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, 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