Jobs for Men Only? Employer Pays $1.6M to Settle EEOC Lawsuit

A contract security solutions provider headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, has agreed to pay $1.6 million to settle an EEOC lawsuit that alleged sex discrimination. 

The problem, according to the agency, showed up in HR’s internal communications. Here’s what happened – and how you can avoid a similar misstep.

EEOC: HR’s Database Shows Hiring Discrimination

Beginning in at least 2017, Security Engineers, Inc., has discriminated against women throughout the state of Alabama by denying security officer jobs and assignments, according to an EEOC lawsuit. 

Specifically, the EEOC claimed the company’s HR department maintained a database that included “discriminatory directives” about certain positions, such as:

• “DO NOT schedule a female for this post,” and 
• “Post is MALE ONLY!”   

Moreover, the EEOC alleged Security Engineers admitted to some female applicants that they wouldn’t be selected for security positions or assignments due to their gender.

The EEOC lawsuit claimed the company “maintained a pattern or practice of sex discrimination for several years,” denying employment opportunities to female security officers – including some with experience in security, law enforcement and the military.

EEOC Lawsuit Alleges Title VII Violations

In the EEOC’s view, the alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. 

The agency filed a lawsuit against Security Engineers.

The parties reached an agreement to settle the case, with the company entering into a three-year consent decree. 

$1.6 Million Payout – Plus Other Relief

Under it, Security Engineers must pay $1.6 million that will be distributed by the EEOC to a class of women who were denied employment opportunities based on their gender. 

The decree also:

• Prohibits the company from discriminating based on sex, including prohibiting the company from complying with discriminatory client requests
• Requires the company to delete all directives in the HR database about not selecting, assigning or hiring women based on their sex
• Requires the company to provide anti-discrimination training
• Requires the company to submit to EEOC monitoring and reporting.
• Specifies that hiring decisions for security officer jobs at Security Engineers shall not be based on sex, regardless of site or work location.

Key Takeaways for HR

This case underscores the risks of gender-based hiring discrimination — and shows just how expensive EEOC lawsuits can get. To stay compliant, HR must ensure fair hiring practices, remove bias in decision-making and enforce anti-discrimination policies.

Here are three things to keep in mind:

1. Audit HR Systems for Bias

Review job postings and hiring practices to identify language that could be interpreted as exclusionary. And be sure to ensure that your HR technology – including applicant tracking systems and internal databases – doesn’t contain discriminatory directives.

Revise policies and procedures as necessary.

2. Federal Law Trumps Client Preferences 

At first glance, it might sound like a no-brainer to say that you need to create and enforce policies that explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sex or any other protected characteristic. 

But it’s important to understand that companies cannot deny employment opportunities based on a protected class – even if a client requests it. 

So you’ll need to have clear non-discrimination policies at the ready to explain your position if a client makes a request that you cannot legally fulfill.

And while you’re at it, communicate these policies clearly to all employees, including those involved in hiring and scheduling job assignments.

3. Regular Training is Essential

Training can’t be a one-and-done item to check off your list, former EEOC attorney Stephen Paskoff recently told HRMorning.

Provide regular training on Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws to ensure all hiring personnel understand legal requirements.

During training, it’s also a good idea to emphasize to employees that their clients’ preferences cannot override federal anti-discrimination laws.