A federal court-imposed fine of $400,000 against the Jewel-Osco supermarket chain to compensate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for attorneys' fees in connection with the chain's alleged failure to comply with a consent decree is unusually large and likely reflects the effort the agency exerted in the case.

The total is “pretty surprising,” said Joel Aziere, a partner and president of law firm Buelow, Vetter, Buikema, Olson & Vliet, L.L.C. in Waukesha, Wisconsin, who said it is rare for the agency to recover attorneys' fees. The EEOC also has described the situation as “unique.”

The EEOC said last week that the decree had been entered into to resolve prior agency litigation filed under the Americans with Disabilities act, in which the chain, which is a unit of Boise, Idaho-based Albertsons L.L.C., routinely failed to provide reasonable accommodations to employees seeking to return to work from a disability leave.

The EEOC said the payment comes as a result of a Dec. 2, 2014 order by Judge Ronald Guzman of U.S. District Court in Chicago, as part of the relief granted to the agency's Chicago office when it prevailed in a contempt hearing brought against the company for alleged violations of the consent decree.

The EEOC said Magistrate Michael Mason, also of the U.S. District Court in Chicago, had found after a three-day contempt hearing that the company had failed to comply with the decree's requirement that Jewel-Osco reasonably accommodate employees seeking to return to work from a disability leave, which was subsequently affirmed by Judge Guzman's ruling.

The $400,000 payment comes on top of more than $82,000 that Jewel-Osco was ordered to pay three affected employees who were not returned to work, the EEOC said.

“These circumstances were unique,” explained EEOC Regional Attorney John Hendrickson, in a statement. “The contempt proceeding occurred only after Jewel-Osco accepted certain obligations to resolve serious discrimination claims brought by our office; memorialized the company's agreement in a consent decree, which was entered by the court; and then failed to comply with its obligations under that decree. Obviously, it is a situation that we hope will not be repeated — either by this employer or by any other.

“By reaching an agreement on the amount of fees and costs, we are hopeful that the EEOC and Jewel have now entered a new era of cooperation whereby Jewel will indeed fulfill its consent decree obligations. We appreciate that Jewel has communicated a renewed commitment to ADA compliance and we look forward to a productive partnership going forward.”

Albertson's did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Aziere said, “The EEOC typically does not recover any of its attorneys' fees,” which are generally regarded as the cost of its doing business. Apparently the court decided that the chain “didn't make a good faith effort” to comply with the consent decree, he said.

“The EEOC probably had to spend a lot of time on this because they had an evidentiary hearing with some discovery that went back and forth as to the accommodation or lack of accommodation to these three employees,” said Robin E. Shea, a partner with law firm Constangy, Brooks & Smith L.L.P. in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The $400,000 was an agreed upon settlement in the case, according to court papers, which means the agency had originally sought an even greater amount, said Eric A. Welter, president of the Welter Law Firm P.C. in Herndon, Virginia.