Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: July 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:


Walgreens Pays $180,000 To Settle Discrimination Suit

This is one of the more interesting EEOC cases to come along in a while in regard to a discrimination lawsuit.  Walgreens settled an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claim for $180,000.00 brought by a former employee of the pharmacy giant.  The EEOC alleged that the employee, who was diabetic, was fired after she ate a bag of potato chips to stabilize her blood sugar without paying for it.

A few things went against Walgreens in this instance, namely the company's attorney who acknowledged that the employee who worked for the company for 18 years was valuable and that fact that even though the store knew of her disability, the security guard on duty did not seek clarification that the employee did not have time to pay because of her low blood sugar.  In this instance, the firing of the employee violated the ADA because Walgreens fired the employee because of a disability. 

EEOC Press Release:  http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-2-14b.cfm


Goodwill Pays $100,000 to Settle Retaliation Suit

Uh oh, shame shame Goodwill.  The EEOC charged that Goodwill retaliated against a worker, Mary Goulet, when it fired her after she testified on behalf of another Goodwill employee in a previous federal sex and age discrimination lawsuit.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination Act, it is against the law to discriminate against employees or applicants because of their participation as a witness in another person's employment discrimination suit.  This is a rather unsurprising settlement, given the difficult situation Goodwill allegedly put itself in.

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/7-22-14.cfm


Triple T Foods to Pay $30,000 to Settle Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

Every time I hear about a case like this, it makes me wonder what someone was thinking when they put their company in this unnecessary situation.  In this instance, the EEOC charged that Triple T Foods fired an employee the day she told the company she was pregnant.

This action by Triple T Foods violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, as an employer cannot take adverse employment action as a result of a pregnant employee.  Fair warning to employers, the EEOC has made pregnancy discrimination suits one of its focuses lately...more of these types of cases will surely be following suit.

EEOC Press Release:  http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-28-14.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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more