Mid-Michigan settles $41,137 race-discrimination lawsuit

By Daniel Okafor

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced Nov. 3 that Mid-Michigan Home Health & Hospice LLC will pay $41,137 to settle allegations that it denied a Black certified nursing assistant (CNA) home visits because of clients’ racial preferences.

EEOC alleged that Mid-Michigan refused to assign the CNA to certain clients because it believed they were “old-time” and “did not care for black people.” The CNA provided in-home bathing assistance to patients. The EEOC said the company fired her after she repeatedly complained about race discrimination.

What did Mid-Michigan agree to?

The EEOC sued Mid-Michigan for alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal statute prohibiting employment discrimination and retaliation. A five-year consent decree—a court-approved settlement with continuing obligations—requires the company to pay $41,137 and meet four additional conditions.

• It cannot assign home visits based on race.
• It cannot retaliate against employees who complain about race discrimination.
• It must submit annual reports identifying the locations of every CNA assignment.
• It must train all employees, including the owner, annually on race discrimination.

EEOC Regional Attorney Kenneth Bird said: “We commend Mid-Michigan for reaching a resolution of this matter and putting in place practices to ensure home assignments are not based on race, regardless of customer preference.”

What did the lawsuit allege?

In the February lawsuit, the CNA asked the human-resources director why a White coworker hired after her was receiving more hours. The company said it believed patients in the area did not want Black employees assigned, according to the EEOC.

Mid-Michigan repeatedly assigned White CNAs to the area close to where the Black CNA lived, while assigning her to patients 90 miles away, the EEOC alleged. She complained about race discrimination and was fired two days after questioning why the company had removed her from several assignments.

Bird said at the time: “Customer preference is not a defense to race discrimination.” The settlement provides the CNA $1,137 in lost wages and $40,000 in compensatory damages. Mid-Michigan did not respond to a request for comment.

What do the other cases show?

This settlement was the second in four months involving EEOC allegations that a company accommodated a client’s discriminatory preferences. In July, staffing agency WorkSmart agreed to pay $150,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging it failed to hire or refer women for laborer positions after a client said it would accept only male laborers at the facility. WorkSmart denied wrongdoing.

That same month, a jury found for the EEOC in a separate case involving two female obstetricians (doctors who deliver babies) in the labor-and-delivery (childbirth) department of an Arkansas hospital.

According to the EEOC, the doctors refused to let a male surgical technician perform duties including setting up for and assisting during deliveries, solely because of his sex and because they wanted to work with women.

The technician quit, and the EEOC sued the hospital for violating Title VII. Following the trial, the jury awarded him $105,000. Together, the three matters show how legal exposure can reach both staffing intermediaries and care-delivery employers when they follow client demands or employees’ discriminatory preferences.

What does the case mean for individual workers?

For the CNA, the alleged consequences were concrete: losing nearby assignments, traveling 90 miles, termination two days after she challenged several removals, and $41,137 in settlement relief. The decree now requires Mid-Michigan to report each CNA’s assignment locations annually and train every employee, including its owner, each year on race discrimination.

The record comprises three enforcement matters, not a national hiring survey, so it does not establish a sector-wide employment trend.

Its practical signal for an individual CNA is narrower and more consequential: when an employer treats a client’s racial preference as an assignment rule, the effects reach hours, travel and continued employment.

For employers, the consent decree identifies the legal boundary: race cannot determine home visits, and complaints about race discrimination cannot trigger retaliation.

Over the next five years, the required location reports and recurring training will provide the clearest test of whether Mid-Michigan separates client preferences from the race-based assignments that triggered the lawsuit.