Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: October Edition


Note, I realize this EEOC Roundup:  October Edition blog is finally being posted nearly halfway into November.  My apologies for the delay, but work has kept me busier than normal and I have not had as much time to pull this one together.

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:



An EEOC investigation revealed that a Hispanic employee suffered differential treatment based on her race and national origin.  The Hispanic employee reported to the Wells Fargo Human Resources department that she was subjected to differential treatment and her supervisor told her not to speak Spanish during non-duty time.  Afterward, Wells Fargo initiated discipline and ended up terminating the employee for practices other employees regularly engaged in without discipline.  

This alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Wells Fargo agreed to settle for $295,000.00 as well as conduct four hours of annual employment discrimination training for all managers and supervisors in the division where the employee worked. 




Recently, the EEOC brought suit against Dollar General for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation towards a female employee.  The EEOC alleged that the employee, Laveta Crawford, was subjected to a barrage of lewd comments and gestures on a daily basis by a male assistant store manager.  Although Crawford complained, the conduct continued.  When Crawford filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and attempted to transfer to a different store, she was subsequently fired.

The conduct complained of violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.




Late last month, a Floria jury handed down a verdict of $35,922.00 based upon an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claim brought by the EEOC.  The EEOC argued that Florida Commercial Security Services violated the ADA after it removed Alberto Tarud-Saieh (who had lost one arm in a car accident) from his security guard position after the president of a community association where Tarud-Saieh was working complained "The company is a joke.  You sent me a one armed security guard."  The company apparently then removed Tarud-Saieh from his post and did not reassign him, in essence terminating his employment.

The EEOC argued at trial that reliance upon discriminatory customer preferences and stereotypes about what individuals with disabilities can and cannot do violated the ADA.  




An assistant store manager at a Walmart store in Maryland offered Laura Jones a job as an evening sales associate, contingent upon Jones passing a urinalysis test for illegal drugs.  Jones stated she could not do this as was has end stage renal disease.  The assistant store manager instructed Jones to notify the drug testing company and inquire about alternate tests.  The drug testing company told Jones that other drug tests could be conducted if the employer requested it.  Jones subsequently relayed that information to the assistant store manager but management refused to order an alternative drug test for Jones.  Jones's application was subsequently closed for failing to take the urinalysis test.  

Suit was filed on the grounds that this alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  Walmart agreed to settle and pay $72,500.00 and provide significant equitable relief such as not taking any future adverse employment actions on the basis of disability.  



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