U.S. Department
of Justice
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 Baltimore County (D. Md.)
On September 5, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Baltimore County, Maryland (D. Md.). The complaint alleged that the Baltimore County Fire Department (BCFD) subjected eleven female employees to a hostile work environment that arose out of the solicitation and posting of nude and other inappropriate photographs of female BCFD employees by a coworker as well as BCFD’s failure to take prompt and appropriate actions to correct the ongoing hostile work environment these employees faced in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). On the same day, the United States filed a consent decree resolving the matter, and the Court approved the consent decree on September 6. Under the terms of the consent decree, BCFD will overhaul its process for investigating complaints of sexual harassment, provide periodic sexual harassment training to its employees, and conduct a workplace climate survey to gather information to aid in efforts to keep the workplace free of harassment. Baltimore County also paid $275,000 to compensate female employees that were harmed by the harassment.
United States v Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs (W.D. Wis.)
On January 26, 2023, the United States filed a complaint in U.S. v. Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs (W.D. Wis.). The complaint alleged that the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) by engaging in pay discrimination. The lawsuit alleged that the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs offered Michelle Hartness, a woman, a lower salary than equally or less qualified men for a bureau director position in the Wisconsin Emergency Management Division. The Court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment on May 9, 2024. A jury trial was set to begin June 24, 2024. A settlement conference was held on June 21, 2024, during which the Parties reached an agreement in principle. The Parties filed a settlement agreement with the Court on September 19, 2024, in which Defendant attests it abides by a new pay-settling policy to establish consistent practices for setting salaries for positions like the one at issue in this case, trains personnel on the pay-setting policy, and maintains anti-discrimination policies and practices. Defendant also paid Ms. Hartness and her attorney $175,000.
United States v American Samoa (D. Hi.)
United States v Bartow County (N.D. Ga.)
On October 13, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Bartow County, GA (N.D. Ga.). The complaint alleged that Bartow County violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The lawsuit alleged that Bartow County subjected Carlen Loyal to a racially hostile work environment and retaliated against Loyal and his brother-in-law, Bobby Turner, when it terminated their employment after Loyal’s complaints of discrimination. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Loyal complained that a co-worker referred to him using the "n-word" and after Loyal complained, the County’s Human Resources Director subjected him to severe racial harassment. Two weeks later, Loyal and Turner were both terminated. The matter is pending and awaiting a ruling on summary judgment.
United States v Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) (E.D. Pa.)
On August 1, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) (E.D. Pa.). The complaint alleged that three officers of the SEPTA Police Department were subjected to a hostile work environment by their supervisor and experienced retaliation when they opposed the harassment, in violation of Title VII. According to the complaint, the officers’ supervisor repeatedly harassed them with racial and religious slurs, threatened the officers, and physically assaulted them. The complaint further alleged that the Police Chief retaliated against the officers for opposing the harassment. The officers’ supervisor and the Police Chief are no longer employed by SEPTA. On August 26, 2022, the Court entered a consent decree resolving the case. The decree required SEPTA to implement anti-discrimination and retaliation policies and provide trainings for its employees, as well as pay the officers a total of $478,000.
United States v. City of Lansing, Michigan (W.D. Mich.)
On July 15, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. City of Lansing, Ml (W.D. Mich.). The lawsuit alleged that Lansing discriminated against detention officer Sylvia Coleman based on her religion (Seventh-day Adventist) when it failed to accommodate her religious observance of the Sabbath (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) and instead terminated her employment on June 20, 2018. The lawsuit also alleged that Lansing retaliated against Coleman when it filed a baseless counterclaim with the intention of harassing Coleman. On February 15, 2023, the Court entered a consent decree resolving the case. The decree required Lansing to pay Coleman $50,000; to revise its anti-religious discrimination and religious accommodation policy (creating a clear process for investigating complaints of religious discrimination as well as a clear policy for handling religious accommodation requests); to revise its anti-retaliation policy; and to train all Lansing employees on these new policies.
United States v Kansas Department of Health and Environment (D. Kan.)
On June 27, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. State of Kansas (D. Kan.). The complaint alleges that Kansas violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, as amended (USERRA). The lawsuit alleges that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) withdrew the grant funding the Disease Intervention Specialist employment position held by the servicemember, thereby eliminating that employment position, due to her absence to perform military service in the United States Army National Guard. On January 9, 2024, the District Court granted the State of Kansas’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that KDHE was not the servicemember’s “employer” as defined under USERRA. On March 26, 2024, the United States filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s order with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter remains pending before the Tenth Circuit.
United States v Groveport Madison Local School District Board of Education (S.D. Ohio)
On June 15, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Groveport Madison Local Sch. Dist. Bd. Educ. (S.D. Ohio). The complaint alleged that the school board violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The lawsuit alleged that the school board discriminated and retaliated against former Groveport Madison High School Assistant Principal Amon-Ra Dobbins. Dobbins was unfairly disciplined after he complained that the school district's dress code policy was unfairly targeting African-American students. The school district began to retaliate against Dobbins for complaining, and ultimately terminated his employment. On June 20, 2022, the Court entered a consent decree resolving the case. The Decree required the school board to pay Dobbins $200,000. The Decree also required the school board to change its discrimination and retaliation policies, train school board and school district employees on the new policies, and change its complaint investigation procedures.
United States v. Dekalb County, Georgia (N.D. Ga.)
On June 2, 2022, the United States filed a settlement agreement with the Court in United States v. DeKalb County, Georgia (N.D. Ga.) that resolved its lawsuit (filed at the same time) alleging the County retaliated against Cemetra Brooks because she complained about sexual harassment by her supervisor, the Director of the County’s Facilities Management Department, when it extended her original six-month probationary period by three months, and then fired her during the extended probation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Among its claims, the lawsuit alleged that, just one month after Brooks complained, the Deputy Director’s supervisor, the Department Director, contacted Human Resources asking for information from the County’s ongoing internal investigation of Brooks’ complaint that would help him fire her while she was still on probation. Under the settlement agreement, later entered by the Court, the County paid Brooks $190,000 for lost wages and compensatory damages. The agreement also required the County to develop, and submit to the Justice Department for approval, anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies and to provide managers in its Facilities Management Department with training on those policies and on the types of workplace conduct that constitute unlawful employment practices under Title VII.
United States v Illinois Department of Corrections (N.D. Ill.)
On May 23, 2022, the United States filed a complaint in United States v. Illinois Department of Corrections (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleged that the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by failing to properly reemployment Illinois Air National Guard Reservist Roderick Workman to his proper “escalator position” following his return from military service. On June 7, 2022, the district court entered a consent decree resolving the case. The decree required IDOC to change its policies related to reemployment under USERRA, and reform its trainings to adequately educate all IDOC employees, including Human Resources staff, regarding employees’ rights to prompt reemployment under USERRA. The decree also required IDOC to pay Workman $9,026.71 in backpay and interest.
United States v Schuylkill County (M.D. Pa.)
On April 1, 2022, the United States filed a motion to intervene and a complaint in Doe et al. v. Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, et al., (M.D. Pa.). The complaint alleged that Schuylkill County violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The lawsuit alleged that four female employees experienced a hostile work environment based on sex and that the County retaliated against them when they opposed this hostile work environment. According to the complaint, a Schuylkill County Commissioner was primarily responsible for the harassment which created the hostile work environment. On January 17, 2023, the Court entered a consent decree resolving the case. The consent decree required, among other things, that Schuylkill County: retain a consultant with expertise in crafting anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies and with expertise in training employees on such policies; permit that consultant to conduct a workplace climate survey of County employees; adopt policy changes the consultant recommended; and conduct training recommended by the consultant. The United States also required the County to offer the four female plaintiffs a total of $850,000, plus an additional amount for their attorney’s fees and costs, as a condition for entering into the consent decree. This lawsuit was part of the Civil Rights Division’s Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Initiative which seeks to eradicate sexual harassment in state and local government workplaces.
United States v Prince George County, Virginia (E.D. Va.)
On September 30, 2021, the United States filed a complaint in Mark L. Gunn v. Prince George County, Virginia (PGC) and the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) (E.D. Va.). The complaint alleged that Defendants violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The lawsuit alleged that Defendant PGC’s police department failed to properly reinstate Mark L. Gunn to his position as a detective with the police department, failed to pay him a bonus he was entitled to and that the police department and VRS failed to provide him with certain retirement benefits in violation of USERRA. On April 29, 2022, the Parties entered into a Court endorsed settlement agreement resolving the case. The agreement required the Defendants to provide Gunn with payment for lost benefits due to the failure to reinstate Gunn to his detective position, payment for lost pension benefits and other pension benefits for his service. The Civil Rights Division’s Employment Litigation Section litigated this matter with attorneys and staff from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.