The Plant Put Women in the Lower-Paying Jobs and Told Agencies It Preferred Men — Then the EEOC Made LeachGarner Pay $2.8 Million

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

Every shop floor has its unwritten rules. Sometimes they’re about safety goggles and clocking in on time, and sometimes they’re about who gets the “good” jobs and who gets stuck doing the work nobody brags about. The trouble is, when those unwritten rules quietly sort men and women into different lanes, the paycheck usually follows.

Federal regulators say that’s what happened for years at LeachGarner’s facility in Attleboro, Massachusetts. In a June 26, 2026 press release, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission laid out allegations that the metallurgical manufacturer routinely placed women into lower-paying departments, paid women less than men for similar work, and even told staffing agencies it preferred men for certain openings, as described in the source material. The company has now agreed to a $2.8 million settlement and a set of changes the EEOC says are meant to prevent it from happening again.

If you’ve ever worked somewhere that ran on habit instead of principle, you know how this stuff can take root. People call it “how we’ve always done it,” and the next thing you know, a whole group of workers is boxed out of better pay without anyone having to say the quiet part out loud. This settlement is a reminder that “quiet” doesn’t mean “legal,” and it doesn’t mean “right,” either.

What the EEOC says LeachGarner was doing

The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that LeachGarner routinely assigned female manufacturing employees to lower-paying jobs at its Attleboro facility. The agency said manufacturing positions were held nearly exclusively by men and paid more than those held by women, even though the male-dominated roles required no prior experience and involved similar work. That’s an important detail, because employers often defend pay differences by pointing to experience requirements or specialized skills.

The complaint didn’t stop at job assignments. The EEOC also alleged the company told staffing agencies it preferred men for certain vacancies. If you’re a manager, that kind of instruction isn’t a harmless preference; it’s a gate slammed before a worker even gets a fair look.

The laws at the center of the case

The EEOC said the alleged conduct violates two major federal protections: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act. Both laws prohibit discrimination based on sex, and they’re not optional guidelines that get ignored when a workplace is busy or understaffed.

Title VII is broad, covering sex-based discrimination in hiring and job assignments, among other areas. The Equal Pay Act focuses on compensation, requiring equal pay for equal work. Put them together, and you don’t just have to open the door to the same opportunities; you can’t funnel one group into lower wages and then act surprised that the numbers look unfair.

How it got to federal court

The EEOC said it filed the lawsuit after first trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. That matters because a lot of people assume the government’s first move is to sue. In many cases, there’s a stage where the agency attempts to resolve things before filing in court.

The case is identified as EEOC v. LeachGarner d/b/a LeachGarner, a Berkshire Hathaway Company, Case No. 23-cv-11014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The settlement brings the federal suit to a close, but it also puts the company under obligations that extend beyond writing a check.

The $2.8 million settlement and what else LeachGarner agreed to do

LeachGarner will pay $2.8 million and provide other relief to settle the EEOC’s sex discrimination lawsuit. The press release says the monetary relief is intended for affected employees, though it doesn’t break down how many people will receive payments or how the funds will be allocated.

Just as significant is the three-year consent decree the EEOC described. Under that decree, LeachGarner must evaluate its existing hiring, job assignment, and compensation practices. The company must also take steps to ensure those practices promote equal employment opportunity, are based on legitimate job-related criteria, and it must periodically report to the EEOC on those efforts.

The decree also requires policy and training changes. According to the EEOC, LeachGarner will ensure internal policies require equal pay for equal work, and it will provide annual training to employees on their rights under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. Training doesn’t fix character problems by itself, but it does remove the excuse of “I didn’t know,” and it puts leadership on notice that the company is being watched.

What the EEOC emphasized in its announcement

The EEOC’s New York District leadership framed the settlement as part of an ongoing fight against pay discrimination. Regional Attorney Kimberly Cruz said pay discrimination against women continues to be a problem in some parts of the economy and that eliminating sex-based discrimination remains a priority for the agency. Acting EEOC General Counsel Catherine L. Eschbach said the EEOC is committed to ensuring workers are evaluated on merit, have equal opportunity to compete for good jobs, and are paid based on their work and not their sex.

Acting New York District Director Arlean Nieto also underscored the basics: Title VII and the Equal Pay Act require equal pay for equal work. In plain terms, employers don’t get to claim they support fairness while their job assignments and pay practices tell a different story.

How this kind of situation happens in real workplaces

Most companies don’t put “we pay women less” in a policy manual. It shows up in patterns that get normalized: men routed toward better-paying production roles, women steered into departments that pay less, and everyone told it’s just a matter of fit, temperament, or tradition. Over time, that becomes the company’s “common sense,” even if it’s built on bias.

The EEOC’s allegations about telling staffing agencies it preferred men is especially blunt, because it takes what’s often implied and makes it explicit. If an employer is instructing an outside agency to prioritize one sex for certain jobs, it’s hard to pretend it’s all accidental. That’s not a miscommunication; it’s a decision.

There’s also a leadership lesson here that applies beyond this specific case. A workplace can be full of decent individuals and still drift into unfair practices if nobody is willing to examine outcomes. Stewardship isn’t only about productivity; it’s about whether the people under your authority are being treated with basic justice.

What employees can take from this without playing armchair lawyer

One settlement doesn’t answer every question, and not every pay difference is unlawful. Jobs can pay differently for good reasons, and companies can have legitimate, job-related criteria that separate roles. Still, the EEOC’s description of similar work, no prior experience required, and sex-based assignment is the kind of combination that should make any worker pay attention.

For employees, it’s worth knowing that federal law covers not just obvious harassment or slurs, but also job assignments, hiring preferences, and pay. The EEOC included links for more information on equal pay and compensation discrimination and on sex-based discrimination. You don’t have to become a legal expert to recognize a pattern, and you don’t have to accept “that’s just how it is” as the final word.

For employers, especially those relying on staffing agencies, this is a straightforward warning. If the people doing your recruiting are being told who you “prefer,” that instruction can come back to you. If the numbers show one group consistently in the lower-paying lanes, it’s time to audit the process before a lawsuit does it for you.

LeachGarner’s $2.8 million settlement doesn’t just put a price on alleged wrongdoing; it puts a spotlight on the everyday decisions that shape who gets opportunity and who doesn’t. A workplace doesn’t have to be loud to be discriminatory, and it doesn’t have to be malicious to do real harm. If the goal is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, the starting point is simple: put people in roles based on legitimate needs and pay them based on the work, not their sex.