Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: May Edition


As always, there are some recent EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review recent development on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out:


Tiny's Organic Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Suit for $17,500.00

Earlier in May, the EEOC announced that Tiny's Organic would pay $17,500.00 to settle a pregnancy discrimination claim brought by a former employee.  The EEOC had alleged that Tiny's fired Maria Guillen nine days after she disclosed that she was pregnant with twins.  Even though Guillen had worked at Tiny's for over six years and had worked her way up, her employer claimed it feared for her safety and company liability.  Even though Guillen had a doctor who cleared her to perform her job without medical restrictions, Tiny's refused. 

This conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, or any medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. 

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-4-15.cfm


Ruby Tuesday to Pay $100,000.00 to Settle Sex Discrimination Suit

The EEOC recently announced that it had settled a sex discrimination claim filed against Ruby Tuesday, with the company agreeing to pay $100,000.00 and implement preventative measures.  Ruby Tuesday was charged with denying two male employees the opportunity to work as servers at its Park City, Utah location.  When the company posted an internal announcement for summer positions with company provided housing (and a chance for higher earnings), the announcement also stated only females would be considered because of alleged concerns over housing employees of both genders.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from giving more advantageous terms and conditions of employment to one group of individuals based upon gender.  This conduct by Ruby Tuesday violated that statue as the two male employees who complained of the discrimination were prohibited from an employment opportunity based upon their gender.

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-21-15a.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