- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Halliburton To Pay USD 275,000 To Two Muslim Employees Of Indian And Syrian Origin For Religious Discrimination
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Houston-based American multinational corporation Halliburton is all set to pay USD 275,000 to two of its Muslim employees of Indian and Syrian origin who were subjected to religious discrimination as well as accused of having links with terrorists by company officials.The company has agreed to pay the amount and furnish significant relief to settle a national origin...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Houston-based American multinational corporation Halliburton is all set to pay USD 275,000 to two of its Muslim employees of Indian and Syrian origin who were subjected to religious discrimination as well as accused of having links with terrorists by company officials.
The company has agreed to pay the amount and furnish significant relief to settle a national origin and religious discrimination lawsuit brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to an EEOC lawsuit against Halliburton, the employees were frequently called derogatory names and accused of being associated with ISIS and terrorism by supervisors as well as co-workers.
The EEOC filed its lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement with Halliburton through its conciliation process.
The US court has urged Halliburton to desist from engaging in national origin or religious discrimination or retaliation in the future.
Halliburton has also agreed to provide training on national origin and religious discrimination to its managers and human resources officials, and report future complaints of national origin as well as religious discrimination to the EEOC.
EEOC Dallas District Office Regional Attorney Robert Canino stated that individual identity is rooted in a person’s religious affiliations and ancestry, while EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Joel Clark mentioned that employees should be able to come to the workplace without fear of intimidation or taunts based on where they are from or what religion they observe.