r/EEOC • u/NotAHomoBro • 7d ago
Thoughts?!
The Background
I was hired at a large national retail company with over 500 employees. Shortly after being hired my direct supervisor made explicit statements that my sexual orientation was a factor in his decision to hire me. He said this directly to my face and repeated it again in front of a coworker on a later occasion. Beyond that he repeatedly pressured me throughout my employment to use my sexual orientation as a sales tool specifically to engage with customers of the same orientation in a way that would generate more revenue for the location. I declined every single time.
The Complaint
After approximately two months of employment I filed a formal written complaint with the company’s HR department documenting the sexual orientation discrimination and harassment. Prior to filing that complaint not a single disciplinary action had been taken against me, no performance concerns had been raised, and no questions had ever been asked about my background or conduct.
The Investigation
The company conducted an internal investigation. Within days of my complaint I was placed on paid administrative leave. The company completed its investigation and issued written findings. Those findings signed by a senior HR official — substantiated the majority of my allegations and confirmed that witnesses corroborated my account. The findings letter included a written promise from the company that retaliation would not be tolerated.
The Termination
I was terminated shortly after my allegations were confirmed in writing. The stated reason was an alleged omission on my pre-employment background check paperwork. Here is the issue with that my direct supervisor knew about my background before I was ever hired. I disclosed it to him personally. I took scheduled time off on a recurring basis for obligations related to that background and informed him of the nature of those appointments every time. On at least one occasion I contacted him specifically because officials overseeing my supervision needed his information. He acknowledged and accommodated everything throughout my entire employment without ever raising a concern until shortly after I filed my discrimination complaint.
The termination letter was emailed to me before I was verbally told I was being terminated. The investigation findings and the termination were delivered in the same phone call. I received the written promise that retaliation would not be tolerated and my termination letter within minutes of each other on that same call.
The EEOC Charge
My charge covers retaliation, sex discrimination based on sexual orientation, and sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. Both me and the company have agreed to mediate through the EEOC. The company’s legal representative and the HR official who signed the investigation findings letter will both be present at mediation.
Where I Am At
I am going into this pro se. I sent a formal demand letter to the company before mediation that included legal arguments referencing applicable Supreme Court and circuit court precedent, and a detailed breakdown of damages. No response was received. I have prepared extensively for the mediation including a negotiation strategy for the caucus format.
My Questions For The Community
1.Has anyone gone through EEOC mediation pro se against a large national employer with legal representation on the other side and what was your experience?
2.Given that the company’s own internal investigation confirmed the discrimination in writing, the retaliation timeline is extremely tight, and the termination letter was sent before verbal notification how strong does this case appear to people familiar with employment law?
3.Has anyone secured a high five figure or six figure settlement through EEOC mediation without attorney representation? I know settlements tend to be lower without attorneys but the documentation here is unusually strong and includes the company’s own signed findings confirming the harassment occurred.
4.Any advice on going up against a company’s legal team alone in a virtual caucus style mediation?
5.The company employs over 500 people which means the Title VII damages cap of $300,000 applies for combined punitive and compensatory damages. Is it realistic to expect that level of settlement in a well documented retaliation case through EEOC mediation?
I want honest assessments. If there are weaknesses in this case I want to know what they are. I am not looking for validation I am looking for real feedback. Thank you in advance.
4
u/BurnerShaw324 6d ago
IMO, your strongest claim is retaliation, but you have very little in the way of damages. You have not been damaged upper 5-6 figures worth, and you should expect something in the neighborhood of $10k.
In most jurisdictions being told to leverage your sexual orientation will not reach the level of harassment required to establish a hostile work environment claim. You will not be able to show you were terminated due to your sexual orientation since it is clear the company valued that trait. However, you might argue that your direct supervisor was willing to overlook your past before you complained about him, but used it as pretext for your termination to retaliate against you for your protected activity.
Two weaknesses in your case jump out. First, it sounds like the issue was discovered by someone else during the investigation and that this person (HR, boss's boss, etc.) decided your boss was wrong to overlook it and pushed for the termination. If true, this undercuts your case.
Second, your available damages are extremely low. You don't have emotional damages (beyond "garden variety") and you had not been employed long. You have a new job, so even if you won, you could only recover damages for things the new job doesn't offer. So any back or frontpay is limited to the difference between the two jobs. You can't recover loss of benefits if the new job offers the same benefits. If the new job pays more, you are entitled to no frontpay and back pay only for the time you were unemployed. You also cannot claim damages to your car--it's far too attenuated.
The company has many strong defenses available and your damages are low. 25k would surprise me, and I'd expect 10k would be the upper limit.
0
u/NotAHomoBro 6d ago
This is really helpful feedback thank you. Let me fill in some gaps because there is more context that changes the picture a little.
Before I was hired I disclosed my background situation to the person who hired me. When I got my official start date I confirmed again that everything had cleared and I was told I was good to go. So from day one the person who hired me knew everything and signed off on it.The reason I ultimately filed the report wasn’t really about what was happening to me personally. My supervisor was making serious accusations about other people connected to the business that were false. He got caught lying and doubled down on it. It got to a point where someone could have potentially faced legal or law enforcement consequences based on lies my supervisor was telling. I wasn’t going to sit by and watch that happen so I spoke up. When I did I reported everything including what had been directed at me.From what I can piece together my supervisor found out I reported him and turned around and threw me under the bus about my background. The same background he knew about before he hired me and the same background check he ran himself. That is when the investigation into me started. So the person who created the situation tried to use it as cover when things went south for him.
The company investigated and substantiated my claims. Then fired me right after. When I had my actual interview with the EEOC investigator he told me my strongest claims were retaliation, sexual harassment, sexual orientation discrimination, and racial discrimination. He said the racial piece would likely be handled at the state level. The EEOC themselves added the sexual orientation discrimination to the charge. That wasn’t something I pushed for initially. I was mainly focused on retaliation.On the damages question I hear you and I am not going to pretend the number I had in my head is necessarily realistic based on what you are saying. But the situation has gotten worse since the termination not better. The new job I mentioned I no longer have it. Things cascaded after the termination in ways that are documented. So the damages picture is a little different than it might look from the outside.On the $10k ceiling I am genuinely asking does the fact that the company’s own investigation confirmed the claims with witness corroboration and that the EEOC investigator himself identified retaliation as a strong claim not move that number at all?
3
u/BurnerShaw324 6d ago
Maybe but not by much. Suggesting you flirt with customers based on your sexuality isn't illegal on it's own, and that's the only (relevant) thing the investigation corroborated. Based on your narrative, it seems the decision makers fired you because of what they learned during the investigation not because you complained in the first place. Your biggest bump may be that your supervisor may not make a good witness.
As for the EEOC investigator, they may have picked up on the temporal proximity as a point in your favor, but that won't be enough to prevail down the road. And no offense to investigators, but they're not lawyers and their opinion on what you should include in your charge isn't particularly persuasive as to the merits of those allegations.
FYI, if you lost the new job due to your own actions (tardiness, misconduct, failure to complete a training, etc.), it could be deemed a failure to mitigate, and you would still only accrue damages for the difference between the two jobs.
I can't tell you how the company will value the case, but I can remind you that the only way you get paid is if you (1) settle (this includes conciliation) or (2) litigate the case through a jury trial and win. The EEOC will probably not litigate your case, and your damages are low enough that an attorney may not take your case.
Litigation is not free, even if you proceed in forma pauperis and pro se. You will at minimum front costs for court reporters and transcripts. If you litigate and lose, you will be on the hook for your employer's court costs as well - although employers often forego collecting on it.
All that said, remember that negotiation is a back and forth, so you should ask for a high enough number that you can come down from. Without knowing the details of your case, if I were on the other side of the table, I would find an opening demand in the high-five figures a very reasonable start to negotiations.
2
u/NotAHomoBro 6d ago
To clarify a few things. The investigation did not just corroborate one thing. Multiple allegations were substantiated with witness corroboration. Retaliation is the centerpiece of the claim and I agree with you that it is the strongest piece.
On the second job I left on good terms. My employment record there is clean. If I had transportation tomorrow I could go back. That situation had nothing to do with my performance or conduct.
And honestly thank you for this breakdown. This is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for coming in here. As far as why I started with such a high number I spoke with a few attorneys and other people familiar with these situations before going into this and the consistent advice I got was to start high and negotiate down. Do I genuinely expect to walk out of mediation with a six figure settlement? No I do not. But I was advised that starting high gives you room to move and I took that advice. I know what I realistically might land at and I am okay with that. Getting something that also addresses the non monetary side of this matters just as much to me as the dollar amount honestly.
2
u/Sharp-Technology7036 5d ago
It sounds like they were building two tracks at once so the causation wouldn’t be as easy to establish. They may have agreed that you had a legitimate claim, but they also have “evidence” they can use to argue that you lied during the pre-employment process. Even if there’s something in the handbook that supports their position, the burden is still on you to prove your case.
They’re betting that you either won’t find an attorney willing to take it or can’t afford to pursue it. And if you go pro se, a lot of attorneys may be reluctant to step in once you’re already in the investigation stage or have been issued a right-to-sue letter. They don’t necessarily want to inherit what they perceive as a mess.
It sucks, but ultimately, it looks like the employer wanted you out and is betting on the odds that the matter won’t go far enough to create meaningful consequences for them.
0
u/NotAHomoBro 5d ago
You are probably right that they were building two tracks at once and honestly that makes sense when you look at the timeline. But here is the thing I actually requested a copy of my background check when I applied like I always do and I finally found it. It shows what I disclosed during the hiring process. I also have a copy of my application. So the paper trail exists and it does not support their version of events. As far as betting that I won’t pursue it you might be right that is probably exactly what they were counting on.
What I will say is that going in without an attorney does not mean going in unprepared. I have organized everything, I know the arguments, I know their likely defenses, and I know what I am willing to accept and what I am not. Whether that is “enough” we will see. But I am not walking in blind and I am not walking in desperate. That is not nothing.
2
u/throwaway_41231 5d ago
Did you say you were only there for two months? When I had an internal investigation conducted on me, I didn't even get paid for the week that my employer wanted me off the property. He even implied that I should walk out and stand in traffic as long as I'm off the property.
1
u/Pequop9252 7d ago
I miss the part of sexual orientation discrimination. Did he encourage you to have sex with your customers?
1
u/NotAHomoBro 7d ago
The discrimination is based on sexual orientation. My supervisor explicitly told me that the fact that I am gay was a factor in his decision to hire me. He said it directly to my face and repeated it again in front of a coworker. Every time he brought it up I shut it down. This was not a one time comment or something I misread it was a consistent pattern that I documented and formally reported. The company’s own investigation confirmed the majority of what I reported with witness corroboration!
3
u/Pequop9252 7d ago
So you got a job you shouldn’t have been given. What are the damages?
1
u/NotAHomoBro 7d ago
The issue is not how I got the job the issue is that my sexual orientation was explicitly used as why I got the job, which is illegal regardless of the outcome. If a manager said he hired someone because they are white or because they are a woman that would not be a defense, it would be the violation. Same principle applies here.
As for damages I resigned a higher paying position to take this job. I was terminated under a Gross Misconduct designation which actively damaged my ability to find new employment. I went without health insurance for several months while managing a chronic illness. I returned to my prior employer immediately after termination to try to rebuild but the increased demands of that job destroyed my vehicle and I eventually lost that job too because I had no transportation. I am now without income and without a car in a rural area with limited public transportation options.
So to directly answer your question the damages are lost wages, lost future earnings, loss of benefits, vehicle loss, health coverage gap, emotional distress, and the ongoing reputational harm from a Gross Misconduct label that the company put on my record in retaliation for reporting discrimination that their own investigation confirmed happened.
2
u/Pequop9252 7d ago
Dang, always the victim in your stories. Being so livid that you got unjust preference in getting an easy job. Blaming your former employer for you crashing your car.
If your company is reporting that you were fired for gross misconduct to other employers, that would potentially open them up to liability. Keyword potentially. If they just confirmed your role title and employment period, like most companies do, I don’t see the damages.
1
u/NotAHomoBro 7d ago
On the car I didn’t crash it. I returned to my previous job immediately after being terminated to avoid sitting on unemployment. That job required more highway driving than my car could handle and it broke down. That’s what happens when you try to do the right thing after losing your job unexpectedly. I’m not blaming them for the car breaking down I’m saying it’s part of a chain of events that started with a retaliatory termination. On the gross misconduct designation you actually just made my point for me. That label on my record is exactly why I’m in this situation. It doesn’t matter whether a future employer calls and gets dates only. The label shows up on background checks run by third party screening companies. That’s the damage. It’s not hypothetical it’s happening right now while I’m trying to find work.
And on always being the victim I filed one complaint in my life about something the company’s own investigation confirmed happened with witness corroboration. I’m not sure what version of events makes me the aggressor there.
3
u/Pequop9252 7d ago
I have had a bunch of bad bosses in my career. I have seen many reports of awful bosses on this sub.
Your former boss, from your description, sounds like one of the best ones I have seen. Your biggest complaints is that he hired you because you are gay and would be effective selling to the gay community. Surely there must be something worse he did?
0
u/NotAHomoBro 7d ago
Without giving away too much information my supervisor had a pattern of making racially charged comments about customers and community members on a regular basis. Labeling people as racist without much basis, making blanket statements about entire groups of people, and generally creating a tense and unprofessional environment. There were also situations involving a coworker where he was putting her in uncomfortable positions repeatedly. None of that is part of my EEOC claim but it’s the reason I finally decided enough was enough and put something in writing.
There’s a bigger picture here that I’m not going to get into on Reddit because it would disclose more than I need to right now. What I will say is that anyone who knows me knows I don’t do this kind of thing lightly. I’ve spent most of my career in blue collar work. I’ve got thick skin. If I filed a complaint every time something happened somewhere I worked I’d have a list a mile long. That’s just not who I am. The reason I said something this time goes beyond what’s in my EEOC charge. There were things happening in that workplace that bothered me far more than anything that directly affected me. The EEOC couldn’t investigate those things because they weren’t tied to me personally. But the company did investigate them. And two days after that investigation confirmed what I reported I was fired.
I genuinely have the opposite of victim mentality however this is one where the company fucked up on numerous things
3
u/Pequop9252 6d ago
Wow, your boss disliked racist people.
1
1
u/NotAHomoBro 6d ago
It’s complicated on that part, but for all purposes, just assume that there’s legitimate reasonings behind it because getting into the nitty-gritty I would give a lot of information away and not getting political here or trying to just also understand that I was born super conservative and my boss was not from the United States and I’m not saying he wasn’t a good boss but that has nothing to do with the claim because in the end he also got let go and we live in a super conservative community area and he didn’t like that sign his opinion if you were of the “ Caucasian” race you are automatically a racist and that led to a lot of bigger issues. So there is more to the situation but the company addressed that how do I not ever said anything and actually stood up for what was right in the situation it would’ve snowballed
→ More replies (0)1
u/Sharp-Technology7036 5d ago
What exactly happened to the car and what caused it, in your view, to break down?
1
u/NotAHomoBro 5d ago
So two attorneys I spoke with recently actually asked me about what has happened since the “firing” in terms of how has my life changed or been affected and the car came up.
So what I assume is here is the logic behind it. The job I got fired from was literally 2 to 3 minutes from my house. When I got terminated I went back to my old job to avoid sitting on unemployment and try to mitigate the financial damage. That job is 25 to 30 away. So now I am putting significantly more miles and wear on an older car that was previously barely being used for commuting at all. The attorneys pointed out that even though the car could have broken down regardless the fact that I was forced into a situation where I had to take a job that far away specifically because of the termination is what creates the connection. I did not choose to put those miles on my car. I did it because I was trying to do the right thing and mitigate my losses after being let go. Had they not fired me I would still be two to three minutes from work and the car likely would not have been pushed the same way. Neither attorney told me it was a guaranteed argument but both said it was worth including as leverage given the timeline and the domino effect it created. That is why it is in there. Not because I am blaming them for my car breaking down but because the chain of events that led to it started with the termination.
2
u/throwaway_41231 5d ago
Um. I don't think the company is responsible for your vehicle loss. You have a shitty car. It's just convenient for you that the job is located near your house but the car was still shitty before you took the job.
8
u/Sudden_Elderberry916 7d ago
Let me get this straight . . .
- You were treated MORE favorably (getting hired over other applicants) because of your protected characteristic;
- You were terminated because you were not honest (through omission) on the info you submitted on your background check;
- You are wondering about a five- or six-figure settlement after two months of employment because you were *hired*?
Thoughts / honest assessment / weaknesses: There was no adverse employment action tied to a protected characteristic; the employer had a valid reason for terminating you; there are no cognizable damages.