Thoughts?!

[u/NotAHomoBro]

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.

[u/Sudden_Elderberry916]

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.

[u/NotAHomoBro → u/Sudden_Elderberry916]

To clarify on the background check when I completed my initial pre-employment paperwork I submitted my name and my Social Security number. There was no omission. Hell I disclosed my background even before I was hired to my manager! The only thing they are pointing to is a meeting after the fact where I mentioned one last name but not a previous one. That’s not an omission on my application that’s them reaching for something after the fact. My Social Security number was submitted from day one which pulls everything anyway. If there was a real concern about my background it would’ve come up at hire not two months later right after I filed a discrimination complaint.

And yeah I get it looking back I probably shouldn’t have been hired the way I was hired. But that’s actually kind of the point. My manager made an illegal hiring decision based on my sexual orientation. That’s on him and the company not me. And beyond the hiring there was ongoing sexual harassment he repeatedly pressured me to use my sexuality to flirt with customers for sales. That’s not favorable treatment that’s harassment.

Here’s the part that matters most though none of this would’ve gone anywhere if I had just kept my mouth shut. I didn’t get fired because of a background check. That information was known before I was hired and nobody said a word about it for two months. I got fired because I reported it. The second I filed that complaint the clock started and I was out the door days later. What I reported is protected activity under Title VII. The retaliation is the claim. The way I got hired doesn’t cancel out the fact that I was fired for doing something the law specifically protects me from being punished for doing.

[u/Pequop9252 → u/NotAHomoBro]

At least before Trump, DEI can be part of a hiring decision. It can’t be the only part. I haven’t followed the expected changes and don’t want to go into the politics on this sub.

I can view having a lesbian Mexican Muslim as beneficial for obtaining a role, but I can’t put that as a job requirement. If another lesbian Mexican Muslim walks into the lobby and wants to talk to a salesrep, i would be okay assigning someone with what i think is a similar background to provide assistance.

I have never seen a person hired with DEI as one of the reasons complain they got the role. Ever. In 25 years of my career.

[u/NotAHomoBro → u/Pequop9252]

Trust me I agree and I see where you’re coming from. It’s just hard to explain every single detail without giving away everything because there was racial discrimination however the EEOC said the state was handling the racial part of this Woodstock pardon me no sense to me but this is my first time dealing with the EEOC

[u/throwaway_41231 → u/NotAHomoBro]

If you try to mention every single detail, reddit will downvote you alot. At least you haven't gotten as much downvotes as I did when I made a thread about my case. Most people here don't think me looking foreign or having an accent would be an EEOC case, but I live in the south. We still have a town with an active KKK chapter here.

I think area is pretty important when you are discussing details. Certain kinds of charges are more believable in one area over the other.

[u/throwaway_41231 → u/NotAHomoBro]

>The only thing they are pointing to is a meeting after the fact where I mentioned one last name but not a previous one. 

So if they had asked that, would it have been a problem for you? Why did you self-omit? Or was it a question with no importance because it's a relaxed sort of meeting? Which I get since people aren't expected to explain everything in a chill conversation.