Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: December 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 couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out:


EEOC Claim Against Costco to Proceed to a Jury

Recently, a federal district judge held that an EEOC claim that alleged that Costco violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (by failing to prevent a male customer from stalking and harassing a female employee) will proceed to a jury.  In denying Costco's motion for summary judgment, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to allow the claim to proceed.  Of note, the female employee was subjected to harassing behavior by the male customer for over a year and the conduct continued to escalate (including unwanted touching, "ominous" staring, and other intrusive actions.  The court found that there was evidence that Costco failed to take reasonable steps to stop the harassment, thus the hostile work environment claim was allowed to proceed to a jury.


EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Claim Against McDonald's

The EEOC filed a disability discrimination claim against McDonald's and McDonald's Restaurants of Missouri on the grounds that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by refusing to accommodate and hire a deaf applicant.  According to the suit, Ricky Washington, who was deaf, applied for a position at McDonald's.  He indicated he had attended a school for the deaf on his application and that he had also previously worked at a McDonald's before.  When the manager of the location where Washington applied learned of the need for a sign language interpreter for the interview, she cancelled the interview and would not reschedule.  Even though other interviews were conducted with other applicants and new hires were made, Washington's interview was never rescheduled.  This alleged conduct violated the ADA by discriminating against Washington as a result of his 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