Skip to main content

Firm to pay $3.5 million for this

TD

By

Last updated October 8, 20211 min read
Firm to pay $3.5 million for this

Sometimes federal enforcement actions end with big payouts. But it isn’t very often that they get this big — or include this unusual twist.

A temporary placement agency will pay a total of $3.525 million to resolve allegations that it illegally discriminated. A federal agency accused it of discriminating with respect to its hiring and placement practices on the basis of age, sex and race.

And in an unusual move, the parties agreed that half of that money will not go to alleged victims in the case but will instead be donated to outside organizations.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spearheaded the action against Maryland-based Aerotek, a large employment agency.

The EEOC alleged that Aerotek denied recruitment, referrals and/or hiring opportunities in violation of federal law.

A Long Road

According to a 2016 decision in the case, the EEOC began its investigation of the company in 2013. The decision also says that the EEOC’s investigation “revealed hundreds of discriminatory job requests by Aerotek’s clients at 62 of Aerotek’s 286 facilities.”

The long-running investigation led to discovery-related disputes. The parties reached a settlement at the start of October.

Aerotek denied that it engaged in any illegal conduct. Nonetheless, it agreed to resolve the matter with the EEOC in a manner that avoided litigation.

Of the total amount agreed to be paid, half will go to two charging parties and a class of individuals who worked for Aerotek as contract employees between October of 2012 and mid-March of 2014.

According to the EEOC, Aerotek violated Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

In an unusual move, Aerotek will donate the other half of the funds. It will donate the funds to organizations that foster education and employment opportunities for underserved communities.

In addition, Aerotek has agreed to provide company-wide training to its human resources personnel and client recruiters. The training will address Title VII and ADEA requirements.

Filed underEmployment Law
Share

Further Reading

  • Unpaid Pre-Shift Work Costs New Jersey Employer $725K

    A New Jersey drywall installer must pay $725,000 after failing to pay 48 workers overtime for pre-shift work performed while they waited for transportation to job sites. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division found P & B Partitions Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime rules. The company also refused […]

  • Connecticut Joins States Regulating Workplace AI: 7 Compliance Steps

    Connecticut is putting employers on notice over workplace AI. Effective Oct. 1, 2026, SB 5 clarifies that Connecticut employers facing a discrimination claim can’t blame the artificial intelligence (AI) tools they use to make hiring, promotion, discipline or termination decisions. Other changes that kicked in the same day: And there’s more coming. The law’s second […]

  • Pa. Court Sets 3-Year Deadline for Minimum Wage Act Claims

    Pennsylvania employers face a three-year window for employees to sue over unpaid minimum wages or overtime under state law, rather than the six years a trial court previously allowed. The ruling came in a case involving 20 pharmacy employees seeking overtime for work done from 2017 to 2019. The employers argued the claims were filed […]

  • Hidden Payroll Rounding Risk: Unpaid Pre-Shift Time Under Scrutiny

    Required pre-shift tasks – and whether employees are paid for them – are at the center of a former hospital nurse’s wage dispute. Chestnut Hill Hospital required nurses to change into surgical scrubs by 7 a.m. for a morning huddle. Pamela McBride sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging the hospital didn’t pay her […]