Introduction The EEOC’s main responsibility is to ensure that the employers adhere to job applicants’ discrimination laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, age, nationality, genetic formation or disability. In addition to this, the EEOC protect employees who had earlier complained about discrimination from being barred to obtain employment. Being the duty to protect employees from discrimination, the commission filed a case against Modesto thrift store for laying off an employee, Chris Cherling, who had been diagnosed with epilepsy. The government should make any form of discrimination illegal in order to improve equality and enhance the lives of the minority people in the society. The commission covers employers having a minimum of fifteen employees, while employers with at least twenty employees for age discrimination. The commission’s laws are applicable to all work types and situations including promotions, hiring, harassments, firing, wages, training and benefits. It also has the authority to scrutinize discrimination charges against employers that the law covers. The commission’s task is to guarantee just and precise appraisal of the allegations and making a fair finding. If the commission finds presence of discrimination in the case, it tries to settle the charges accordingly. It is important to note that the commission does not always file lawsuits against all cases that it finds discrimination. Discussion Recently, the commission initiated a charge against Modesto thrift store for firing an employee with epilepsy. The lawsuit attracted $50,000 settlement charges to the employee, who had only worked a few weeks for the family owned store. The lawsuit claims included an allegation that the store violated a disability act by firing Chris Cherling, who had epilepsy. The commission argued that Judy Schultz, the store’s former owner, should have asked Chris to undertake a fitness test or show medical proof that he is capable of performing stocking duties. Instead, the owner depended on her own judgments to determine that Cherling’s condition was dangerous. The commission also issues statements from Chris, reporting how the firing affected him and how unfair it was, for the store to fire him because of epilepsy. According to Chris, epilepsy had never barred him from successfully completing his tasks. The EEOC’s attorney, Debra Smith, facilitated the settlements and supported the case by providing proof of people with epilepsy being able to work effectively (Harvey & Allard, 2009). Through the commission’s attorney of San Francisco, William Tamayo, the EEOC reports that epilepsy affects everyone, in different ways, and to varying degrees. Because of this, it would be fundamentally dangerous to assume that seizures disqualify an individual’s ability to perform a duty. The commission also reported that approximately, two million Americans have epilepsy. Hence, winning this case was relevant to promoting a change in the perception of people suffering from epilepsy. In addition to this, the case helped epileptic people to live with no fear of discrimination. Knowing that the law protects epileptic people empowers such people to focus on their abilities. Employers will also be aware not to discriminate people without obtaining medic