Last Updated on September 25, 2025 by MyHRConcierge

When the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brings a high-visibility enforcement action, employers should pay attention- not just for the headlines, but for the practical lessons those cases teach about prevention, investigation and remediation. The recent EEOC enforcement action against East Jordan Plastics, Inc. offers several key takeaways for employers on how harassment claims should be handled.

MyHRBuzz Podcast: Employer’s Guide to Preventing and Responding to Harassment

Join host Chris Cooley as he discusses the issue of workplace harassment with Attorney-at-Law Wendy Shelton and Partner Bill Gault, of Nippes, Healy & Gault, PLLC. They explore how employers can better understand, address and prevent workplace harassment. Learn about the key responsibilities that employers have when it comes to harassment claims, including their duty to respond, and what employers can do to safeguard their business in case of harassment claims. Tune in for practical insights and strategies to create a safer, more respectful work environment.

Case Overview

The EEOC alleged that multiple female employees at East Jordan Plastics’ Beaverton, Michigan facility were subjected to repeated sexual harassment by a male coworker. According to the complaint, the harassment included offensive sexual remarks and unwanted physical touching, which created a hostile and intimidating work environment. While this is unfortunately not the first case along these lines, what made this case particularly concerning was not only the conduct itself, but the employer’s response… or lack thereof.

The EEOC asserted that at least two women reported the coworker’s behavior on separate occasions, but no disciplinary action was taken by the company at those times. Instead, the alleged harasser remained employed without corrective measures. It was only after a third employee came forward that the company initiated a more formal investigation. During that process, managers interviewed employees and eventually terminated the harasser. By then, however, the EEOC argued that the company had allowed a hostile work environment to persist, failing to act promptly and effectively to stop the harassment.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 2:25-cv-12302), charged the company with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment. The EEOC highlighted the employer’s delayed response as a critical factor in its decision to litigate, underscoring that employers cannot ignore or minimize harassment complaints without exposing themselves to significant liability.

Settlement and Resolution

East Jordan Plastics chose to resolve the lawsuit through a consent decree rather than proceed through extended litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to pay $460,000 to compensate the employees who were subjected to the harassment. Monetary relief, however, was only part of the resolution.

The settlement also included a three-year consent decree requiring the company to take specific remedial actions. These obligations included providing anti-harassment training for all employees, ensuring that managers and supervisors are properly trained on how to handle complaints, and submitting annual reports to the EEOC detailing how harassment complaints are addressed. The company is also required to post notices in the workplace to inform employees of their rights under federal law and the terms of the settlement. These provisions are designed to not only remedy past wrongs but also to prevent future incidents by embedding compliance and accountability into the organization’s culture.

This combination of monetary relief and non-monetary corrective measures reflects the EEOC’s broader enforcement approach: settlements are not just about financial compensation but about driving long-term change within the employer’s practices. For East Jordan Plastics, the decree effectively places the company under federal oversight for three years, reinforcing the seriousness of failing to respond promptly to harassment claims.

Lessons for Employers

The East Jordan Plastics case highlights the importance of treating every harassment complaint as urgent and credible. Employers should have clear reporting procedures in place, ensure multiple channels for complaints, and act immediately when issues ariseharass. A prompt and thorough investigation is critical, as delays or half-measures can allow a hostile environment to persist and expose the organization to legal action. Training is equally vital — not only for employees to understand their rights, but for supervisors and managers who must know their responsibilities to report, investigate, and prevent retaliation.

Consistency in enforcement is another key lesson. Policies must be applied fairly and reliably, with discipline imposed when misconduct is confirmed. Finally, documentation cannot be overlooked; recording each step of the complaint process can help demonstrate that the employer acted reasonably and in good faith. Taken together, these practices create a culture of accountability and respect while reducing the risk of costly lawsuits and reputational harm.

Final Thoughts

The East Jordan Plastics case serves as a reminder that harassment claims must be taken seriously from the very first complaint. With a $460,000 settlement and a three-year consent decree, the case shows how quickly inaction can escalate into significant legal and financial consequences. By implementing strong policies, responding promptly, and committing to prevention through training and oversight, employers can better protect both their employees and their organizations.

For more information on how to enhance your workplace culture and safeguard against harassment, contact MyHRConcierge at 855-538-6947 ext.108, ccooley@myhrconcierge.com. Or, schedule a convenient consultation below: