Employment Litigation Cases
Cases prior to 2020 are available on this case list page
The cases below are a sample of complaints, judgments, consent decrees and court-approved settlements obtained by the Employment Litigation Section. While we strive to ensure that the electronic copies of the documents on this site are complete and accurate (apart from formatting changes necessitated by the conversion to HTML format), errors or omissions may occur. The official text of any legal document is the version filed with the clerk of the court. PDF files must be viewed using an Adobe Acrobat Reader.
United States v. Mississippi State Senate (S.D. Miss.)
On November 8, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Mississippi State Senate (S.D. Miss.). The complaint alleged the Senate violated Title VII. The complaint alleged the Senate discriminated against Kristie Metcalfe based on race (Black) when, during her eight years (2011-2019) as a staff attorney for the Senate’s Legislative Services Office, she received a salary about half that of every white attorney. The complaint alleged the pay gap resulted from a series of discriminatory pay actions by the Senate during her tenure. The complaint sought backpay for Metcalfe as well as corrective injunctive relief.
United States v. South Bend Police Department (N.D. Ind.)
On October 11, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of South Bend, Indiana (N.D. Ind.). The complaint alleged that the City of South Bend violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) by discriminating against Black and female police officer applicants. The lawsuit alleged that, since at least 2016, South Bend has used a written exam that has disproportionately excluded Black applicants and a physical fitness test that has disproportionately excluded female applicants from consideration for police officer positions. The lawsuit further alleged that these tests, and the way South Bend uses them, are neither job related nor consistent with business necessity, and therefore violate Title VII.
United States v. Durham Fire Department (M.D.N.C.)
On October 7, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of Durham, North Carolina (M.D.N.C.). The complaint alleged that the City of Durham, through the Durham Fire Department (DFD), violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The lawsuit alleged that DFD violated Title VII when it used a certain written test to hire entry-level firefighters, because the test disqualified more African-American applicants than others and was not job-related or consistent with business necessity. On October 7, 2024, the Parties jointly filed a proposed consent decree to resolve the case. If approved by the Court, the decree will require Durham to adopt a Title-VII-compliant test in place of the challenged test; make 16 priority hires, with retroactive seniority and hiring bonuses in lieu of pension credits; and provide a $980,000.00 settlement fund to be distributed to African-American applicants who were disqualified by the challenged test.
United States v. Maryland Department of State Police (D. Md.)
On October 2, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Maryland Department of State Police, Case No. 1:24-cv-2862 (D. Md.). The complaint alleged that Maryland State Police (MDSP) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit alleged that MDSP violated Title VII when it used a certain physical fitness test and a certain written test to hire entry-level troopers, because the tests disqualified more female and African-American applicants than others and were not job-related or consistent with business necessity. On October 2, 2024, the Parties jointly filed a proposed consent decree to resolve the case. If it is approved by the Court, the decree will require MDSP to adopt Title-VII-compliant tests in place of the challenged tests; make 25 priority hires, with retroactive seniority and hiring bonuses in lieu of pension credits; and provide a $2.75 million settlement fund to be distributed to female and African-American applicants who were disqualified by the challenged tests. The United States is represented by the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland.
Wood v. Florida Department of Education (N.D. Fla.)
McCullough v Oklahoma City Public Schools (W.D. Ok.)
On May 29, 2024, the United States filed a complaint on behalf of servicemember Michael J. McCullough in McCullough v. Independent School District No. 89 of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, a.k.a. Oklahoma City Public Schools (W.D. Ok.). The complaint alleged that Oklahoma City Public Schools (OKCPS) violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, as amended (USERRA). Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that OKCPS discriminated against McCullough based on his military service by failing to renew his contract as a music teacher and by failing to reemploy him upon his return from active military duty. On February 6, 2025, the Court entered a consent decree resolving the case. The consent decree requires OKCPS to provide McCullough with monetary relief, change its internal policies related to USERRA, and to provide training on the revised USERRA policies.
United States v Cobb County, Georgia (N.D. Ga.)
United States v Texas Department of Criminal Justice (S.D. Tex.)
On May 3, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice (S.D. Tex.). The complaint alleges that Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) violated Title VII when it failed to reasonably accommodate an employee’s request to wear her head covering in accord with the tenets of her religion (Ifa). The lawsuit alleges further that TDCJ indefinitely suspended the employee without pay, impermissibly questioned the sincerity of her faith, and ultimately terminated her employment. The United States seeks make-whole relief for the employee, as well as injunctive relief.
United States v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (N.D. Cal.)
On March 28, 2024, the United States sought a preliminary injunction in United States v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (N.D. Cal.). The complaint alleged that California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) by failing to properly consider religious accommodation requests from corrections officers. Beginning in 2022, CDCR prohibited employees who may need to use protective masks, such as N-95s or gas masks, from having most facial hair. Then, CDCR denied religious accommodation requests filed by bearded officers. On June 20, 2024, the Court entered a preliminary injunction temporarily enjoining CDCR from enforcement of its no-beard policy for officers whose sincerely held religious beliefs require them to wear beards. The order required CDCR to temporarily allow these officers to work or receive paid leave and to explore options for accommodating their religious beliefs, consistent with Title VII. This was ELS's first case seeking preliminary relief pending completion of an EEOC investigation.
Nicholas Whitman v. U.S. Development Corp. (AKRO Plastics) (N.D. Oh.)
On March 21, 2024, the United States filed a complaint in Nicholas Whitman v. U.S. Development Corp. d/b/a AKRO-Plastics, Ohio, N.D. Ohio. The complaint alleges that AKRO-Plastics violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”). The lawsuit alleges that AKRO-Plastics failed to promote Mr. Whitman due to his upcoming commitment to serve in the United States military and unlawfully terminated him following his return from active-duty military service. On March 28, 2024, the Court entered a settlement agreement resolving the case. The agreement requires Defendant to provide Mr. Whitman with monetary relief, change its internal policy regarding military service, leave, promotions, and reemployment, and to agree to provide training on the revised policy and USERRA.
Zinner v State of Tennessee (M.D. Tenn.)
United States v. City of Tampa, Florida (M.D. Fla.)
On December 21, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of Tampa, Florida (M.D. Fla.). The complaint alleged that Tampa violated Section 707 of Title VII by maintaining a discriminatory parental leave policy from February 2017 to December 2018 that treated male employees worse than their similarly-situated female coworkers. The complaint also alleged that Tampa violated Section 706 of Title VII by discriminating based on sex against about 150 male employees. On October 1, 2024, the Court dismissed this action after ELS filed a notice with the Court stating that the Parties had reached a settlement. The terms of the settlement agreement provide restoration of up to 240 hours of leave to each of the eligible male employees, distribution of an additional $300,000 in compensatory damages, and Tampa’s adoption of new policies and procedures regarding sex discrimination.