On the fourth offence, I think it's time to consider that maybe it's a deeper problem. Looks like it's a "family company" (that is privately-held); these can sometimes be surprisingly dysfunctional, because the "boss" doesn't really have to answer to anyone.
EDIT: From the NYTimes article: 'Lawyers for B&H offered $112,000 in what they called a “take-it-or-leave-it good faith offer.” The department left it.' - Seems like a bizarre thing to do; it's not like the Dept of Labor's really in it for the money.
- Store has both a back-room toilet for staff only & show-room toilet for customers and initially allows the staff to use either. THe Show-room toilet is nicer than back-room toilet.
- Store worries customers are put-off by staff in customer toilets. Perhaps some customers even complain. Perhaps some of those complaints are even specifically about visible minorities.
- Store responds by asking visible minority staff not to use show-room toilet.
I don't know whether that is what happened here, but it is a plausible pattern. Of course this is still inexcusable, classic discrimination.
There's a very common practice to separate the offices/engineering from production/maintenance. Two reasons are given: there's sensitive, valuable pre-production/financial/proprietary data in the offices, and there's dangerous equipment on the plant floor, requiring safety glasses/steel toes/hard hats. It goes unstated that the plant floor and coverall-clad workers are dirty in comparison to the cubicles, carpet, and dress clothes in the offices.
And the bathrooms for the laborers are filthy, even with multiple daily cleanings, while the bathrooms for the office would still be nice even if it was only the office staff themselves that kept them clean.
The tasks in the office are cerebral, while the tasks on the plant floor may require manhandling (a sexist term?) a 9" angle grinder all day. This results in an age, gender, and (in conditions where people of ethnic minorities are cheaply available for entry-level labor) ethnic disparity.
It's by no means absolute - there are women on the plant floor, and young ethnic men get promoted into management all the time. The DOL report [1] is careful to call out B&H's error only as "This hiring disparity ... remains after adjusting for differences in legitimate hiring factors".
There's nothing wrong with hiring mostly young men to shoulder heavy boxes all day, but if a strong woman or wiry old man willing and able to do the work comes in, you'd ought to hire her or him as readily as an equally qualified and capable young man, discarding your bias that you've previously hired mostly young men. And if someone comes in for office work, and has the necessary credentials, but is of the same age/ethnicity/gender as the production personell, you'd ought to hire him for office work as well, dispite the fact that you usually hire older, or that young men usually work on the plant floor.
[1] https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20160384.pdf
Also decision was probably 'If you wanna use water, use that bathroom', and it resulted in this effect that Hispanics used one restroom and whites/others the other.
Was this worker able to speak english well? Could s/he articulate that the bathroom needs to be fixed or cleaned regularly? Was there an employee tasked with that particular bathroom and did they not do their job, were they instead slacking or not informed of that.
Curious also what is the demeanor and look to these employees? Were they scummy warehouse workers who would be a poor showing to BH customers. Perhaps they were breaking company rules of their own by showing up to work looking and smelling like garbage. Maybe their behavior is offputting to customers because they don't have politeness training that the other retail employees are trained or have naturally.