Complainant alleged Respondent’s ordinance discriminated against disabled persons who require the use of service animals. A Resolution Conference was held on December 15, 2023, during which the parties reached an agreement. Complainant agreed to withdraw her complaint, waive further investigation and administrative procedures before the Commission, as well as agreed not to sue Respondent for allegations alleged in her complaint. Respondent agreed to waive all further investigation, as well as adopted an ordinance amending its existing animal control and protection code as it relates to service animals. On or around February 5th, 2024, both parties signed the Pre-Determination Settlement Agreement, and the case was subsequently closed.

Complainant alleged Respondent failed to reasonably accommodate his disability, and then terminated his employment after he reported the failure to accommodate. Respondent denied the
allegations. Respondent produced evidence tending to show Complainant had experienced childcare issues, and was no-call no-show for three days, after which it terminated his employment.
Complainant had not produced evidence of his disability or need for accommodation. A Resolution Conference was held and the parties agreed to settle for $5000.00, an amount sufficient to cover
the term of Complainant’s unemployment. On or around March 12, 2024, the Commission was notified Complainant received his settlement check, and the case was closed.

Complainant alleged harassment and different treatment by a supervisor because of a hearing disability. He complained but was suspended pending the outcome of an investigation. Respondent
denied the allegations and asserted he was suspended while a complaint of his own threatening conduct was investigated; Complainant’s own cross-complaint came out of the threatening
behavior complaint. Investigation produced no evidence to support Complainant’s allegations of discrimination. A Resolution Conference was held, and Complainant agreed to resign. Respondent
agreed to reflect the voluntary resignation in the store’s system. This case was closed on January 26, 2024.

Complainant alleged she was subjected to sex-based discrimination when her employment was terminated. Complainant asserted she rejected her supervisor’s sexual advances and that she was
fired two weeks later for poor job performance. Respondent denied Complainant’s allegations and asserted Complainant was terminated after being a no-call no-show prior to her shift starting, and
that when she did call several hours after her shift was scheduled to start, she was intoxicated. Information revealed Complainant and Respondent’s Operations Manager were involved in a consensual sexual relationship; however, Respondent’s owner was not aware of the relationship when it terminated Complainant’s employment. Respondent’s owner did not become aware of the
relationship until she received Complainant’s ASCHR complaint. A resolution conference was held, which resulted in a Predetermination Settlement Agreement, wherein the parties agreed Respondent would provide its Operations Manager with both management training, and training in the laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, with an emphasis on Sexual Harassment
and on workplace relationships between supervisors and subordinate employees. On or around March 11, 2024, the Complainant withdrew her complaint with the Commission. Without further
monitoring required, and the case was closed.

Complainant alleged he was subjected to a hostile work environment resulting from racist comments from a specific employee. Respondent denied the allegations, asserted Complainant’s  termination was reasonable, and provided evidence supporting its position that Complainant had subjected an autistic co-worker to a hostile work environment that resulted in the autistic coworker
snapping over time. Both were placed on unpaid suspension, and investigation found Complainant had antagonized his coworker relentlessly. Direct witnesses stated Complainant gloated about causing his co-worker to finally snap. The co-worker was retained, but received a one-week suspension without pay. On or about March 5, 2024, a Resolution Conference was held at which Complainant accepted $1,200.00 to resolve all matters, present and future. The Commission was informed on or around March 13th, 2024, that all terms of the agreement had been met and the case is now closed.