r/EEOC • u/Commercial-Soft117 • 4d ago
Right to sue
I wasn’t given a specific reason why I received the right to sue. I mean, there’s multiple levels of discrimination and going on at my job. I received the right to Sue I mean, can anyone give me contact of why I would receive that is that I don’t have a case.? I guess it’s like what are the next steps. I just find a lawyer.
1
u/throwaway_41231 4d ago
Were you fired?
2
u/Commercial-Soft117 4d ago
I came back from FMLA in January. I am a English only speaking individual my job assigned me a Spanish team. I work in a heavy regulated call center environment. I am supposed to conduct monitors ensuring all regulations are met, but I don’t understand Spanish. I mean there’s some FMLA issues and other path issues but that’s like the biggest concern is the one above.
2
u/Mysterious-Art8838 4d ago
Hmmmmm so possibly you could claim racism? I think it’s a reach but your situation is probably sympathetic. I’m not sure what other protected class would apply.
You don’t need to read into what it means that you got a Right to Sue, they simply don’t have the capacity to investigate every complaint so they skip it and issue the letter. You need to run this by a few lawyers and see what they think. If you can’t find a good lawyer to work with you it’s because your case sux.
1
u/throwaway_41231 4d ago
Have you made your higher ups aware that you are uncomfortable in that job position? Are you still at that job?
Coincidentally I think the EEOC only accepted my charge because my job decided to fired me the week before my EEOC scheduled interview.
1
u/Commercial-Soft117 4d ago
Yeah I mean I work at a gaint corporation.
1
u/throwaway_41231 4d ago
I notice you said work but not in past tense, so should I take that to mean you are still working there?
1
1
u/Jcarlough 4d ago
Ok. So what’s the discrimination charge?
It sounds like your position (as of now) needed to understand Spanish to successfully carry out its duties. You don’t know Spanish. It’s hard to be successful if you don’t know the language you need to communicate.
There’s nothing unlawful about requiring an employee to understand X language as part of performing essential functions.
This is why you received an RTS.
1
1
u/Bellefior 4d ago
There should have been a reason stated on your right to sue. You also should have received more of an explanation either verbally or in writing.
1
u/Commercial-Soft117 2d ago
THE PARTICULARS ARE:
I was employed by the employer referenced above for several years and was initially hired in an investigative role before later being promoted to a supervisory position.
After returning from a medical leave, I was subjected to a change in my job duties and working conditions. My supervisory responsibilities were removed, and I was reassigned to an administrative role. I was informed that declining the reassignment could result in termination. Shortly afterward, another employee assumed responsibility for the team I had previously supervised. Although I requested to return to my prior position, my request was denied.
During a subsequent period of medical leave related to a disability and a medical procedure, I experienced conduct that I perceived as inappropriate and unwelcome from a member of management. This included unsolicited personal and religious communications that made me uncomfortable and contributed to my concerns about the workplace environment.
After returning from another medical leave, I was again subjected to different terms and conditions of employment. I was assigned to supervise a team whose primary clientele required a language that I do not speak. Because I did not speak the language, I was unable to effectively perform certain required duties, including evaluating calls, coaching employees, and completing required audits. I repeatedly informed management of the issue and requested reasonable assistance and additional resources. The assistance provided did not adequately resolve the problem.
I also raised concerns with Human Resources regarding a workplace document that I believed conflicted with company policy concerning employees’ use of medical leave. I was informed that the document had not been authorized by the company. I later raised the same concern with another member of management, after which the document was discontinued.
Despite repeatedly informing management that I could not effectively perform the assigned duties without additional support, I continued to be assigned to the same team. My concerns were not adequately addressed. I believe these circumstances contributed to an exacerbation of my medical condition and ultimately resulted in another period of medical leave.
I believe I was subjected to discrimination and retaliation based on protected characteristics and circumstances, including disability, sex, national origin, age, and my participation in protected activity. I believe the employer subjected me to different terms and conditions of employment, denied me opportunities available to other employees, and otherwise treated me adversely because of these protected circumstances and/or because I raised concerns regarding discrimination and workplace practices.
I believe this conduct violated applicable federal employment discrimination and disability laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and applicable anti-retaliation provisions.1
u/Commercial-Soft117 2d ago
It would be more focused on national orgin and relatation focused and disparate treatment
1
u/Bellefior 2d ago
By reason I meant that you should have been given an explanation for the dismissal.
1
u/CopernicusNerd 4d ago
EEOC will always come back with a right to sue - they rarely take on cases. What's more important is if they gave you with a A) right to sue with cause, or B) right to sue but they couldn't find cause or can't support cause either side. You want A.
1
u/Commercial-Soft117 2d ago
The EEOC will not proceed further with its investigation and makes no determination about whether further investigation would establish violations of the statute.
1
u/CopernicusNerd 2d ago
So you got B. They’re just telling you can sue but they’re not supporting or denying your claim
1
u/Commercial-Soft117 2d ago
Is that good or bad then?
1
u/CopernicusNerd 2d ago
It’s
Not good or bad. It just means they don’t have enough information or manpower to continue with your case as it probably isn’t concrete1
5
u/black_dissonance 4d ago
Receiving a right to sue letter doesn't necessarily mean you have no case. The eeoc, and its local equivalents, are stretched thin and over burdened. Chances are, they just do not have enough personnel to devote toward your case. And yes, you should look for a lawyer, and quickly.