Strip resort will pay six-figure settlement in religious discrimination, retaliation lawsuit
The Venetian hotel-casino will pay $850,000 and implement "significant policy changes" via a three-year consent decree to settle the suit, the EEOC said in a news release.
The federal agency said The Venetian Resort Las Vegas violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by "refusing to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of a class of employees" and allegedly "retaliated against employees who opposed these acts of religious discrimination." According to the EEOC lawsuit, "in some cases denial of accommodation led to discipline, denial of promotion opportunities and discharge or constructive discharge."
"We are aware of the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The complaint was procedural in nature as the parties have already reached a voluntary resolution in the matter, with no admission of liability or wrongdoing," a Venetian spokesperson said Thursday.
Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District, whose jurisdiction includes Las Vegas, commended The Venetian for "their cooperation in the early resolution of this lawsuit and agreeing to implement proactive measures to ensure religious accommodation requests are handled more effectively."
"The law protects the rights of workers in our pluralistic society to live out their various faiths in the workplace," said EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas. "As this case shows, reasonable accommodation might look like, among other things, allowing certain days off for Sabbatarians or Buddhists and allowing beards for Orthodox Christians. It also means not punishing anyone who speaks out in favor of these rights."
The Venetian will pay the six-figure sum as well as provide additional training for employees, managers and supervisors on employee rights and the obligations of employers when it comes to religious accommodations under Title VII. The decree also requires The Venetian to hire an independent third party to help review and update its religious accommodation policies and complaint procedures, and to keep track of whether the company is following the rules during the 36 months the decree is in effect.
The Venetian is owned by VICI Properties Inc., a real estate investment trust, and operated by Apollo Global Management Inc., a New York City-based investment firm. Apollo and VICI purchased The Venetian, the Palazzo hotel-casino and The Venetian Expo for $6.25 billion in 2022 from the Las Vegas Sands Corp.
The charges of discrimination and retaliation that prompted the EEOC lawsuit were filed with the agency prior to the 2022 sale. The settlement amount is being paid by the current operators of The Venetian.
The aggrieved employees who filed complaints with the EEOC belonged to diverse faiths, including but not limited to, Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Buddhism, according to the lawsuit.
The EEOC filed its lawsuit in June in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada "following a lengthy voluntary pre-litigation mediation process after a resolution could not be achieved through the agency's conciliation process," the release said.
___
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
EEOC sues Chrysler manufacturer for allegedly firing a worker for not working during Passover
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit alleging that automaker FCA US denied a worker's request for a religious accommodation to observe the Sabbath and take unpaid time off for Passover, according to a news release issued July 7. The automobile manufacturer — known for the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram and Fiat car brands — allegedly disciplined and eventually fired the worker, who practices orthodox Judaism, for not working the Sabbath or during Passover, per a lawsuit (EEOC v. FCA US, LLC) filed June 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The worker 'has a sincerely held religious belief that he must abstain from working during the Sabbath, a 24-hour period that begins Friday sundown and ends Saturday sundown,' the lawsuit said. The company allegedly stopped excusing the worker's Friday absences and instituted mandatory Saturday work, per EEOC, 'which conflicted with the employee's religious beliefs.' Such alleged actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination or retaliation based on a person's religion; the law also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for workers' religious practices and observances, unless it would cause the company undue hardship, per EEOC. 'The EEOC will hold employers accountable for violations of Title VII's religious protections,' EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas said in the news release. 'Employees have a right to request reasonable religious accommodations without fear of punishment or termination. Firing someone for asserting those rights violates federal civil rights laws.' 'Instead of engaging with the employee and providing a reasonable religious accommodation, FCA disciplined him for attendance violations for not working during the Sabbath. The employee complained of FCA's discriminatory actions, but FCA continued to issue him attendance violations for not working during the Sabbath,' EEOC said in the news release. The worker filed a charge of discrimination with EEOC against the Big Three automaker, and the company allegedly chose not to participate in conciliation, per the lawsuit. FCA US, which is a subsidiary of Stellantis, did not immediately respond to an HR Dive request for comment. The lawsuit, which requests a jury trial, calls for the company to pay punitive damages and provide compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, 'including, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.' EEOC also requested the court order the company to institute policies to correct its alleged unlawful employment practices and enjoin the company from any discriminatory employment practices based on religion. Recommended Reading The end of the rainbow (lawsuit): Kroger settles religious bias claim for $180K
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
EEOC: Workers with vision impairments couldn't access education company's training
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in a June 27 lawsuit that Pearson Education, Inc., failed to provide equal access to training for employees with visual impairments. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, said the educational publishing and services company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it used third-party vendors for training, payroll, benefits, performance and leave information that weren't fully accessible to blind or visually impaired employees and couldn't accommodate screen-reading software. As a result, employees with visual impairments used their personal time to complete required training by asking a sighted person or manager to help them, EEOC said. Employees also said they disclosed sensitive information to third parties, lost unpaid leave time and incurred unexpected out-of-pocket expenses from insurance elections due to the lack of access. 'For example, during their employee onboarding process in 2018, Aggrieved Individual No. 1 could not independently elect their health insurance benefits, assign beneficiaries, or complete their IRS W-4 tax form through ADP, and had to receive assistance from Human Resources. Sometime in March 2019, Aggrieved Individual No. 1 discovered that the W-4 form had automatically elected zero tax withholding, which resulted in a $10,000 tax bill,' the lawsuit alleged. The same worker — a senior quality assurance engineer for blindness technologies who was responsible for evaluating Pearson's assessment and courseware products to ensure they were accessible by people with visual impairments — allegedly lost 44 hours of unused paid leave time 'because they did not receive updates on their leave balance from management.' The lawsuit seeks equal access and reasonable accommodations, such as technological fixes and third-party vendors with accessible portals, as well as damages. The ADA is intended to protect employees and applicants with disabilities from discrimination and, as part of that, requires reasonable accommodations; furthermore employers should train managers on proper implementation, experts previously told HR Dive. Reasonable accommodations, for instance, can include making facilities accessible, restructuring jobs and providing policy exemptions. When it comes to training, there are numerous accommodations employers can consider, according to the Job Accommodation Network, a service of the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy. Training accommodations could include alternative formats, assistive technology, sign language interpreters, real-time captions, extended time, reduced distractions, verbal explanations and job coaches who can provide additional guidance. Recommended Reading Noncompliant workers are a $1.6M liability, study shows
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
Democrats launch investigation into EEOC's probes of major law firms
A coalition of Democratic lawmakers demanded the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) turn over documents relating to its 'sham investigation' of several major law firms' hiring practices, arguing the EEOC violated confidentiality rules while conducting a pressure campaign. The EEOC in March sent a letter to 20 firms asking questions about their diversity hiring practices, suggesting such programs could violate employment laws. 'Public reporting suggests—and information we have received as part of our ongoing investigation corroborates—that you used your position as Acting Chair of the EEOC to facilitate a shakedown of prominent law firms that represented causes or employed individuals whom the President dislikes,' Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.) wrote in the letter to acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. 'We request your prompt response to our requests for documents and information about your role in launching sham EEOC investigations, which the White House used to threaten and extort law firms into providing free legal services to the President's allies. If you believe these allegations are incorrect, we welcome the opportunity to hear from you directly and promptly at a transcribed interview.' In the wake of those letters, as well as executive orders signed by President Trump seeking to strip security clearances from firms and block them from federal buildings, many of the law firms agreed to do millions in pro bono work for causes favored by the administration. The investigation ignited by Raskin and Blumenthal previously asked law firms that signed agreements with Trump about the nature of the deals and what the contracts entailed. While the law firms all said that there was nothing in writing to capture the deals beyond what Trump posted about them on social media, in letters to the committee many cited the EEOC letter as part of the rationale for brokering an agreement with the White House. 'The EEOC's demands included detailed personal information regarding the firms' employees and applicants for attorney roles at the Firm as well as extensive information related to the Firm's clients,' the law firm Allen Overy Shearman Sterling told the lawmakers in an April letter. 'Ultimately, the Firm as a fiduciary for the interests and information of thousands of employees and clients determined that resolving the EEOC inquiry, including by entering into the Agreement, was the most prudent course.' The letter asks the EEOC to turn over all its communications with the White House, as well as all communications and meeting notes related to the commission's March letter. It also asks for all the commission's communications with the targeted firms and all signed settlement agreements. Raskin and Blumenthal said Lucas appeared to violate the law in publicizing the letters on inquiry, noting that investigations can only be initiated after a commissioner files a 'charge' alleging employment discrimination, which must then be kept confidential. 'By sending these 'letters of inquiry' to the law firms and then publicizing them widely, you appear to have violated EEOC rules and federal law. …Title VII expressly states that charges must be kept confidential and provides criminal penalties for violating the confidentiality requirement. These requirements ensure that the EEOC does not begin or publicize an investigation, which may be highly damaging to the reputation of an employer, until there is actual evidence of wrongdoing,' they wrote. 'Yet that appears to be exactly what you did at the request of the President.' The EEOC did not respond to the substance of the letter but said it had been received. 'The agency has received and is reviewing the letter. We are committed to working with Congress to ensure the vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that protect equal employment opportunity in America's workplaces,' EEOC spokesman Victor Chen said in an email. Law firms have had mixed reactions to pressure from Trump. Nine law firms have signed deals to collectively provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work. But others have sued the Trump administration and been successful in court, earning injunctions to block the executive orders. U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, slammed Trump's order against Jenner & Block as an effort to 'chill legal representation the administration doesn't like,' while U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by former President Obama, said Trump's order against Perkins Coie 'draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.''
