No Women Allowed? That’ll Cost You $1.6 Million

Recently, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has garnered headlines (and blog posts) over a shift in enforcement priorities to issues such as “anti-American” bias in hiring and defending women’s rights to single-sex spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, in the workplace. To say these were previously on the backburner would be an understatement, unless the stove had ten or so rows of burners.

But, don’t get it twisted.

The EEOC does not tolerate discrimination of any kind, including the more “typical” kinds. Just ask a security company that agreed to fork over $1.6 million and provide other relief to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit the EEOC filed in 2023. The complaint that the EEOC filed includes a laundry list of allegations that may shock your conscience.

According to the EEOC’s press release, there were two doozies. First, the company allegedly maintained discriminatory directives in its human resources database, such as “DO NOT schedule a female for this post” and “Post is MALE ONLY!” Second, personnel supposedly told women applicants they would not be selected for security positions or assignments because of sex.

This is what we in the business refer to as “smoking gun” evidence. It’s the kind that would have any employer locating its checkbook early to mitigate risk and expense of litigation because it’s not a matter of if the EEOC will win, but when and how much will the jury award.

This case also settled, with the company entering into a consent decree that includes both financial penalties and compliance measures.

Key Takeaways for Employers

1. “Smoking Gun” Evidence Spells Big Trouble

If your hiring database includes explicit discriminatory directives like “No Female Officers” or “Male Only,” you’re handing the EEOC and plaintiffs’ lawyers an easy win. Digital records and internal communications matter—clean up discriminatory policies before they land you in court.

2. Customer Preferences Are Not a Legal Defense

Employers cannot hide behind customer preferences to justify discriminatory hiring practices. The EEOC made it clear that even if a client requests only male security officers, an employer must refuse to comply or face liability.

3. Consent Decrees Come with Heavy Oversight

A $1.6 million settlement is just the beginning. This employer must now endure years of EEOC monitoring, mandatory training, policy revisions, and reporting requirements. Prevention is far cheaper than the cost of defending and settling a discrimination lawsuit.

Final Thought.

The EEOC remains aggressive in enforcing Title VII, including traditional discrimination claims like sex-based hiring bans. If your hiring practices resemble those in this case, it’s time for a hard reset. Proactive compliance measures—such as training, audits, and clear policies—can keep your company out of the headlines and the courtroom.