Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: September 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:


Popeye's Chicken Franchisee to Pay $25,000 to Settle Disability Discrimination Claim

A Popeye's Chicken franchisee had a charge brought against it by the EEOC who claimed that the general manager of the location in Longview, Texas refused to hire an applicant for a position at the restaurant when it became known that the applicant was HIV-positive.  Apparently, the applicant had years of prior experience working in the fast food industry, including experience as a general manager.  However, when asked why he had left his prior position, the applicant listed "medical" as the reason.  Upon being interviewed and asked to disclose the "medical" condition, the applicant stated he had HIV.  The franchisee immediately informed the applicant that he could not work for Popeye's as a result of his HIV.   

This alleged conduct by the Popeye's franchisee violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and suit was subsequently brought by the EEOC.  Under the terms of the settlement, Popeye's will pay $25,000.00 to the applicant and will provide training to all managers, area supervisors, and human resource professionals on the ADA.  

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-4-14.cfm


O'Reilly Automotive Consents to Early Entry of Decree to Resolve Sexual Harassment Suit

O'Reilly Automotive earlier this month resolved a sexual harassment case brought against it for $35,000.00.  The sexual harassment claim came about as a result of a a male worker in a Chicago store who alleged that he was subjected to groping and sexually offensive comments by his female store manager.  The EEOC charged that O'Reilly failed to promptly or adequately respond to the worker's sexual harassment claims.

The alleged conduct by the female store manager violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Shortly after the EEOC filed its suit, O'Reilly agreed to the above settlement to be done with the suit.



Wells Fargo Settles Same Sex Sexual Harassment Suit for $290,000

This is one of the more interesting EEOC settlements that I have read this month.  In this instance, four female bank tellers at a Wells Fargo branch in Reno were allegedly subjected to graphic sexual comments, gestures, and images by a female manager and another female bank teller.  Although the sexually harassing conduct was reported to management several times, Wells Fargo failed to act efficiently and stop it.  

The EEOC subsequently filed a charge and alleged this conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits sexual harassment and requires employers to take prompt steps to investigate and stop such conduct.  Wells Fargo agreed to settle the charges for $290,000.00 and agreed to take preventative steps to stop future sexual harassment at its branches in the area.  

The big thing in this case is the fact that had Wells Fargo actually investigated the complained of conduct, it could have been prevented and would not have gotten as out of hand as it ultimately ended up.  Food for thought for employers...when a complaint is made, steps should be taken to investigate it, immediately!  




The EEOC charged that DSW (for those not into shoe shopping, DSW is a shoe store with stores across the country) discriminated against seven former management employees and a class of former employees by firing employees over the age of 40 during a "reduction in force."  Allegedly, DSW terminated the older employees because of their age and retaliated against certain employees who opposed orders to discriminate against the older workers.  

The suit was brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 which prohibits age discrimination in employment.  The $900,000.00 settlement includes a stipulation that DSW will report to the EEOC, for the next three years, all employee complains of age discrimination arising out of certain regions in the U.S. 

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