A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Is your employer following the EEOC’s four harassment checklists?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has always been dedicated to opening opportunities so there is fairness and equity – equal opportunity – in the workplace for everyone.

According to a recent report from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the EEOC’s commissioner is promoting the use of four checklists to deal with sexual harassment. EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum is telling employers they need to use the four checklists put out by the EEOC in order to prevent and handle instances of sexual harassment in the workplace.

What Are the Four Checklists?

According to the article, the EEOC’s four checklists cover:

  • Leadership and accountability
  • Anti-harassment policies
  • Harassment reporting systems and investigations
  • Compliance training

When employers follow these checklists and implement them well, there should be a drastic reduction in instance of workplace harassment.

What Does This Mean for You?

Understanding the checklists your employer should be following to prevent harassment can be extremely empowering. If you are seeing areas where your employer could improve in this regard, you can promote change in your workplace.

Further, this information can be helpful to make sure your rights are not being violated at work.

If you see your company failing in these initiatives, and you feel like you have been mistreated at work, talk with an experienced employment law attorney right away to get the help you need.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.