Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: August Edition


Only a few of the EEOC suits and settlements jumped out at me this month...it goes without saying that a majority of the EEOC claims involved allegedly illegal conduct in relation to female workers.  I have seen it time and time again, but employers need to be aware of discriminatory or harassing conduct in the workplace and take steps to correct it immediately, regardless of the gender that is being subjected to the illegal conduct.

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:


Royal Tire To Pay $182,500 to Settle Wage Discrimination Charge by Female Executive

This settlement reminds me of the sex discrimination suit brought by a former Anheuser-Busch female executive that went to a jury earlier this year (Former Anheuser-Busch Female Executive's Sex Discrimination Suit Fails - Blog), except this one had a better end result.  

In this instance, a female human resources manager alleged Royal Tire discriminated against her by paying her a lower wage than a male employee who held the same position.  An EEOC investigation revealed that Royal Tire paid the female executive $35,000 less per year than her male predecessor and $19,000 less than the minimum salary that Royal Tire set for the position.  Apparently even after the female executive complained and asked to be compensated fairly, Royal Tire still did not do anything.  

This alleged conduct by Royal Tire violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 which prohibits sex based wage differentials for work that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility performed under the same or similar working conditions.  The conduct also violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination. 

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-4-14.cfm


EEOC Sues MountainKing Potatoes for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation of Female Employees

The EEOC recently brought suit against MountainKing Potatoes and charged the company with subjecting female farmworkers to unwanted sexual touching, comments, gestures, and propositions.  The suit claimed that when the women complained about the harassment, the company punished them in various ways including termination or assigned the women to the least desirable assignments and workstations as retaliation. 

This alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment.  If proven to be true, this will be a tough case for MountainKing to prevail upon.  The alleged charges are quite serious and certainly paint a picture of a workplace overrun with sexual harassment and retaliatory conduct toward female farmworkers. 

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-8-14.cfm


Sal's Mexican Restaurant Settles Sexual Harassment Charge for $15,000

I have not seen one of these harassment cases come along in a while, but it is worth noting since I suspect it is prevalent in the restaurant industry (among others).  A hostess who worked at Sal's alleged that a male supervisor sexually harassed her while she was a teenager.  The supervisor allegedly made unwanted sexual advances, grabbed her body and tried to kiss her.  The hostess also alleged that the supervisor required her to give him hugs and back rubs as a condition of her employment.  Apparently complaints to restaurant management were not addressed and the harassment continued until the hostess resigned in 2010.

Sal's agreed to settle the EEOC sexual harassment charge for $15,000 for the alleged conduct in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Sal's further agreed to hire a third party consultant to help create, revise, and implement new policies and procedures to address and prevent discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

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