EEOC Lawsuit Warns: Staffing Agencies Cannot Enforce Discriminatory Client Requests

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") recently filed suit against WorkSmart Staffing, LLC, alleging that the company unlawfully refused to hire or refer female job applicants for laborer positions in response to a client’s “male-only” staffing request. The lawsuit, EEOC v. WorkSmart Staffing, LLC, No. 4:25-cv-01659-SGC (N.D. Ala.), filed on October 24, 2025, serves as a reminder that staffing agencies and their clients share legal responsibility for discriminatory hiring and referral practices.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, WorkSmart Staffing provided temporary workers to a recycling company in Alabama. The agency alleges that, over three years, the client informed WorkSmart’s branch managers that only men would be accepted for certain laborer positions due to the physical nature of the work. The complaint asserts that WorkSmart honored this request by declining to hire or refer qualified women and, in some cases, by informing female applicants that the positions were unavailable.

The EEOC contends that this conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers and employment agencies from discriminating against applicants based on sex. The agency’s lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.

This case highlights the recurring issue of “customer preference” discrimination. Under Title VII, neither a client’s request nor perceived customer expectations can justify the exclusion of applicants based on sex, race, or other protected characteristics. The EEOC has consistently held that staffing firms and their clients are jointly liable when one acts on behalf of the other to implement discriminatory preferences.

Courts have long rejected attempts to defend hiring exclusions based on stereotypes about strength or job suitability. While employers may raise a “bona fide occupational qualification” defense in limited circumstances, the defense applies only when sex is reasonably necessary to the regular operation of the business. Routine physical labor does not meet this standard.

For staffing agencies, this case underscores the importance of refusing discriminatory client instructions and maintaining strong compliance protocols. A request for a “male-only,” “female-only,” or any other protected-class-specific referral exposes both the agency and the client to potential liability. Written agreements between staffing firms and clients should clearly prohibit unlawful preferences and include mechanisms for reporting and resolving suspected violations.

Employers using staffing agencies must also recognize their shared obligations. If a client directs an agency to restrict candidates by sex, race, or any other protected category, both parties risk an EEOC investigation and possible litigation. The law prohibits employers from delegating discriminatory instructions to an intermediary.

Although the WorkSmart case remains at the pleading stage, it illustrates a broader enforcement trend. The EEOC continues to focus on systemic discrimination in industries that rely heavily on temporary labor. Staffing agencies often occupy a dual role—as both employer and employment agency—and the agency’s actions in either capacity can lead to liability.

The agency’s action against WorkSmart follows similar lawsuits filed over the past several years involving client-driven hiring preferences in manufacturing, warehousing, and food processing. These cases underscore that the EEOC considers discriminatory staffing practices a significant enforcement priority.

Employer and Staffing Firm Takeaways:

• Train all hiring and recruiting personnel to recognize and reject client instructions that exclude applicants based on protected characteristics.

• Document any client request that raises potential legal concerns and escalate it immediately for legal review.

• Review all staffing agreements to ensure they expressly prohibit discriminatory job orders and clarify each party’s legal obligations under Title VII.

• Periodically audit referral and assignment data to identify potential disparities that could suggest discriminatory practices.

The EEOC’s suit against WorkSmart Staffing demonstrates that compliance failures in the staffing process can expose both agencies and their clients to significant legal and financial risk. Businesses that rely on temporary or contingent labor arrangements should treat anti-discrimination compliance as an operational requirement, not an optional safeguard.