After a male employee declined his employer’s request to move to a position for which he was not qualified and had no experience, he was told his current position had already been filled with a female employee.  This constructive discharge forced Complainant to move to a different community to pursue his intended occupation.  He subsequently filed a complaint of discrimination based on his sex.  Investigation found substantial evidence of the employer’s preference for females and a determination was issued on December 17, 2021.  Attempts to conciliate failed when Complainant refused to participate.  When Respondent would not settle without Complainant, the file was closed on March 23, 2022.

 

A truck driver suffered an on-the-job neck injury.  After medical treatment, she received a full release from the doctor to return to work, but Respondent refused to rehire Complainant as a truck driver, and when she could not find employment elsewhere, she moved out of state to pursue her intended occupation. A complaint was filed with the Commission on December 13, 2018. Respondent eventually offered to rehire Complainant, but she would start at the bottom of the union’s on-call list, so despite many years with the union, it would be as if she was a first-time worker.  A Conciliation Agreement was approved on March 21, 2022.  The Commission continues to monitor the terms of the agreement.

 

A patron entered a business and was quickly met by the owner’s wife and instructed to leave immediately claiming she was afraid of big dogs.  The owner who was absent at the time later claimed the dog could not be on the premises because of his extreme allergy.  The dog was certified as a service animal and the Complainant depended on his dog throughout the day.  A determination of substantial evidence of discrimination was issued on March 31, 2022.  Conciliation efforts were continuing as of March 31, 2022.

An employee alleged she was discriminated against based on her sex and race when she was subjected to derogatory names, comments regarding lewd sexual acts, and unwanted and offensive sexual advances. Additionally, she raised concerns to her employer regarding racially discriminatory hiring practices. When Respondent did not acknowledge her reports, she filed a complaint with the Commission on March 7, 2018.  An investigation found that her supervisor failed to follow policy to address allegations of harassment, and there was a reasonable inference of retaliation for opposing discrimination. A determination of substantial evidence of discrimination was issued on May 19, 2021. The employer asserted a bona fide, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the complainant, including that she engaged in a romantic relationship with another employee that both unreasonably interfered with the complainant’s job performance and department morale. Following extensive research, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to rebut Respondent’s claims and establish retaliation.   As of March 31, 2022, the case was pending closure.

A female applied for one of three vacancies and was selected by department management for one of the positions.  Human resources failed to approve the hire and selected an applicant of a different race even though the selected applicant was less qualified based upon application test scores and references.  An investigation found substantial evidence to believe the employer’s hiring decision was based on race.  A substantial evidence determination was issued on June 3, 2021. Respondent asserted it had a bona fide nondiscriminatory reason not to hire Complainant.  Following extensive research, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to rebut the Respondent’s claim. As of March 31, 2022, the case was pending closure.