Virginia Food Hall Pays $54,000 to Settle EEOC Racial Harassment Lawsuit
Epiq Food Hall's former GM will receive $54,000 after the EEOC sued over racial slurs from the owner — and claims against the food hall's successor buyer remain unresolved.

Epiq Food Hall Woodbridge, LLC agreed to pay $54,000 and accept a three-year consent decree to settle a federal racial harassment lawsuit after the EEOC alleged the food hall's owner subjected employees to racial slurs and degrading treatment, the agency announced March 16.
The entire $54,000 goes to the food hall's former general manager, who the EEOC identified as the primary victim of the harassment. The agency filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, case number 1:24-cv-01518, only after an earlier attempt to resolve the matter through its conciliation process broke down.
"Employees should not be forced to tolerate racial slurs and degrading harassment from their boss to earn a living," said Debra Lawrence, regional attorney for the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office. "Federal law holds employers automatically liable for the harassing conduct of their owners."
The EEOC charged that the conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars workplace discrimination on the basis of race.

The consent decree carries conditions that reflect the fact that Epiq no longer has any operating businesses or employees, as the company itself represented to the court. If Epiq ever resumes operations, it would be barred from creating or maintaining a race-based hostile work environment, required to draft and distribute an anti-harassment policy, and obligated to provide Title VII training to its owners and management.
The settlement does not close all fronts of the EEOC's case. The agency also brought claims against 4 Brothers Properties, LLC, which purchased the Woodbridge food hall in October 2023, under a successor-liability theory. The consent decree explicitly leaves those claims unresolved, meaning the EEOC's enforcement action against 4 Brothers remains active.
Lawrence's second quoted line underscores the legal exposure that ownership changes do not necessarily erase: the successor-liability theory the EEOC applied to 4 Brothers is a tool the agency has used with increasing regularity in restaurant and hospitality cases to ensure that a business sale does not function as a shield against accountability for prior workplace conduct.
Know something we missed? Have a correction or additional information?
Submit a Tip

