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

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,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...