Dairy farm stuck Mexican workers with laborer jobs, calling Americans ‘lazy,’ EEOC says

Summary

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued United Pride Dairy in Phillips, Wisconsin, alleging national-origin discrimination and sexual harassment. According to the complaint, three Mexican nationals were hired with promises of professional or management roles but were instead given labourer positions. A manager allegedly justified the reassignments with the stereotype that “Americans are lazy.” The EEOC also alleges a female Mexican employee was repeatedly sexually harassed by a direct supervisor who sent demeaning pornographic images and made offensive comments. United Pride Dairy denies the allegations and says it will defend itself.

Key Points

EEOC filed suit against United Pride Dairy alleging national-origin discrimination and sexual harassment (EEOC v. United Pride Dairy LLC).
Three Mexican nationals were allegedly promised professional/management roles but assigned labourer jobs instead.
A manager reportedly justified the disparate assignments by saying “Americans are lazy,” an unlawful stereotype, the EEOC says.
The complaint also alleges repeated sexual harassment of a female Mexican employee by her supervisor, including pornographic images and sexually offensive comments.
The EEOC says the conduct violates Title VII; the dairy denies wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend the case.

Content summary

The EEOC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, accuses United Pride Dairy of using prejudicial stereotypes to reassign employees of Mexican origin to lower-skilled roles than those promised at hiring. The agency highlights both national-origin discrimination and a separate pattern of sexual harassment directed at a female Mexican employee by her supervisor.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas criticised workplace decisions based on unlawful stereotypes and emphasised that employers cannot misuse the visa process to import labour under false pretences. The suit is part of the EEOC’s broader focus on national-origin discrimination and so-called anti‑American bias, an enforcement priority the agency has publicised this year. The defendant’s counsel said the company cooperated with investigators and denies any unlawful discrimination or harassment.

Context and relevance

This case sits at the intersection of immigration-related hiring practices, stereotyping and sexual harassment — areas under increased EEOC scrutiny. For employers and HR teams, it underscores legal risks from: misleading recruitment about role level, relying on stereotypes when assigning work, and failing to prevent or address supervisor misconduct. The EEOC frames such conduct as a Title VII violation and a misuse of visa-related hiring processes, signalling active enforcement and guidance updates on national-origin issues.

Organisations using visa programmes or employing migrant workers should review job offers, duty assignments, record-keeping and harassment prevention procedures to reduce exposure to similar claims.

Why should I read this?

Quick and useful — if you hire migrant or visa-holding staff, or manage frontline supervisors, this is one to skim. The EEOC’s suit shows how promises at hire, casual stereotyping and poor oversight can turn into an enforcement headache. Saves you time: take the headlines, check your offer letters, and make sure managers aren’t using stereotypes as policy.