Featured Stories
The Rock Snowpark Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit Over Social Media Posts
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
The Rock Snowpark Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit Over Social Media Posts
*
Sports park and events venue settles federal lawsuit charging it fired lift operations manager because of his religion
MILWAUKEE -Crystal Ridge Ski Area, doing business as The Rock Snowpark, a winter sports park and summer events venue in Franklin, Wisconsin, will pay $20,000 and be subject to two years of monitoring by the EEOC to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
The Rock Snowpark Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit Over Social Media Posts
*
Sports park and events venue settles federal lawsuit charging it fired lift operations manager because of his religion
MILWAUKEE -Crystal Ridge Ski Area, doing business as The Rock Snowpark, a winter sports park and summer events venue in Franklin, Wisconsin, will pay $20,000 and be subject to two years of monitoring by the EEOC to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
The suit alleged that The Rock Snowpark fired a Christian employee in June 2023 because of his religious posts on his personal social media accounts. Although the posts were not directed to and did not refer to the company or any employee of the company, and although the company received no complaints from customers, vendors, or employees about the posts, the employee's supervisor objected to them as discriminatory. After an initial warning, the company terminated the employee shortly after he posted another Bible verse.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination because of an individual's religion. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Crystal Ridge Ski Area, LLC d/b/a The Rock Snowpark, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00940) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
"Our country's workplace discrimination laws protect everyone, including people whose religious views an employer may disagree with," said Victor Chen, EEOC spokesperson. "An employer cannot fire an employee simply because it finds an employee's religious beliefs objectionable."
Under the consent decree settling the suit, in addition to monetary relief, The Rock Snowpark is required to ensure that its employment policies provide for equal employment opportunity regardless of religion, report future complaints of religious discrimination to the EEOC, and provide training to all of its employees about federal antidiscrimination laws and their protections against religious discrimination.
For more information on religious discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination.
The EEOC's Chicago District Office has jurisdiction over Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/rock-snowpark-settles-eeoc-religious-discrimination-suit-over-social-media-posts
(TNSmrp)
SEC Charges Registered Investment Adviser Zoe Financial for Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
SEC Charges Registered Investment Adviser Zoe Financial for Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest
*
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced settled charges against New York-based investment adviser Zoe Financial Inc. for failing to fully and fairly disclose material facts concerning conflicts of interest to its clients and prospective clients.
According to the SEC order, Zoe Financial operated a referral service which used an algorithm to match third-party investment advisers
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
SEC Charges Registered Investment Adviser Zoe Financial for Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest
*
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced settled charges against New York-based investment adviser Zoe Financial Inc. for failing to fully and fairly disclose material facts concerning conflicts of interest to its clients and prospective clients.
According to the SEC order, Zoe Financial operated a referral service which used an algorithm to match third-party investment advisersin its network with individuals seeking a recommendation for an investment adviser. Zoe Financial salespeople typically would then follow up with individuals who did not schedule a meeting with one of the matches generated by the algorithm, and in ensuing conversations, salespeople often recommended additional advisers to the client, beyond the recommendations generated by the algorithm.
In January 2023, Zoe Financial launched Zoe Wealth, through which Zoe Financial offered sub-advisory services, account onboarding assistance, and other back-office support for its network of investment advisers. The order finds that Zoe Financial had a financial incentive for advisers in its network to use Zoe Wealth and encouraged advisers to do so. Further, as described in the order, while Zoe Financial's algorithm did not consider whether an adviser used Zoe Wealth when it generated recommendations, salespeople often became involved in the referral process, and on many occasions suggested advisers that had not been initially recommended by the algorithm. The order finds that Zoe Financial did not adequately disclose the resulting conflict of interest in its Form ADV Brochure until December 2024. In addition, according to the order, while Zoe Financial disclosed that certain advisory firms held indirect minority interests in Zoe Financial and that this presented a conflict, Zoe Financial did not accurately describe how it mitigated that conflict.
"Investment advisers have a fiduciary obligation to fully and fairly disclose material conflicts of interest," said Sheldon Pollock, Associate Director of the SEC's New York Regional Office. "Advisers must live up to those disclosure obligations in all aspects of their advisory services, including when they offer a new technology or new feature to their clients."
Accordingly, the order finds that Zoe Financial willfully violated Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Without admitting the SEC's findings, Zoe Financial agreed to a cease-and-desist order, a censure, and to pay a civil monetary penalty of $450,000. The order acknowledges certain remedial measures taken by Zoe Financial, including making compliance manual revisions and hiring an in-house chief compliance officer.
***
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-94-sec-charges-registered-investment-adviser-zoe-financial-failure-disclose-conflict-interest
Reynolds IGA Foodliner to Pay $65,000 in EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Reynolds IGA Foodliner to Pay $65,000 in EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
*
Piggly Wiggly franchisee settles federal suit charging it denied an employee's request to observe her Sabbath and then fired her
ATLANTA -Reynolds IGA Foodliner, Inc., owner and operator of a chain of grocery stores, will pay $65,000 and provide other equitable relief to settle a religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Reynolds IGA Foodliner to Pay $65,000 in EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
*
Piggly Wiggly franchisee settles federal suit charging it denied an employee's request to observe her Sabbath and then fired her
ATLANTA -Reynolds IGA Foodliner, Inc., owner and operator of a chain of grocery stores, will pay $65,000 and provide other equitable relief to settle a religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federalagency announced today.
According to the suit, shortly after she was hired as a deli clerk at the Piggly Wiggly store in Hazlehurst, Georgia, the employee requested Sundays off to observe her Sabbath. The employee's supervisor denied the request, claiming that, if the store gave the employee Sundays off, it would have to do the same for all other employees. The employee continued to request the accommodation, and the company fired her in January 2025.
"Employers cannot deny religious accommodation requests simply for fear of upsetting other employees," said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC's Atlanta District. "The EEOC remains committed to enforcing federal anti-discrimination law and protecting employees' rights to religious freedom."
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Reynolds IGA Foodliner, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00060) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
Darrell E. Graham, director of the EEOC's Atlanta District, said, "Employers must thoughtfully consider each request for religious accommodation on an individual, case-by-case basis and otherwise make good-faith efforts to accommodate their employees' religious beliefs. Employers must be aware of their obligations under federal law to provide reasonable religious accommodations absent undue hardship."
The two-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit requires Reynolds IGA Foodliner to provide $65,000 to the former employee. In addition to monetary relief, the company will update, clarify and disseminate its religious accommodation procedures; provide specialized training to managers, supervisors and human resources personnel who receive and handle religious accommodation requests; and post a notice in the workplace informing employees of the settlement and of their right to be free from workplace discrimination. Furthermore, the company will provide the EEOC with periodic reports regarding future requests for religious accommodations and reports of religious discrimination, as well as how the company handled those requests and reports.
For more information on religious discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination.
The EEOC's Atlanta District Office has jurisdiction over Georgia and the counties of Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Georgetown, Hampton, Jasper and Williamsburg in South Carolina.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/reynolds-iga-foodliner-pay-65000-eeoc-religious-discrimination-lawsuit
October reporting reminder (2026)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news:
* * *
October reporting reminder (2026)
*
Committees must file the following reports in October:
* All authorized committees of House and Senate candidates must file a quarterly report by October 15, 2026. The report covers financial activity from July 1 (or the day after the closing date of the last report) through September 30;
* Authorized committees of presidential candidates must file a report by October 15, if they are quarterly filers (the report covers financial activity from July 1 through September
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news:
* * *
October reporting reminder (2026)
*
Committees must file the following reports in October:
* All authorized committees of House and Senate candidates must file a quarterly report by October 15, 2026. The report covers financial activity from July 1 (or the day after the closing date of the last report) through September 30;
* Authorized committees of presidential candidates must file a report by October 15, if they are quarterly filers (the report covers financial activity from July 1 through September30), or by October 20, if they are monthly filers (the report covers activity for the month of September);
* National party committees and other political committees following a monthly filing schedule must file a monthly report by October 20. This includes state, district and local party committees that engage in reportable "federal election activity" (see the "State, district and local party committees" section). The report covers activity for the month of September;
* PACs and party committees following a quarterly reporting schedule must file a quarterly report by October 15, covering activity from July 1 (or the day after the closing date of the last report) through September 30; and
* Pre-General reports are due on October 22 (close of books, October 14). Candidate committees must file this report if their candidate is running in the general election. PACs, parties and all other committees that file quarterly must file this report if they make contributions or expenditures in connection with the general election during the October 1-14 reporting period. PACs and party committees that file on a monthly schedule must file the Pre-General report in lieu of the regular November 20 monthly report. If sent by registered or certified mail, the Pre-General report must be postmarked on or before October 19. If using overnight mail, the delivery service must receive the report on or before October 19. See "Timely Filing for Paper Filers."
Quarterly filers that participate in special elections may need to file pre- and post-election reports that are not accounted for above. Remember, reporting periods always begin the day after the closing date of the last report filed.
Reporting help is always just a phone call away at 800-424-9530. Select option 4 for technical assistance with electronic filing, option 5 to speak with the analyst who reviews your committee's reports or option 6 to speak with an Information Specialist. You can also submit a question for your analyst online.
Additionally, the Commission will host the following reporting webinars:
* Reporting & FECFile Webinars for Candidate Committees on September 30
* Reporting & FECFile Webinar for PACs and Party Committees on October 7
* Winding Down the Campaign & Post-General Reporting on November 18
***
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/october-reporting-reminder-2026/
(TNSmrp)
FTC, States Win Protections to Lower Pesticide Prices for American Farmers in Antitrust Case Against Corteva
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC, States Win Protections to Lower Pesticide Prices for American Farmers in Antitrust Case Against Corteva
*
The Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of state attorneys general have secured a significant settlement agreement with pesticide manufacturing giant Corteva Inc. that will lead to lower pesticide prices for American farmers.
Under the terms of the settlement, Corteva will dismantle its existing pesticides loyalty program, which has limited distributors' ability to do business with
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC, States Win Protections to Lower Pesticide Prices for American Farmers in Antitrust Case Against Corteva
*
The Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of state attorneys general have secured a significant settlement agreement with pesticide manufacturing giant Corteva Inc. that will lead to lower pesticide prices for American farmers.
Under the terms of the settlement, Corteva will dismantle its existing pesticides loyalty program, which has limited distributors' ability to do business withgeneric competitors that seek to enter the market after Corteva patents have expired. The settlement agreement will provide relief to farmers who have long endured high pesticide prices by ensuring greater access to lower-cost generic pesticide products.
"This settlement will do away with unfair corporate practices that have hurt farmers by impeding the sales of lower-priced products," said FTC Bureau of Competition Principal Deputy Director David Shaw. "The agreement the FTC and its state partners secured will give farmers better pesticide options at lower prices, enabling farmers to continue to put food on Americans' tables."
For a period of 10 years, the stipulated order will prohibit Corteva from conditioning payments or other benefits to a distributor on that firm purchasing a high share of a given pesticide active ingredient from Corteva or similarly limiting its purchases of generic equivalents.
The settlement reached with Corteva resolves a lawsuit brought by the FTC and states in 2022, which alleges that Corteva implemented a post-patent loyalty program that paid distributors to block competitors from selling cheaper generic products to farmers. According to the complaint, this conduct allowed Corteva to maintain elevated prices, forcing American farmers to spend millions of dollars more for essential crop protection products. The complaint makes similar allegations as to Syngenta-another pesticide manufacturing giant-and its post-patent loyalty program.
The settlement with Corteva builds on recent FTC actions, including a landmark settlement with agricultural equipment maker Deere & Company, to lower the cost of living for all Americans, including farmers and consumers.
The settlement announced today resolves only the claims against Corteva. Litigation against Syngenta remains ongoing.
#The Lawsuit
The FTC and states' complaint against Corteva and Syngenta alleges that each defendant's loyalty program provides end-of-year payments to distributors that purchase from that defendant all (or nearly all) of their annual requirements of pesticides containing certain active ingredients, which meant they purchased very little of competing generic pesticides.
Ordinarily, lower-priced generic competitors should be able to enter the market and drive down prices once the relevant patent and regulatory exclusivity periods have expired. The complaint alleges that the challenged loyalty programs illegally extend Syngenta's and Corteva's monopolies by excluding lower-priced generic competitors from an essential distribution channel. As a result, according to the complaint, U.S. farmers were forced to overpay for crop protection products.
#Corteva Settlement
The FTC and states' agreed settlement with Corteva will end Corteva's alleged exclusionary conduct that has raised pesticide prices for farmers.
The stipulated order prohibits Corteva, for 10 years, from:
* Implementing loyalty programs that condition payments to a Corteva distributor customer on the customer purchasing a greater-than-50% share of its requirements of a given pesticide active ingredient from Corteva
* Implementing share-based programs that limit the share of a generic product that a distributor customer may purchase to under 50% (or the volume equivalent)
* Implementing a volume-based loyalty program for the purpose of replicating or reintroducing a prohibited share-based loyalty program
* Implementing other, specified conditions that enhanced the exclusionary effect of Corteva's prohibited loyalty program on generic competitors
* Discriminating against or threatening customers because they refuse to agree to prohibited exclusive or loyalty terms, or because they conduct business with Corteva's competitors, including generic manufacturers
The stipulated order applies to all Corteva's post-patent active ingredients, extending beyond the three exemplar active ingredients named in the FTC and states' complaint.
In addition, the stipulated order requires Corteva to pay the state plaintiffs $35,000,000 to resolve their monetary claims. The FTC's co-plaintiffs include California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.
The Commission vote to approve the proposed stipulated order was 2-0. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/ftc-states-win-protections-lower-pesticide-prices-american-farmers-antitrust-case-against-corteva
EEOC Sues Majestic Developers for Disability Discrimination
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Sues Majestic Developers for Disability Discrimination
*
Federal lawsuit alleges real estate development company failed to accommodate a new employee and fired him due to his disability
HOUSTON -Majestic Developers, LLC, a real estate developer in Sugar Land, Texas, violated federal law when it failed to accommodate and fired a legally blind employee on his first day of work, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.
According
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Sues Majestic Developers for Disability Discrimination
*
Federal lawsuit alleges real estate development company failed to accommodate a new employee and fired him due to his disability
HOUSTON -Majestic Developers, LLC, a real estate developer in Sugar Land, Texas, violated federal law when it failed to accommodate and fired a legally blind employee on his first day of work, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.
Accordingto the EEOC's lawsuit, in late 2024, Majestic Developers offered an engineering position to an applicant to design drainage systems for their ongoing real estate development projects in the Houston area. The applicant had a doctorate in civil and environmental engineering and was well qualified for the position. During the hiring process, the applicant specifically asked the hiring manager if the company would provide specific computer equipment, and he was assured it would. He accepted the job offer from Majestic Developers and agreed to a start date. Based on the job offer, he relocated his family from Georgia to Texas.
The lawsuit alleges that Majestic Developers fired the employee on his first day of work when he inquired about the computer equipment he needed and discussed his need for the ability to close his blinds to reduce light and glare in his office. The hiring manager, after conferring with a senior manager, sent the employee home and informed him that he was terminated. Following the termination, the senior manager emailed the recruiter who helped identify the employee as a candidate and informed him that the company would not be able to accommodate the employee, although his accommodations had been previously accepted by the hiring manager.
"The EEOC is fully committed to ensuring that employers provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees," said Jeremy Crosbie, the deputy director for the EEOC's Houston District. "Federal law ensures that applicants and employees are provided reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, and not discharged due to their disabilities."
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on an applicant or employee's disability. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Majestic Developers, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-08387) in the 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.
EEOC Trial Attorney Lloyd van Oostenrijk said, "Workers with disabilities are entitled to equal opportunity in the workplace, and employers must take their obligations under the law seriously. The EEOC will continue to hold employers accountable when they unlawfully deny reasonable accommodations or terminate employees because of their disabilities."
The EEOC is seeking back pay and compensatory damages for the employee. In addition, the EEOC is seeking permanent injunctive relief to correct and prevent future disability discrimination by Majestic Developers. The EEOC is also seeking an order requiring the company to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which govern the reasonable accommodation process, and which eradicate the effects of Majestic Developers' past hiring practices.
For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination. For information on accommodations, please visit: https://askjan.org/.
The EEOC's Houston District Office has jurisdiction over Louisiana and the following counties in Texas: Angelina, Austin, Brazoria, Brazos, Calhoun, Chambers, Colorado, Fayette, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Hardin, Harris, Houston, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Lavaca, Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Shelby, Trinity, Tyler, Victoria, Walker, Waller, Washington and Wharton.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employees for violations of federal laws prohibiting discrimination. For public sector employees, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination efforts. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-majestic-developers-disability-discrimination
EEOC Sues Davis Cartage Co. for Sexual Harassment
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Sues Davis Cartage Co. for Sexual Harassment
*
Federal lawsuit alleges transportation and warehousing company allowed company officer to subject female employees to hostile work environment
DETROIT -Davis Cartage Co., a transportation, warehousing and logistics company headquartered in Corunna, Michigan, violated federal law by allowing its president of logistics to sexually harass two female employees at its Owosso, Michigan location, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Sues Davis Cartage Co. for Sexual Harassment
*
Federal lawsuit alleges transportation and warehousing company allowed company officer to subject female employees to hostile work environment
DETROIT -Davis Cartage Co., a transportation, warehousing and logistics company headquartered in Corunna, Michigan, violated federal law by allowing its president of logistics to sexually harass two female employees at its Owosso, Michigan location, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, in 2023, the president of logistics, who is also on the board of directors and part owner of the company, passed over more qualified applicants to hire two young women whose photos he found on social media. He then subjected both women to harassing and possessive behavior, including regular comments on their appearance and dress; trying to discuss their personal lives; telling them they owed him for overlooking their criminal histories; inviting one or both to stay at his cabin, to go out drinking or to stay in his hotel room; closely monitoring them with the company cameras while they performed clerical work; and leaning over within inches of them at their desks.
The suit also alleges Davis Cartage knew of the executive's sexually harassing conduct and failed to correct it. In 2020, Davis Cartage received a complaint from a female employee who alleged that he had been sexually harassing her for years. The company performed a perfunctory investigation, protected the executive, and failed to take remedial action. Thereafter, he continued to openly engage in sexually inappropriate behavior.
"Employers cannot prioritize protecting a company executive over protecting its employees from sexual harassment," said Kenneth Bird, regional attorney for the Indianapolis District Office. "Davis Cartage's decision to ignore the president of logistics' behavior and allow him to continue to harass female employees working for him violated federal law."
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Davis Cartage Co., Case No. 2:26-cv-13657) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking compensatory damages and punitive damages on behalf of the two employees, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.
For more information on sexual harassment, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment.
The EEOC's Indianapolis District Office has jurisdiction over Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky and parts of Ohio.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-davis-cartage-co-sexual-harassment
