Complainant alleged she was discriminated against based on her sex because she was subjected to unwelcome and offensive sexual comments and conduct while receiving a multi-appointment dental treatment.  Complainant told Respondent that she was uncomfortable to the point of crying, but Respondent continued anyway. Complainant found a new dentist to complete the dental work.  On or about October 20, 2023, Complainant informed Respondent that she would no longer continue under Respondent’s care due to his behavior and requested a refund for uncompleted dental work.  Respondent informed her she would need to sign a nondisclosure agreement to get a refund and denied Complainant’s new dentist access to her dental records.  Complainant decided to withdraw the complaint to potentially seek damages in excess of what ASCHR can obtain.  The Commission entered into a two-party agreement with Respondent, and as of March 31, 2025, staff continue to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Parent filed a complaint on behalf of his minor daughter stating she was subjected to unwelcome sexual comments and conduct while employed at an auto mechanic shop.  On October 24, 2023, Complainant’s daughter reported to Respondent’s service manager that she had been subjected to unwanted sexual comments and conduct by an adult male co-worker.  The service manager forwarded the complaint to Respondent’s Human Resources.  On October 25, 2023, Complainant’s daughter called out ill and later reported to her father that she had been subjected to unwanted sexual attention by an adult male co-worker, and that she was uncomfortable at work.  Complainant emailed Respondent’s manager reporting the sexual harassment and notifying the manager that Complainant’s daughter was uncomfortable at work with the male co-worker.  On October 27, 2023, Respondent’s manager terminated Complainant’s daughter citing her illness.  Complainant withdrew his complaint on his daughter’s behalf so he could pursue the action in a different legal venue.  The original case was then closed.  The Executive Director filed a charge on the same fact pattern to pursue state law public policy goals.  An investigation revealed that Respondent did not deny the events, justifying the termination as a violation of their no-call-no-show policy.  However, Respondent’s policy holds an exemption for extenuating circumstances, of which Respondent’s HR department wanted a thorough investigation completed rather than firing the Complainant’s daughter.  The general manager also failed to respond to Complainant’s daughter’s request for assurance of returning to a safe work environment.  Evidence and testimony showed the general manager was not truthful about having conducted a thorough investigation, and that he assigned the adult male coworker at issue to complete a sexual harassment training that did not exist.  The parties reached an agreement and, as of March 31, 2025, staff continue to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.

When Complainant was hired, she notified Respondent she has epilepsy.  On May 17, 2024, while at work, Complainant felt ill due to her disability; she told Respondent’s assistant manager that she needed a break to address her symptoms.  The assistant manager made derogatory comments about epilepsy, aggravating Complainant’s symptoms.  Complainant went outside to breathe.  Respondent’s assistant manager later accused Complainant of abandoning her post.  Complainant clarified what happened with Respondent’s manager denying abandoning her post and requested ADA accommodation paperwork.  Respondent’s terminated Complainant.  The parties reached an agreement and as of March 31, 2025, the Commission continues to monitor compliance.

Complainant and her spouse purchased a condominium unit that had a “no pets” policy in the recorded declaration.  The HOA filed suit to evict complainant when she moved in with her ESAs.  Complainant filed discrimination complaints with the Commission and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  She settled her HUD complaint with the HOA whereby she could keep her ESAs, and, as a component of that settlement, she agreed to withdraw her complaint with the Commission.  The Executive Director thereafter substituted in place of the Complainant because the settlement did not address state law public policy concerns to include articulating in the house rules that an ESA and a service animal is not a “pet” that was otherwise forbidden by the declaration, as well as to pursue training for the HOA board of directors.  The parties conciliated the case and as of March 31, 2025, staff continue to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.

An applicant for a security-related job filed a complaint because the employer refused to modify its grooming policy to allow his beard as a religious accommodation.  Respondent told Complainant during the interview that there was no exemption for “things that don’t fit our grooming standards for uniformed officers.”  Complainant voiced surprise at the accommodation denial, as he had been granted a religious accommodation for his beard while serving as an active duty member of the United States Armed Forces.  Respondent claimed that the applicant was not actually qualified for the position but admitted that its strict grooming policy has no exceptions; it asserted that everyone is treated the same in that regard.  Respondent further admitted its policies had additional disparate impacts, screening out any applicant whose religion requires facial hair or applicants with certain medical conditions.  The Commission found substantial evidence of religious discrimination. The parties reached an agreement.  All terms and conditions of the conciliation agreement were met and the case was closed February 24, 2025.