
The Human Resource · 2026-07-21 · 21 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
68 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
This episode examines five recent EEOC enforcement actions from mid-2024, all involving Fortune 500 or well-known companies making legally indefensible decisions. Scott Warrick, a civil rights attorney, dissects Toyota's Erlanger, Kentucky facility where supervisors made sexual propositions tied to promotions (quid pro quo harassment dating back to 2021); Home Creations' supervisor who joked about pregnancy and protected classes after promoting a technician into management without training; Paycom's failure to accommodate a woman with severe peanut allergies despite two ambulance-triggering reactions; Work Smart staffing's agreement to client requests excluding women; and Smithfield Fresh Meats' termination of a pregnant employee who needed light duty accommodation under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The hosts emphasize these are not edge cases but cultural failures, with over 91,000 discrimination claims filed with the EEOC in 2025. Warrick notes that quid pro quo harassment creates strict liability, and that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (distinct from the ADA) allows no essential functions exceptions for temporary pregnancy-related accommodations. For operators concerned about civil rights exposure, the episode demonstrates how companies with massive compliance budgets still lose six-figure+ settlements due to inadequate supervisor training and leadership indifference.
Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor offers job benefits (raise, promotion, better parking spot, positive review) in exchange for sexual favors. It creates strict liability - meaning the employer is automatically liable regardless of company policy, because the supervisor is acting in their official capacity.
No - unlike the ADA, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has no essential functions exception. For up to 40 weeks, employers must remove or reassign job duties related to pregnancy, even if those duties are normally essential, because the accommodation is temporary.
No. Staffing agencies cannot agree to client discrimination requests. Work Smart paid $150,000 in a sex discrimination settlement for agreeing to a client's demand to exclude female workers.
Over 91,000 discrimination claims were filed in 2025 (a 3.4% increase), and it costs employees nothing to file, making the barrier to litigation very low for claimants and increasing risk for employers.
Promoting a high-performing technician into supervision without civil rights training creates major liability, as Home Creations discovered when supervisor Carl made pregnancy jokes that led to an EEOC case and the company's termination of the pregnant employee.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode delivers substantial legal and practical workplace compliance insights, including specifics on quid pro quo harassment, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and recording laws across states. However, there is considerable filler through repetitive exclamations, throat-clearing exchanges, and casual banter that dilutes density - the core lessons could be delivered more efficiently without the lengthy tangents and confirmation exchanges.
In three quarters of all the states out there, it is perfectly legal to secretly record you. I promise you, I get three or four recordings a month of some supervisor doing something for a co worker.
Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness act, you got to get rid of it. There are no essential functions, basically because it's temporary.
The content rehashes well-established employment law principles (quid pro quo harassment, disability accommodation, illegal discrimination) without offering fresh frameworks or counterintuitive arguments. The case-study approach is practical but not novel. The speakers rely on standard legal reasoning and common-sense arguments rather than original analysis or contrarian insights.
You address these things, you don't sweep it under the rug and you think, how would they ever know they're going to talk to people?
This is the culture. So we're not even talking in this case about going out to all the thousands of employees. We're talking about the supervisors who are doing this.
Scott Warick is a practicing employment attorney with 30 years of experience and demonstrated expertise in civil rights law. His credentials as a defendant-side litigator bring credibility, though the transcript provides minimal biographical detail. He is clearly a practitioner rather than a pure thought-leader, which is appropriate for this content, though his specific firm size or client roster remains unclear.
I've never had a client Sued ever, in 30 years of practicing law.
And I will tell you, if I'm involved from the get go, I've never had a client, uh, go to a civil rights action.
The episode excels at naming specific companies (Toyota, Home Creations, Paycom, Smithfield Fresh Meats, Work Smart, FedEx) and citing concrete legal details (EEOC press releases from July 2025, quid pro quo mechanics, 40-week accommodation periods, $150,000 settlement figure). However, some case details lack precision - settlement amounts are estimated rather than stated, timelines are occasionally vague ('it doesn't say'), and statistics cited early (91,000 claims, 3.4% increase) are mentioned without data links.
According to this press release from, uh, July 6th from the EEOC, this had been going on since 2021.
Work Smart now knows and has to pay $150,000 in a sex discrimination lawsuit.
The host (Speaker B) asks reasonable follow-up questions ('How much does she win on that one?') and moves between cases logically, but does not demonstrate sharp probing or willingness to push back on claims. Conversations tend toward agreement and confirmation rather than productive tension. Neither speaker challenges the other; exchanges like 'That's not good. That's not good.' and 'Yeah, yeah' are affirming but add little analytical depth. The interviewer does not probe assumptions or ask for deeper reasoning.
How much does she win on that one?
Oh, I love it when they tell it.
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
Learn from the mistakes of others; some of the most preventable mistakes are committed by some of the biggest companies in the country. In this episode, Scott Warrick and Pandy review the most recent published EEOC cases and the violations that put those companies in the news.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Speaker A: Foreign.
Speaker B: My favorite topics, lessons from lawsuits.
Speaker A: Say that, guys,
Speaker B: I absolutely love this topic because we always get so many wonderful responses. And, uh, for this particular show, I couldn't think of anybody better to bring on than our old friend Scott Warick from up there in Columbus. Scott, you know when you and I started talking about how sometimes we just want to grab a, a client and say, please get out of your own way.
Speaker A: Oh, that's a perfect way to put it. Absolutely.
Speaker B: You're just not going in a direction you're going to appreciate, um, or be thrilled with. And what we've pulled together for you audience is, uh, a number of cases. And let me, let me add too, these are cases and notices from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission just since the end of June. We're not pulling from the archives. The things that we're going to talk about are things that are just, they're happening now. And the idea is for you to hear how some of the biggest, biggest companies in the country, some, some in the world, uh, are, are making really, really preventable mistakes.
Speaker A: Oh, highly prevent. Um, I mean, common sense is, you just defy common sense with these things. But we'll, as we look at them, we'll look at what these companies are doing and allowing to have happen. And why would they be so stupid?
Speaker B: Well, you know my favorite phrase, what were they thinking? And then the answer is they weren't.
Speaker A: Yeah. How's that working for you?
Speaker B: Yeah, well, and these guys have got the budget to, to pay the price of these mistakes. I mean, it's, it's coming out of their profit margin. But how many of our audience have that kind of a reserve of money to just throw out for these lawsuits?
Speaker A: Well, yeah, that's exactly it. And, and it, I always hear the ridiculous, ridiculous argument, uh, that, well, you know, we're busy. We can't manage all these things. Well, you can manage production, you can manage scrap, you can manage customer service. You choose to ignore things like sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, and things like this because you don't think you'll get caught. And I always hear, you hear this too, don't you, Pandy? It's, well, what are the chances somebody's gonna do anything? Well, the chances are real good, actually. So right now, uh, the eeoc, which is where all these cases are coming from, are 40 to 50,000 cases behind. It doesn't cost the employee anything. Nothing to go and file. And so you're talking now the hottest area of the law. And so it never ceases to amaze me whenever I'm talking to particularly like a doctor's office or, uh, a hospital or someplace. They're so afraid of malpractice from the patients. And my response is, oh, no, it's not. The patients are going to get you. It's your own people.
Speaker B: Oh, absolutely. 91,000. Actually, over 91,000 claims of discrimination were filed with the EEOC in 2025, which was an increase of 3.4%. And then just into the field offices, they saw 3.5% increase of over 256,000. Yeah, this is m. This is not. This is not, uh, a, uh, it's not something to fool around. Hit the big one. Let's start out with Toyota. Let's talk about. Let's talk about those really bright people over there at Toyota.
Speaker A: Yeah. And let's look at Toyota for a second and just go back up to 10,000ft. Okay? This is the largest automobile manufacturer in the world.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Okay. This. They're number one. Everybody thinks about Toyota and Honda. Uh, Honda or, uh, Toyota could eat Honda and not even burp, okay? It. That's how big they are. All right? And I have been to this Erlanger, Kentucky facility, and that was a long time ago. And so I would tell you, this case right now that we're going to look at, this would have never happened 15 years ago. It would have never happened. And I don't know who's running things now, but they're not the leadership they had 15 years ago. I promise you that. And so what we've got here is on the line, and Erlanger, Kentucky, is the national headquarters for North America. So it's a big deal around, okay? The place is huge. It would. It would. I mean, I'll tell you, probably 20, uh, football fields, you would. You would fit in there easy. Okay? And so what's happening here is you got the man, the men on the line, and throughout the offices, probably they're making sexual propositions. Uh, uh, you know, like for. For basically sexual favors for promotions, for benefits. So, you know, it's coming from the supervisors or in this case, the stupid visors. Uh, so you've got probably a hostile environment being being formed, but you got quid pro quo. You can't go up to some. Well, you can if you're being tremendously stupid. Going up to someone and offering them a better parking spot or raise or a better review in exchange for sexual favors is quid pro quo, sexual harassment. Let me just be clear here. Quid pro quo, sexual harassment. You have instant liability, automatic liability. We Call it strict liability. And the only saving thing is that this happened to be in Kentucky. These supervisors. There's a lot of states out there like Ohio. You got personal liability for that.
Speaker B: Oh, I picked. Yeah, yeah, good point.
Speaker A: Oh, yeah, this happened just across the river.
Speaker B: Good point. Well, and the first. Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Speaker A: Oh, you ought to take in your house. Yeah, you and I've talked about this a lot, Pandy.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: This is the culture. So we're not even talking in this case about going out to all the thousands of employees. We're talking about the supervisors who are doing this. And now you're just talking huge, huge, big bucks. And this is a training issue, it's an education issue. It's a total lack of leadership.
Speaker B: And according to this press release from, uh, July 6th from the EEOC, this had been going on since 2021. This was not something where just a new group of people stepped in and it was a one off. This is a pattern. So going back to your comment, this was the culture. So, audience, when we don't talk a lot about culture on this show, but truly, if you're allowing this, uh, to happen or anything close to it, this, this is defining your culture. No, you're absolutely right.
Speaker A: Also, throw in there, you and I could have prevented that from happening. Pampy. Oh, gone down there.
Speaker B: That's such a nice word of saying prevent.
Speaker A: Oh, well, you know, I'll tell you right now, my clients and your clients as well, I've never had a client Sued ever, in 30 years of practicing law. And I will tell you, if I'm involved from the get go, I've never had a client, uh, go to a civil rights action.
Speaker B: Okay.
Speaker A: Because you address these things, you don't sweep it under the rug and you think, how would they ever know they're going to talk to people?
Speaker B: Oh, well, let's go a little bit further. I, I, and this is my opinion, but when I walk out onto a floor and I start talking to people, or at least I hear you can almost pick up the individuals and their behaviors that would tend to have this preponderance, uh, that those personalities stick out. If, if there's a man brazen enough to do that to a woman, he's probably giving you some other signals of his personality. And same thing with a woman who would do that to a man. So, uh, the leadership was not, there's something else going on over there. And they, you're right, they're letting it slip between the cracks, thinking it's never going to catch up with them.
Speaker A: In this case, it was pervasive. And let me just throw in one more thing where this is the 21st century, right? My got that right.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Okay, so I was born in the 1900s. Okay, so last century, even I know everybody's got one of these.
Speaker B: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker A: In three quarters of all the states out there, it is perfectly legal to secretly record you. I promise you, I get three or four recordings a month of some supervisor doing something for a co worker. Incredibly stupid. And for those of you who are in states like Michigan, Illinois, California, Massachusetts, where you can't secretly record, Let me just clue you in here. Your rank and file people under federal law trump state law, and they're perfectly allowed to record you. Now picture getting a, a, a, an audio from an employee saying, my boss said that if, uh, I have sex with him, I can go to lunch early.
Speaker B: And that's a great reason. That's, that's a really good reason to do that.
Speaker A: Uh, hey, Ed, I think we got a problem here. Okay, so. Oh, yeah, oh, yeah. And I'll tell you also clue yen here. I've never had a case where someone, somewhere that is this stupid. They were this arrogant. We didn't have a text.
Speaker B: Oh, gosh, let's go. Let's keep following on that pattern. Um, because it's not just what somebody does, but it's also what somebody says. Go to Home Creations in Oklahoma and let's talk about what those individuals thought was a smart idea.
Speaker A: Oh, yeah, and this is. Yeah, you're absolutely right. Go ahead, Pandy.
Speaker B: No, no, no. It's, you know, we talk about the different behaviors of bullying, and one of them is the prankster, one of them is the individual who, who wants to humiliate other people and, and thinks that their sense of humor is just cute. But in this particular case, which was again, a, uh, press release from July 1st of this year from the EEOC, fresh off the press, it went too far.
Speaker A: Oh, and this is the one thing now, here we go. We have, you know, we have Carl, the supervisor, who is a great technician. He was doing a great job, whatever it was he was doing. And then we said, hey, Carl, you're a really good guy. Why don't we put you into a position of management, uh, or supervision. And so now you're going to supervise people. So right away you've chosen this person, put them in place, and they make jokes about someone's protected class. Like someone like me. I'm 65 and a half years old. And, uh, it's just really great because I get asked, when are you gonna retire? Oh, I still got my teeth, and, uh, I still don't need a walker, so kind of ticks me off. All right. When are you gonna retire? Um, do you eat. Do you eat a lot of soup? Um, you know, and. Or if you're pregnant, like in this case.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Boy, oh, boy. Don't be drinking the water. That'll get you pregnant.
Speaker B: And then pregnant women leave. Don't forget that comment. They. They literally followed it through.
Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker B: You get pregnant, you leave.
Speaker A: Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh. I had one guy, um, just was a couple years ago, but it just struck me we got this on a recording as we. We.
Speaker B: We.
Speaker A: We've got all these disabilities that we're trying to accommodate. The supervisor said, you know, we just got to stop hiring all the cripples.
Speaker B: Uh.
Speaker A: Oh, God. Okay. And I'm picturing that in a civil rights hearing.
Speaker B: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker A: Wing off the walls.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Okay. Now, here are these guys. I promise you. Now, let me make this really clear. This is the organization's fault. You got someone doesn't have a lick of common sense, but, you know, that happens. But here's a supervisor who might just be, quote, quote thunin. And this, uh, this is home creation. This is not a small outfit.
Speaker B: No.
Speaker A: Okay.
Speaker B: No.
Speaker A: And so who taught them what the law is? Who taught them that you don't go and make jokes about someone's protected class, like someone's gender, someone's age, someone's color.
Speaker B: Someone's not listening to you and me, Scott. They're not. Well, they fired her two weeks after her, uh, 90 day introductory period.
Speaker A: So icing on the topic there.
Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. No, no.
Speaker A: The employee has no choice. You go to civil rights.
Speaker B: Let's go to Paycom. Everybody's heard of Paycom, but when you come to this show, you don't get protected.
Speaker A: Yeah. And. And I will tell you this. This is the culture.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: I mean, this and this one is really pretty bad. You got a woman with allergies, like, food allergies. Okay? And so if she's around certain foods, she goes into athletic shock. All right? Now, those of you who are not familiar with that, it can kill you. All right? So just use your common sense. Forget the Americans with Disabilities act, which is clearly covered.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Okay. I'm gonna, you know, start finding out what these foods are. Maybe certain foods you can't bring to work. Or maybe I need to isolate her. Or there's got to be maybe Some sort of way to contain these foods. And let's just say I love peanuts and this woman is allergic to peanuts. Okay. Uh, how are you. How are you bringing your peanuts to work like you have peanut butter sandwiches? Well, let's make sure that they're in glass containers and let's make sure that you're nowhere around. Sally, the company did pay Core.
Speaker B: No. Paycom. Uh, yeah, I'm sorry.
Speaker A: Oh, I didn't want it disparaged.
Speaker B: No, no, no, no. Yeah.
Speaker A: Didn't do anything.
Speaker B: Well, I'll tell you what they did. She had two ambulance events. Yeah. Which again is. We're not. She's not playing games here. She kept continuing. They put her in a temporary position for a while, and then they put her right back into an exposed area where she literally had two ambulance events. And. And, um, the day after her most severe reaction in 20, uh, 24. And this started a, uh, little bit earlier. I don't see a date as to how long this was going on, but, um, the. The company terminated her after one of her real severe events. They, they just decided they don't want to deal with it or. I have no idea.
Speaker A: This is just when you got to call the freelance on somebody that really screws up production. I mean, bodies everywhere, gurneys and stuff, you know, so we can't be having that, you know, so, yeah, we've got
Speaker B: one on FedEx, but we're not going to talk about that. We're going to move that along. We've got one on a staffing agency. Again, Work Smart. Uh, which was really interesting. I'll very briefly talk about this. When, um, one of their clients said, oh, yeah, don't send us the ladies. Don't. We don't want any females in this building. We only want males. Well, as a staffing agency, you cannot agree to that. But Work Smart now knows and has to pay $150,000 in a sex discrimination lawsuit. And, um, and you've got a good one.
Speaker A: Out of business.
Speaker B: That would put a lot of companies out of business.
Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm sorry I cut you off.
Speaker B: Go ahead. No, no, no. And, and share the one that you so enjoyed.
Speaker A: Oh, and this is where the EEOC is really busy these days. And they really got. Got the charge on for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Uh, now you gotta understand this is a new law from, um, just a couple years ago.
Speaker B: Yeah. Ah.
Speaker A: And I'm running into more and more supervisors and company to think it's the ada. No, a pregnant worker now has special protections which means for about 40 weeks that you, you, you basically have to accommodate anything related to the pregnancy and, you know, doctor's appointments, things like this. And it's really interesting, under the Americans with Disabilities act, if you've got something that is an essential function, you don't have to do it. I mean, you don't have to accommodate something that's essential to the job. I mean, you don't have to take it away. You might try to accommodate that. I'm sorry, you would accommodate that to try to help somebody meet that standard. Standard.
Speaker B: Right.
Speaker A: Just right. You don't have to get rid of it. Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness act, you got to get rid of it. There are no essential functions, basically because it's temporary. Now I can try to accommodate that, but if I can't accommodate it, then you just don't have to do it for 40 weeks. And in this case, there's this woman here, pregnant, she's got her doctor's notes, says you got to have two weeks of light duty. Now freeze right there. That's going to be allowed under the Pregnant Workers Fairness act every time. Because you're actually allowed 40 weeks of light duty. Uh, you can't lift any more than 10 pounds, no excess excessive bending, and you got to have 15 minute breaks every, uh, two, uh, hours. Well, she then started, uh, started bleeding. Now freeze right there.
Speaker B: That's not good. That's not good.
Speaker A: Oh, well, if you're pregnant, you start bleeding. We're gonna put this in the bad category over here, like right now, okay? This is serious. And just as a matter of note, if you happen to be someone who is not pregnant and you just start bleeding from someplace, we should take a look at that because I guarantee that is going to be covered under the ada. So now you got ADA issues, ergo, bleeding and pregnant. Um, who was the company? This was Smithfield Fresh Meats.
Speaker B: Oh my gosh, everybody's heard of them.
Speaker A: Oh, yeah, North Carolina. Big company. And the end, uh, in the end, she was fired. I mean, you just can't do your job. And it's really interesting. Well, you can't do your job because you gotta lift at least 15 pounds. No, this is the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. And you know that you're going to have to be able to bend. No, you got, you wish that this was somebody missing a leg. You wish that this was arthritis. Because if you got ADA types of issues. Well, yeah, these might be essential functions that we can't accommodate. So let's just say these are essential functions that we can't accommodate. But it's the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. You gotta take it away from the person and give them another assignment.
Speaker B: How much does she win on that one?
Speaker A: Mhm.
Speaker B: How much does she win on that one?
Speaker A: It doesn't say.
Speaker B: Oh, I love it when they tell it.
Speaker A: But you're. Oh, you're talking six figures.
Speaker B: That's what I was thinking. That's what I was thinking.
Speaker A: Oh, nobody's gonna bot. I mean, honestly, you hear this? Oh, 10, $20,000. No, that's a.
Speaker B: That won't even pay the attorney's fees.
Speaker A: No, no, that's a. Oh yeah, trades fees would be on top of this if, you know, somehow that plays in. Right, but understand, uh, uh, 10 to 15, $20,000. We call those slip and fall accidents. That's. I'm not going to bother with that. It's not going to be anybody's. No eeoc. And I'll tell you something else to think about. The eeoc, and they always have love to publicize the cases that they've won and the dollar amounts.
Speaker B: And that's exactly why we're having this show. Scott, uh, thank you so much. But listen, audience, he's coming back next week because look, we can talk to you about all the things that you should be doing and the things that you don't want to do, but we need to remind you of the training and how you need what the things you need to be thinking about so that this doesn't happen to you. And if it does, okay, you're catching it faster. So please stay with us. Come back next week. We love giving you this stuff. And um, there's plenty of her. Scott, thank you. I'll see you here in a little bit.
Speaker A: Absolutely.
Speaker B: Take care.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.