Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: April Edition

As always, there are some recent EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review recent developments on that front.  Below are a few recent EEOC cases and settlements that stand out:


Weight Watchers Settles EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit
The EEOC filed a pregnancy discrimination suit against Weight Watchers as a result of Weight Watchers' alleged failure to hire an applicant as a group leader because she was pregnant.  After learning that the applicant was pregnant, Weight Watchers allegedly told her that she would not be hired because she was pregnant and refused to consider the applicant further.  These alleged actions violate federal law which prohibit employers from discriminating against employees and applicants that are pregnant.  
Weight Watchers settled for $45,000 and agreed to provide other relief to settle the suit, including the posting of anti-discrimination notices.

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-7-14.cfm


Checkers Will Pay $100,000 to Settle EEOC Pay Discrimination Suit

The EEOC filed a pay discrimination suit against a Checkers franchise in West Philadelphia and alleged the franchise had failed to pay female shift managers and female cashiers/sandwich makers lower wages than their male counterparts even though they did substantially equal work.  The franchise also allegedly discriminated against its female workers by way of scheduling them for fewer hours.  The EEOC alleged that these actions violated federal law, specifically the Equal Pay Act.

Checkers settled the suit for $100,000 and agreed to not discriminate on the basis of sex with respect to wages in the future.  As well, the franchise will increase the wages its female shift managers and female cashiers/sandwich makers earn to match the pay its male workers earn for equal work. 

It is important to note that this type of discrimination, specifically the difference in wages that male and female employees often earn, is one of the targeted discrimination areas that the EEOC is focused on.  Employers need to be wary, less they make an appearance in one of The Great EEOC Roundups in the coming months.


EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-2-14.cfm


Annapolis Internal Medicine to Pay $22,500 to Settle Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

The EEOC charged Annapolis Internal Medicine with pregnancy discrimination when an employee started her position with the company and asked that her pregnancy be kept confidential.  However, this did not happen and the employee was subjected to unequal treatment.  When the employee requested a counseling report about the complained of treatment, the company failed to address her discrimination claims.  The employee's final complaint regarding her treatment came approximately three days before she was fired.  

Annapolis agreed to settle the dispute for $22,500 which represents the employee's full wage loss as well as compensatory damages.  In addition, Annapolis agreed to not take adverse employment action in the future on the basis of pregnancy or retaliate for any complaints received in regard to any complained of discrimination.

EEOC Press Release:  http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-21-14b.cfm

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more