by Jeffrey D. Slanker and Rob Sniffen
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) highlights several areas in which the agency is increasing its focus, including the protection of vulnerable immigrant and migrant workers. That focus was recently underscored by the agency’s settlement of a case involving allegations of national origin and race discrimination against an Alabama employer that employed Indian workers through the federal H2-B program. 
The $5 million settlement should serve as a warning to companies that employ immigrant or migrant workers to make sure they are in compliance with all of the applicable laws. Indeed, as this settlement makes clear, the SEP provides a road map for employers and their attorneys on where the EEOC’s enforcement focus lies.
EEOC’s strategic initiatives
The EEOC’s SEP for fiscal years 2013 through 2016 provides an overview of the areas in which the agency plans to focus its attention in addition to its general goals of eliminating discrimination in the workplace. Part of the SEP emphasizes its goal of protecting vulnerable immigrant and migrant worker populations that may be discriminated against given their lack of proficiency in English, their citizenship status, or other factors that would allow or foster activities made illegal by the federal civil rights laws.
The specific initiative in the SEP states:
Protecting Immigrant, Migrant and Other Vulnerable Workers. The EEOC will target disparate pay, job segregation, harassment, trafficking and discriminatory policies affecting vulnerable workers who may be unaware of their rights under the equal employment laws, or reluctant or unable to exercise them.
That focus was evident in the EEOC’s settlement of a recent case involving an Alabama employer’s alleged national origin and race discrimination against immigrant employees.
Recent settlement agreement
Signal International, LLC, is an Alabama company that builds and repairs ships. The company employs a significant number of guest workers from India under the federal H-2B guest worker program. The EEOC alleged in its lawsuit against Signal that it subjected its Indian guest workers to adverse living and working conditions.
Signal recruited workers from India through the H-2B program to work in its facilities in Texas and Mississippi after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The EEOC contended that the workers were subjected to a pattern and practice of discrimination based on their national origin and race that resulted in unfavorable working conditions. For example, according to the EEOC, the workers were forced to pay $1,050 a month to live in containers the size of a double-wide trailer set up in overcrowded, unsanitary, and guarded camps, while non-Indian workers weren’t required to live in the camps.
The EEOC settled the matter for $5 million after filing suit against Signal in federal district court. The press release on the settlement can be found on the EEOC’s website in the “Newsroom” section.
Takeaway for employers
Employers should be aware of the EEOC’s aims and goals in the SEP because any facet of your business that overlaps with the initiative will undoubtedly be subject to extra scrutiny by the agency if the opportunity for investigation arises. 
As this settlement indicates, companies that employ immigrant or migrant workers, including H2-A and H2-B guest workers, should be particularly careful to ensure compliance with the applicable federal and state laws.
Robert J. Sniffen 
is the founder and managing partner of the Tallahassee, Florida, firm of Sniffen & Spellman, P.A. He may be contacted at rsniffen@sniffenlaw.com.
Jeffrey D. Slanker is an associate in the law firm of Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., in Tallahassee, Florida. He may be contacted at jslanker@sniffenlaw.com.
Need to learn more? In January 2016, the EEOC released proposed guidance to overhaul its regulatory interpretation of the standards for proving retaliation under the various civil rights laws including Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Pay Act. According to many employment attorneys, the EEOC’s new guidance will make it harder for employers to defend retaliation claims. This is especially concerning because the threat of being sued for retaliation is enormous: according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in 2014 retaliation claims made up 48.4% of all charges filed under federal civil rights statutes. Even more challenging, winning a retaliation claim is particularly difficult for the employer because the employee doesn’t have to show the validity or her or her underlying discrimination or harassment claim. Join us on March 11 for the BLR webinar New EEOC Retaliation Enforcement Guidance: Best Practices for Avoiding Your #1 Employee Charge Risk insights into the best practices the EEOC proposes employers should follow to help avoid retaliation claims, as well as its recommendations on employee and supervisor training. For more information, click here.