Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: March 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:


PMT Corporation to Pay in Excess of $1 Million to Settle Age and Sex Discrimination Suit

Earlier this month, it was announced that PMT Corporation would pay a little over $1 million to a class of job applicants who alleged the company engaged in a pattern of systematic hiring discrimination.  According to the facts alleged, PMT hired over 70 individuals as sales representatives between January 1, 2007 and late 2010, however, none were female or over 40 years old.  The suit claimed this was intentional and directed by PMT's owner and president.  This alleged conduct was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  Based upon the facts in this case, it was certainly an uphill climb for PMT to establish a lack of age and sex discrimination...based upon the lack of diversity among the 70 individuals it hired during the specified time frame.



In a recent EEOC suit, it was alleged that NFI Roadrail and NFI Industries, Inc. violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by paying a female employee less than three male directors.  The EEOC alleged that the female director of internal operations made less than three male directors and after her male counterparts were fired, she was put back into the job, but at a lower annual salary.  It was not until she came across a pay stub of one of the male directors that she discovered the discrepancy in pay.  Given the increased attention that equal pay issues has gotten over the past few months, employers should take note:  Equal pay matters continue to be a major issue.  Tread carefully.


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