure of assets and financial information form) by December 31 , 2019. The form and instructions can be found at https://www.sec.gov/alj/form-da.pdf. Along with the form, Respondent can request a protective order against disclosure of his financial information to the public. 17 C.F.R. Sec.Sec. 201.322, .630(c). By December 19, 2019, the parties should notify my office of their availability for a hearing to be held in the first three weeks of March or first three weeks of April, 2020. I ask that the parties reserve a week of their schedules, though the actual hearing may be shorter or longer as necessary. Based on the hearing date, I will set a prehearing schedule that includes the possibility of dispositive motions under Rule 250(b). 17 C.F.R. Sec. 201.250(b).
The Commission's Rules of Practice direct that the location of the hearing be set "with due regard for the public interest and the convenience and necessity of the parties, other participants, or their representatives." 17 C.F.R. Sec. 201.200(c). My preliminary assessment is that the most convenient location is in or near San Francisco, California. A party that wishes to propose a different venue should do so by December 19, 2019.
Jason S. Patil
Administrative Law Judge
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act Regulations
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following financial institution letter (No. FIL-81-2019):Summary:
The FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are issuing a joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to comprehensively amend the Community Reinvestment Act's (CRA) implementing regulations. The rules were last substantially updated nearly 25 years ago. The proposed revisions would seek to modernize and update CRA regulations to better achieve the law's underlying purpose of encouraging banks to serve their communities. The NPR is intended ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following financial institution letter (No. FIL-81-2019): Summary: The FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are issuing a joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to comprehensively amend the Community Reinvestment Act's (CRA) implementing regulations. The rules were last substantially updated nearly 25 years ago. The proposed revisions would seek to modernize and update CRA regulations to better achieve the law's underlying purpose of encouraging banks to serve their communities. The NPR is intendedto make the regulatory framework more objective, transparent, consistent, and easy to understand.
Statement of Applicability to Institutions with Total Assets under $1 Billion: This Financial Institution Letter applies to all FDIC-supervised financial institutions. The proposed rule would allow banks with $500 million or less in total assets to opt in to the performance standards included in the proposal.
Highlights:
* The FDIC and the OCC are jointly issuing an NPR to comprehensively amend the CRA regulations.
* The proposed rules are intended to increase bank activity in underserved communities where there is significant need for credit, more responsible lending, and improvements to critical infrastructure.
* Examples of underserved communities include distressed metropolitan areas as well as certain rural areas and tribal lands far removed from urban centers where bank branches are concentrated.
* Specifically, the NPR would seek to modernize the CRA regulations by:
* Clarifying and expanding what qualifies for CRA credit;
* Expanding where CRA activity counts by creating additional "assessment areas" tied to where deposits originate;
* Providing a more objective method to measure CRA performance by establishing activity thresholds as a percentage of domestic deposits; and
* Revising data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
* The proposal would allow small banks, defined as banks with $500 million or less in total assets, to continue to be evaluated under the current CRA small bank test or opt in to the new general performance standards.
* Comments on the NPR need to be received by the FDIC on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Suggested Distribution:
FDIC-Supervised Institutions
Suggested Routing:
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Lending Officer
Compliance Officer
Attachment:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act Regulations (https://www.fdic.gov/news/board/2019/2019-12-12-notice-dis-a-fr.pdf)
Contact:
Patience Singleton, Senior Policy Analyst, (202) 898-6859 or psingleton@fdic.gov
Pamela Freeman, Senior Examination Specialist, (202) 898-3656 or pfreeman@fdic.gov
Note:
Access FDIC Financial Institution Letters (FILs) on the FDIC's website (https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/index.html)
Subscribe to receive FILs electronically (https://www.fdic.gov/about/subscriptions/fil.html)
Paper copies may be obtained through the FDIC's Public Information Center, 3501 Fairfax Drive, E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226 (877-275-3342 or 703-562-2200).
FTC Approves Final Order Imposing Conditions on NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC's Acquisition of Generation Pipeline LLC
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC's acquisition (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/191_0068_c-4691_dte-enbridge_decision_and_order_public_version.pdf) of Generation Pipeline LLC would likely harm competition to provide natural gas pipeline transportation in a three-county area. NEXUS is a joint venture between DTE Energy Company and Enbridge Inc.
The complaint, which was first announced ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release: Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC's acquisition (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/191_0068_c-4691_dte-enbridge_decision_and_order_public_version.pdf) of Generation Pipeline LLC would likely harm competition to provide natural gas pipeline transportation in a three-county area. NEXUS is a joint venture between DTE Energy Company and Enbridge Inc. The complaint, which was first announcedin September 2019 (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/ftc-puts-conditions-nexus-gas-transmission-llcs-acquisition), alleges that NEXUS's purchase of Generation from North Coast Gas Transmission LLC and several other owners is anticompetitive due to a non-compete clause that keeps North Coast from competing to provide natural gas pipeline transportation, for three years after the acquisition closes, in parts of the Ohio counties of Lucas, Ottawa, and Wood.
The final order requires the parties to remove the non-compete clause from the sales agreement.
The Commission vote to approve the final order was 5-0. The staff contact is Michael Blaisdell, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3220.
* * *
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition (https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition), and protect and educate consumers (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf). You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers or file an antitrust complaint (https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation). Like the FTC on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission), follow us on Twitter (https://twitter.com/FTC), read our blogs (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters), and subscribe to press releases (https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected) for the latest FTC news and resources.
Press Release Reference:
FTC Puts Conditions on NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC's Acquisition of Generation Pipeline LLC (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/ftc-puts-conditions-nexus-gas-transmission-llcs-acquisition)
FCC Issues Public Notice on Truth-in-Billing Rules
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following public notice (CC Docket No. 98-170 and WC Docket No. 04-36):Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
Reply Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
With this Public Notice, we seek to refresh the record on possible ways to modernize and strengthen the Commission's truth-in-billing rules, with the goal of ensuring that all consumers are provided with the basic information they need to make informed choices in a competitive communications marketplace. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following public notice (CC Docket No. 98-170 and WC Docket No. 04-36): Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) Reply Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) With this Public Notice, we seek to refresh the record on possible ways to modernize and strengthen the Commission's truth-in-billing rules, with the goal of ensuring that all consumers are provided with the basic information they need to make informed choices in a competitive communications marketplace.The Commission previously sought comment on proposals to extend the truth-in-billing rules to providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services and to require carriers to separate government-mandated charges from other charges on consumers' telephone bills./1
To ensure that the Commission addresses new developments since the release of the underlying NPRMs, we aim to refresh the record on these two issues./2
Our goal in doing so is to identify concrete and cost-effective rules that will ensure that all voice service consumers fully understand the charges on their bills, including whether line items recover a service provider's own costs or those related to government programs./3
We encourage commenters to address these general goals when commenting on the issues below.
First, should the Commission extend its existing truth-in-billing rules, which currently apply only to wireline and wireless common carriers, to interconnected VoIP service providers?/4
The Commission previously sought comment on this issue to ensure that consumers of interconnected VoIP services can make the same informed choices as consumers of other voice services./5
We seek to refresh the record in light of the increasing numbers of consumers who have replaced their traditional circuit-switched phone service with interconnected VoIP service./6
Would consumers of interconnected VoIP service benefit from the truth-in-billing rules? For example, would such rules aid consumers both in determining whether to subscribe to an interconnected VoIP service in the first place and, thereafter, in assessing a provider's ongoing fees and conditions vis-a-vis those of other providers? Would rules requiring that charges be clear and conspicuous enhance interconnected VoIP consumers' ability to detect erroneous charges and unauthorized changes in their service arrangements?
The Commission previously found certain of the truth-in-billing rules inapplicable to wireless service providers. For example, the Commission concluded that wireless service providers will seldom need to indicate a new long distance service provider on the bill. Similarly, the Commission questioned whether wireless service providers need to differentiate between what are commonly referred to as "deniable" and "non-deniable" charges given that they may not provide a "basic, local service" offering./7
If the Commission were to extend the truth-in-billing rules to interconnected VoIP services, what rules should it extend, i.e., those that currently are designed to apply to legacy wireline carriers or the more recent rules that apply to wireless carriers? In other words, what rules are appropriate for interconnected VoIP and how should they apply? And should the Commission take the opportunity to revisit the need for any possibly outdated rules? Commenters urging the Commission to eliminate any rules should specifically describe why they no longer benefit consumers.
Second, we seek to refresh the record on whether the Commission should require all voice service providers to separate on consumer bills those line-item fees that are government-mandated from those that are not to the extent they include separate line items on a consumer's bill./8
Would such an approach serve the Commission's historical truth-in-billing goal "to aid customers in understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications services?"/9
If the Commission were to require such separation, what would be the most consumer-beneficial way to do so while minimizing regulatory burdens on voice service providers? Should the Commission consider steps beyond simple separation and require that different charges appear in a distinct section of the consumer's bill, one clearly labeled to show that it contains government-mandated charges?/10
Some service providers promote all-inclusive prices, with no added line-item charges, for certain offerings./11
How should the Commission address government-mandated charges in this context?
We seek additional comment on how to define "government-mandated charge" for these purposes. In the Truth-in-Billing FNPRM, the Commission noted that mandated charges could be defined as those that providers are required by law to collect from consumers and remit directly to federal, state, or local governments, or could also include charges that providers are not required to collect from consumers but choose to do so through separate line items, to reimburse themselves for their own payments toward government programs./12
Under this definition, charges for universal service, state and local taxes, 911/E911, and other line-item fees should be considered government-mandated. We seek further comment on how we should define government-mandated charges.
In contrast, most other line-item charges would not be considered government-mandated./13
For example, charges historically associated with network access, such as the Subscriber Line Charge and Access Recovery Charge; charges designed to recover the administrative or other costs for complying with federal and state law, such as a "Regulatory Fee" or "Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge;" and charges to reimburse providers for more general operating costs, such as permit fees, application fees, or licensing fees, are not charges remitted to the government but are line items collected by carriers of their own volition. Should such fees be separated from government-mandated charges?/14
Legal Authority. The Commission's authority to adopt truth-in-billing rules for common carriers derives in large part from section 201(b) of the Act to deter carriers from engaging in unjust and unreasonable practices./15
We seek to refresh the record on the Commission's authority to extend the truth-in-billing rules to interconnected VoIP service providers, including both two-way and one-way interconnected VoIP services./16
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,/17 interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
* All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
* Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
* U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./18
Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation.
If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules./19
In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf)./20
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Additional Information. For further information, contact Erica H. McMahon of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0346 or Erica.McMahon@fcc.gov.
* * *
1/ See IP-Enabled Services, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 4863, 4910-11, para. 72 (2004) (IP-Enabled Services NPRM); Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98-170, CG Docket No. 04-208, Second Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 6448, 6468-73, paras. 38-47 (2005) (Truth-in-Billing FNPRM), vacated in part sub nom. Nat'l Ass'n of State Util. Consumer Advocates v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2006).
2/ In 2018, for example, the Commission received more than 19,000 billing-related complaints about telephone service (approximately 38% of all telephone service complaints, excluding those about unwanted calls).
3/ Truth-in-Billing FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6468, para. 39 (noting that consumers continued to express confusion regarding their bills years after the Commission adopted truth-in-billing rules and tentatively concluding that requiring providers to separate government-mandated from non-mandated charges would alleviate such confusion and enhance consumers' ability to compare service and price offerings); see also id. at 6470, para. 42 (asking commenters to assess the ease or difficulty of administering distinctions between government-mandated and non-mandated charges).
4/ To date, the Commission has not classified interconnected VoIP service as either a telecommunications service or an information service.
5/ See IP-Enabled Services NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 4910-11, para. 72. In the IP-Enabled Services NPRM, the Commission noted that some IP-enabled services, to the extent they are viewed as "replacements for traditional, voice telephony[,]" raise "social policy concerns" relating to emergency services, law enforcement, disabilities access, consumer protection, and universal service. Id. at 4886-87, para. 36. The Commission specifically sought comment on whether billing-related requirements should apply to providers of interconnected VoIP services. Id. at 4910-11, para. 72.
6/ See Voice Telephone Services: Status as of June 30, 2017, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at 2 (WCB Nov. 20, 2018) (reporting that as of June 2017, there were approximately 64 million interconnected VoIP subscriptions in the United States and approximately 55 million wireline retail switched access lines and that interconnected VoIP subscriptions increased at a compound annual growth rate of 8% from 2014 to 2017, while the other category of wireline retail switched access lines declined at a compound annual growth rate of 11%).
7/ See Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98-170, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 7492, 7502, 7521, paras. 16, 46 (1999) (First Truth-in-Billing Order).
8/ We use "voice service providers" in this Public Notice to include wireline, wireless, and interconnected VoIP service providers.
9/ 47 CFR Sec. 64.2400(a).
10/ See Truth-in-Billing FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6470-71, para. 43 (seeking comment on the placement of government-mandated charges in a section of the bill separate from all other charges).
11/ See, e.g., T-Mobile News Release, T-Mobile ONE Now Includes Monthly Taxes & Fees (Jan. 22, 2017), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/t-mobile-one-now-available; Cricket, Charges and Fees, at https://www.cricketwireless.com/support/billing-and-payments/charges-and-fees.html.
12/ See Truth-in-Billing FNPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 6469-70, paras. 40-41. The Commission previously noted that a common source of consumer confusion derives from myriad charges that are assessed by carriers to recover costs incurred as a result of specific government action. See id. at 6461, para. 26 (noting that regulatory charges generally can be characterized as mandated fees or taxes that the carrier is required to collect from the consumer (e.g., federal excise tax), authorized fees that the carrier has the discretion to pass on to the consumer (e.g., universal service), and administrative or other costs that may be associated with the cost of compliance with regulatory requirements).
13/ See id. at 6469-70, para. 40.
14/ See id.; see also Federal-State Joint Board On Universal Service et al., CC Docket Nos. 90-571, 92-237, 95-116, 96-45, 98-170, 98-171, and 99-200, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24952, 24979, para. 54 (2002) (acknowledging that providers may incur some administrative costs associated with the collection of universal service charges from end users but that it was inappropriate for them to characterize such costs as regulatory fees or universal service charges).
15/ See First Truth-in-Billing Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 7506, para. 24 (concluding that truth-in-billing requirements were necessary to deter carriers from engaging in unjust and unreasonable practices in violation of section 201(b)).
16/ Interconnected VoIP service enables users, over their broadband connections, to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network (PSTN) and to terminate calls to the PSTN. See 47 CFR Sec. 9.3 (defining "interconnected VoIP service" as "a service that: (1) enables real-time, two-way voice communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network"). "One-way" VoIP services enable users either to terminate calls to the PSTN but not receive calls that originate on the PSTN; or receive calls from the PSTN but not make calls terminating to the PSTN. On several occasions, the Commission has extended certain Title II obligations to interconnected VoIP providers. See, e.g., Implementation of Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to- Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11275, 11291-97, paras. 32- 43 (2007) (extending section 225's TRS requirements to interconnected VoIP service providers, including the requirement to contribute to the TRS Fund).
17/ 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.415, 1.419.
18/ See id. Sec.Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
19/ Id. Sec. 1.1206(b).
20/ Id. Sec. 1.49(f).
FCC Enforcement Bureau Issues Notice on Marketing Support Systems
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Enforcement Bureau issued the following notice of apparent liability for forfeiture (File No.: EB-TCD-18-00028267):In the Matter of Kenneth Moser dba Marketing Support Systems
NAL/Acct. No.: 202032170001
FRN: 0029043379
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: December 12, 2019
Released: December 13, 2019
By the Commission: Chairman Pai and Commissioners Rosenworcel and Starks issuing separate statements.
I. INTRODUCTION
1.Combatting unlawful, unwanted telephone calls--including unlawfully "spoofed" calls--is ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Enforcement Bureau issued the following notice of apparent liability for forfeiture (File No.: EB-TCD-18-00028267): In the Matter of Kenneth Moser dba Marketing Support Systems NAL/Acct. No.: 202032170001 FRN: 0029043379 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: December 12, 2019 Released: December 13, 2019 By the Commission: Chairman Pai and Commissioners Rosenworcel and Starks issuing separate statements. I. INTRODUCTION 1.Combatting unlawful, unwanted telephone calls--including unlawfully "spoofed" calls--isthe top consumer-protection priority of the Federal Communications Commission. Caller ID information is spoofed when caller ID information is manipulated or altered to display anything other than the originating telephone number. Spoofing is unlawful under the Truth in Caller ID Act when it is done with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value./1
This Notice of Apparent Liability advances the Commission's ongoing efforts to crack down on unlawful robocalls by taking action against a particularly egregious spoofing scheme that targeted a business rival and smeared a political candidate while also harming thousands of call recipients with distressing, and factually baseless, messages.
2.Kenneth Moser, doing business as a telemarketing enterprise under the name MarketingSupport Systems (Moser), apparently made 47,610 unlawful spoofed calls over the course of a two-day calling campaign./2
Moser apparently spoofed the phone number assigned to another telemarketing company, HomeyTel, Inc., (HomeyTel) to transmit a prerecorded voice message containing false statements critical of California State Assembly candidate Philip Graham. Moser is not affiliated with HomeyTel and was not authorized to use its phone number. To the contrary, he has a long and contentious relationship with HomeyTel and that company's founder and current manager, Conrad Braun. As a result of the spoofed calls, HomeyTel received a multitude of complaints from recipients of the prerecorded voice message call, as well as a cease-and-desist letter from the candidate referenced in the message.
3. We find that Moser apparently violated the Truth in Caller ID Act by making the spoofed calls with the intent to cause harm and wrongfully obtain something of value./3
Given the egregious circumstances, we propose a forfeiture of $9,997,750.
II. BACKGROUND
4. Legal Background. Congress recognized that consumers have embraced caller ID as a vital part of voice telephone service, depending on it to help them decide whether to answer the phone. Caller ID is only valuable, however, if it is accurate./4
The Truth in Caller ID Act prohibits "caus[ing] any caller identification service" in connection with any telecommunications service or Internet Protocol-enabled service to "knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value[.]"/5
5. Spoofing on a large scale is often coupled with illegal robocalling activity. In enacting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Congress determined that unwanted prerecorded voice message calls are a greater nuisance and invasion of privacy than live calls and that such calls delivered via wireless phones can be costly./6
Through the TCPA, Congress provided greater protections for consumers from such calls./7
The statute and the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission or FCC) implementing rules prohibit prerecorded voice message calls to wireless telephone numbers without subscribers' prior consent--unless made for an emergency purpose,/8 and mandate inclusion of the telephone number of the entity responsible for initiating the call./9
Political campaign-related prerecorded voice message calls are not exempt from these statutory protections./10
The Commission has found that spoofing, when employed in an unlawful robocalling campaign, can indicate an intent to cause harm./11
6. Factual Background. Moser's apparently illegal activity occurred in the midst of a heated campaign season. On May 30 and 31, 2018, approximately one week before California's primary election, thousands of residents of the California 76th State Assembly District in San Diego County received a robocall message that described in graphic detail an alleged sexual assault involving Philip Graham (Graham), one of eight candidates for the open Assembly seat./12
The allegations in the recorded message, however, had already been disproven by law enforcement; indeed, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department conducted an investigation into the incident and publicly announced by May 29, 2018, that the alleged sexual assault never occurred./13
7. Based upon a complaint referred by the California Secretary of State,/14 the Bureau initiated an investigation. Bureau staff traced the robocalls to a third-party dialing platform/15 and discovered that Moser and Marketing Support Systems,/16 a business that provides "lead generation and marketing campaigns,"/17 conducted the robocalling campaign./18
8. The investigation uncovered that Moser made 47,610 prerecorded voice message calls during the two-day period at issue, including repeated calls to the same recipients./19
More than 11,000 of those calls were sent to wireless phones in violation of the TCPA's prohibition on sending prerecorded voice message calls to wireless telephones without the called party's consent./20
All 47,610 calls failed to include the telephone number of the party responsible for initiating the call, only stating in the prerecorded message that it was "paid for by Jennifer Jones," an apparent pseudonym./21
Moser set the caller ID information for all of the calls he made to display one phone number, 619-223-1022./22
The subscriber of this number is HomeyTel, a company formerly owned and currently managed by Conrad Braun (Braun)./23
Moser is not affiliated with HomeyTel and was not authorized to use its phone number./24
9. This is not the first instance in which Moser used HomeyTel's caller ID information to conduct a robocalling campaign./25
On November 3 and 5, 2016, Moser apparently conducted a robocalling campaign and set the caller ID information to show HomeyTel's telephone number. The Commission received one complaint regarding a robocalling campaign on those dates using HomeyTel's telephone number in which the complainant, identified as a San Diego police officer, stated that the "victim [HomeyTel] believes a business rival arranged for an auto-dial system to call hundreds of people using the victim's phone number as the Caller ID number."/26
As in 2018, Moser was not authorized to use HomeyTel's phone number in 2016.
10. California court records show that Moser is well acquainted with Braun and HomeyTel. Moser, acting in his individual capacity and using the private right of action provided for in the TCPA, has sued Braun and/or HomeyTel three times over the past several years in small claims court in San Diego County, alleging that Braun and/or HomeyTel violated the TCPA by making "illegal automated phone message [calls] soliciting toner products,"/27 "illegal auto dial advertising [calls]"/28 and "illegal robo call[s]."/29
Moser also claimed that Braun and/or HomeyTel violated the Truth in Caller ID Act in two of these lawsuits./30
11. Moser's familiarity with the relevant law here also is made plain in other legal actions. He has filed or participated in more than a dozen complaints alleging TCPA violations by companies other than HomeyTel./31
The allegations in these complaints include Moser's own assertions that TCPA violations cause harm, including harm from the "aggravation and consequent health effects of stress these illegal intrusions have caused."/32
View continuation at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-135A1.pdf
* * *
1/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(e); 47 CFR Sec. 64.1604.
2/ Marketing Support Systems, Document No. 2015-013003, County of San Diego, Recorder/County Clerk (May 14, 2015) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267); see also Better Business Bureau, Marketing Support Systems, https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/san-diego/profile/telemarketing-services/marketing-support-systems-1126-1014054 (last visited Nov. 18, 2019) (Marketing Support Systems BBB Profile); LinkedIn, Kenneth Moser Profile, https://www.linkedin.com/in/kenneth-moser-3199a24 (last visited Nov. 18, 2019). Marketing Support Systems provides telemarketing services, offering "lead generation and marketing campaigns." Marketing Support Systems BBB Profile.
3/ The Bureau is releasing contemporaneously a Citation and Order notifying Moser that, in conjunction with the apparently unlawful spoofing activities, Moser violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Commission's rules by (1) making prerecorded message calls to wireless phone numbers without the customers' consent or an emergency purpose, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 CFR Sec. 64.1200(a)(1)(iii), and (2) failing to include the phone number of the entity or person who was responsible for initiating the call, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (d)(3)(A); 47 CFR Sec. 64.1200(b)(2). Kenneth Moser dba Marketing Support Systems, Citation and Order, DA 19-1250 (EB 2019) (Moser Citation).
4/ 156 Cong. Rec. H2522, H2524 (2010) ("Now, if you see a caller ID and you see it has a phone number, most people think that it's ironclad that that's the actual phone number that's calling them when in truth it's not."); 155 Cong. Rec. S170-02, S173 (2009) ("Consumers expect caller I.D. to be accurate because it helps them decide whether to answer a phone call and trust the person on the other end of the line.").
5/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(e); see also 47 CFR Sec. 64.1604. The prohibition does not apply to lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activities of a law enforcement agency of the United States, the states, or a political subdivision of a state, or of an intelligence agency of the United States or to activity allowed pursuant to a court order that specifically authorizes the use of caller ID manipulation. 47 CFR 64.1604(b); see also 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(e)(3)(B)(ii); 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(e)(7). Those exceptions do not apply here.
6/ Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014, 14115, para. 165 (2003) (2003 TCPA Order). Similarly, courts have routinely agreed that robocalls are an invasion of privacy, an injury in fact sufficient for Article III jurisdiction. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 372 (2012) (finding that robocalls are an invasion of privacy); Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 484 (1988) (recognizing that preserving the sanctity of the home is an important value); LaVigne v. First Community Bancshares, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 3d 1138, 1146-47 (D. NM 2016).
7/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b), (d)(3).
8/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 CFR Sec. 64.1200(a)(1)(iii).
9/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(d)(3)(A); 47 CFR 64.1200(b)(2).
10/ Biennial Reminder for Political Campaigns About Robocall and Text Abuse, Enforcement Advisory, 31 FCC Rcd 1940, 1941 (2016); Federal Communications Commission, Political Campaign Robocalls & Robotexts, https://www.fcc.gov/political-campaign-robocalls-robotexts (last visited Nov. 18, 2019).
11 Best Insurance Contracts, Inc., and Philip Roesel, dba Wilmington Insurance Quotes, Forfeiture Order, 33 FCC Rcd 9204, 9218-19, paras. 40-41 (2018) (Roesel Forfeiture Order); Best Insurance Contracts, Inc., and Philip Roesel, dba Wilmington Insurance Quotes, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 32 FCC Rcd 6403, 6408, para. 16 (2017) (Roesel Notice of Apparent Liability).
12/ Jesse Marx, How a Strange Accusation Caught Fire and Took Down an Assembly Candidate, Voice of San Diego (Jan. 2, 2019), https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/politics/how-a-strange-accusation-caught-fire-and-took-down-an-assembly-candidate. We note that, for purposes of determining that Moser apparently violated section 227(e), we need not, and do not, consider the substantive allegations contained in the prerecorded message.
13/ San Diego County Sheriff's Department, News Release Information Sheet, rel. May 29, 2018 (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267); see also Brie Stimson, Battery Allegations Against Assembly Candidate Phil Graham Unfounded: SDSO Investigation, NBC San Diego (May 29, 2018), https://wwwnbcsandiego.com/news/local/Battery-Allegations-Against-Assembly-Candidate-Unfounded-SDSO-Investigation-484009451.html. Graham's accuser, Nichole Burgan, was later criminally charged for making a false report of a crime; she pleaded guilty and was sentenced in February 2019. Aaron Burgin, Burgan to Serve Two Days in Jail for False Accusation Against Phil Graham, The Coast News (Feb. 5, 2019), https://www.thecoastnews.com/burgan-to-serve-two-days-in-jail-for-false-accusation-against-phil-graham. We note that, in California, only the top two vote-getters in a primary election--regardless of party preference--move on to the general election. Graham was the third top vote-getter, losing his bid to move onto the general election. Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/CaliforniaStateAssemblyDistrict76. Graham's loss, however, is not relevant to our determination that Moser apparently violated section 227(e).
14/ Letter from Steven J. Reyes, Chief Counsel to California Secretary of State, to Rosemary Harold, Chief, FCC Enforcement Bureau et al. (Jun. 2, 2018) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267). Reyes forwarded to the Commission a letter and accompanying exhibits from Thomas W. Hiltachk complaining about the robocalls. Letter from Thomas W. Hiltachk, Counsel to State Assembly candidate Philip Graham, to Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State (Jun. 1, 2018) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267) (Hiltachk Letter).
15/ Letter from Kristi Thompson, Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to (Nov. 14, 2018) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267). The letter also requested a copy of the prerecorded message. The third-party dialing platform, , provides a web-based application that allows customers to make inbound or outbound automated calls. This service allows customers to upload call lists and automated messages and to make associated calls. See also Letter from Kristi Thompson, Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to (Aug. 17, 2018); E-mail from to Sonja Rifken, Attorney, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Aug. 21, 2018, 15:32 EDT) (, a company that provides telecommunications services, among others, to identified as the third-party dialing platform used to make the calls at issue and Kenneth Moser as the client of who made the calls.).
16/ According to , the contact for the account associated with the calls is Marketing Support Systems and owner Kenneth Moser with the address of . Marketing Support Systems has been registered in San Diego County, California as a "fictitious business name" to Kenneth Moser since 1993 at the same address, although the zip code listed with San Diego County is Marketing Support Systems, Document No. 2015-013003, County of San Diego, Recorder/County Clerk (May 14, 2015) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267). The state of California permits individuals and partnerships to do business under "fictitious business names," as defined by California law, provided that the individual or partnership files a "fictitious business name certificate . . . designed to make available to the public the identities of persons doing business under the fictitious name." Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17900.
17/ Marketing Support Systems BBB Profile, https://www.bbb.org/us/ca/san-diego/profile/telemarketing-services/marketing-support-systems-1126-1014054 (last visited Nov. 18, 2019).
18/ E-mail from , to Parul Desai, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Dec. 12, 2018, 12:38 EST) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267) (providing call detail records and certain other relevant information regarding Moser); E-mail from to Sonja Rifken, Attorney, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Feb. 27, 2019, 12:19 EST) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267) (updating call records with times of calls) (collectively, Dialing Platform Response).
19/ Dialing Platform Response at Files 6192231022 and Copy of 6192231022 with call times (Call Detail Records).
20/ Bureau staff used an industry standard, commercially available software database of known assigned and ported wireless numbers to determine whether any of the robocalls were made to wireless phone numbers. Interactive Marketing Solutions, EasyID, https://www.ims-dm.com/mvc/page/easyid (last visited Nov. 18, 2019). EasyID is Interactive Marketing Solution's software that allows clients to eliminate wireless numbers from calling lists. Id. Interactive Marketing Solutions, Inc. is a member of the Direct Marketing Association and bills itself as the country's largest single-source supplier of data identifying telephone numbers that have been assigned or ported to wireless devices, to help businesses comply with state and federal legislation. Id.
21/ Dialing Platform Response at File PHILGRAHAM_REV_VO.MP3 (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267). Bureau staff has been unable to identify a specific person named "Jennifer Jones" associated with Moser or the robocalls in question.
22/ Dialing Platform Response at Call Detail Records and File Response at 5.
23/ E-mail from Conrad Braun, Operations Manager, HomeyTel, to Sonja Rifken, Attorney, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Feb. 8, 2019, 13:52 EST) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267) (Declaration of Conrad Braun (Braun Decl.)); see also Letter from Kristi Thompson, Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumer Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to (Mar. 4, 2019) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267); E-mail from ., to , Senior Analyst, Telecommunications Consumer Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Mar. 5, 2019, 9:28 am EST) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267) (BNA Response) (confirming that HomeyTel is subscriber).
24/ Braun Decl.
25/ Letter from Kristi Thompson, Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to (Mar. 22, 2019) (on file EB-TCD-18-00028267) (subpoenaing call detail records and certain contact information). provided the subpoenaed information to the Bureau on March 25, 2019. Email from , to Parul Desai, Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Mar. 25, 2019, 16:17 EDT) (on file EB-TCD-18-00028267) (Second Dialing Platform Response). confirmed that Moser was the contact listed for that account in November 2016. Id. See also email from Conrad Braun, Operations Manager, HomeyTel, to Sonja Rifken, Attorney, Telecommunications Consumers Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Mar. 28, 2019, 22:21 EDT) (on file EB-TCD-18-00028267) (Conrad Braun Supplemental Declaration (Braun Supplemental Decl.) stating that neither Moser nor Marketing Support Systems was authorized to use the HomeyTel number in November 2016.).
26/ Zendesk Complaint #1307215 (Nov. 3, 2016) (on file in EB-TCD-18-00028267).
27/ Moser v. Braun et al., Case No. 37-2008-00004053-SC-SC-CTL (filed May 29, 2008) (awarding Moser $1,000 in damages for TCPA violations) (2008 Moser TCPA).
28/ Moser v. HomeyTel et al., Case No. 37-2012-00005170-SC-SC-CTL (filed Aug. 29, 2012) (voluntarily dismissing HomeyTel from the suit prior to its conclusion) (2012 Moser TCPA).
29/ Moser v. Braun, Case No. 37-2015-00322367-SC-SC-CTL (filed Jun. 8, 2015) (awarding no damages to Moser) (2015 Moser TCPA).
30/ 2008 Moser TCPA (alleging TCPA Truth in Caller ID violations, HomeyTel voluntarily dismissed by Moser) and 2012 Moser TCPA (alleging fraud, breach of settlement, and TCPA violations). Braun has also brought countersuit against Moser. Braun v. Moser, Case No. 37-2013-00041628-CU-FR-CTL (filed Jun. 13, 2013) (2013 Braun). This case is ongoing.
31/ E.g., Moser v. Lifewatch, Inc., Case No. 37-2019-00024879-SC-SC-CTL (filed Apr. 29, 2019) (case pending); Moser v. Alliance Security, Inc., Case No. 37-2017-00351345-SC-SC-CTL (filed Jul. 12, 2017) (voluntary dismissal by Moser); Moser v. Quality Credit, LLC, Case No. 37-2016-00332616-SC-SC-CTL (filed Jan. 5, 2016) (awarding Moser $2,500 in damages for TCPA violations); Meyer, Moser v. Capital Alliance Group et al., Case No. 15-CV-2405-WVG (S.D. CA filed Oct. 23, 2015) (joint voluntary dismissal); Engle, Moser v. Unified Life Insurance Co., Inc., et al, Case No. 14-CV-1908-MMA-JLB (S.D. CA filed Aug. 13, 2014) (joint voluntary dismissal).
32/ Moser v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. et al., Case No. 17-CV-1127-WQH-KSC, para. 96 (S.D. CA filed Jun. 5, 2017) (case pending).
American Woodmark to Pay $25,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
ATLANTA, Georgia, Dec. 13 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:* * *
- Employee With Disabilities Denied a Reasonable Accommodation and Discharged After Seeking Two Days of Unpaid Leave, Federal Agency Charges
* * *
American Woodmark Corporation, a wood cabinetry manufacturer, will pay $25,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced.
According to the EEOC's suit, American Woodmark denied Erica Grier's request for an accommodation in the form of two ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Dec. 13 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release: * * * - Employee With Disabilities Denied a Reasonable Accommodation and Discharged After Seeking Two Days of Unpaid Leave, Federal Agency Charges * * * American Woodmark Corporation, a wood cabinetry manufacturer, will pay $25,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced. According to the EEOC's suit, American Woodmark denied Erica Grier's request for an accommodation in the form of twodays of unpaid leave in order to visit a doctor for treatment of her disabilities. Instead, American Woodmark assessed attendance infraction points to Grier, a 16-year employee of the company, under its rigid attendance policy. American Woodmark fired Grier for exceeding the permissible number of attendance points, despite her providing a doctor's note and updated Family Medical Leave Act forms showing she was absent for purposes of treatment and recovery relating to her disabilities.
Such conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on an individual's disability. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 5:19-CV-381-TES) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement via its conciliation process. In addition to the monetary relief, American Woodmark agreed to create and implement an ADA policy, provide employment discrimination training to its employees, and to post anti-discrimination notices at its Jackson facility. In addition, the decree subjects American Woodmark to reporting and monitoring requirements.
"The use of intermittent medical leave for treatment of a medical condition deemed to be a disability under the ADA is widely recognized as a reasonable accommodation," said Antonette Sewell, regional attorney for the EEOC's Atlanta District Office. "The EEOC is pleased that American Woodmark agreed to resolve this case and also that it agreed to implement an ADA policy and train its employees on its obligations under the ADA. The discrimination victim in this case has been compensated and the employer will be better equipped to respond the next time an applicant or employee seeks leave as an accommodation for a disability."
Darrell E. Graham, district director of the Atlanta office, said, "The EEOC is committed to ending disability discrimination in Georgia and across the country. An employee should not be forced to risk termination for seeking medical leave as a perfectly reasonable accommodation under the ADA."
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at http://www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates. (https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USEEOC/subscriber/new)