Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: November 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:



Earlier this month, it was announced that Safeway will pay $27,000.00 and rehire a store clerk in order to resolve a disability discrimination suit.  The lawsuit claimed that Patricia Bonds ("Bonds") worked at a Safeway location where she sustained a work related injury that limited her ability to lift items.  Although Bonds was initially accommodated, she was placed on indefinite unpaid leave on the grounds that she had exhausted her time limits for modified duty.  Under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), employer discrimination because of an employee's disability is prohibited.  Further, an employer is required to provide reasonable accommodations to a disabled employee as well.  Given the facts in this case, it would likely be difficult for Safeway to establish that it did not unlawfully discriminate against Bonds (and fail to accommodate her disability).


ADEA Suit Brought Against Wing Restaurant Chain in Houston

Recently, a lawsuit was filed against Bayou City Wings on the grounds that the restaurant chain violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") by failing to hire older workers.  The suit claims that since 2008, Bayou City Wings has failed to hire applicants for "front of house positions" because of their age (40 years and older).  Apparently, management at the restaurants were instructed to not recruit or hire older job applicants and disciplined and terminated managers who failed to comply.  On its face, this complained of conduct certainly seems to be in violation of the ADEA.  It will be interesting to see how the restaurant chain responds to the charges.


Pay Discrimination Suit Brought Against Spec Formliners

Earlier this month, suit was filed against Spec Formliners on the grounds the company unlawfully paid a female sales representative less than a male sales representative.  According to the suit, the company not only paid the female sales representative less than the male sales representative in base pay, but also required the female sales representative to sell more to earn the same commission as her male counterpart.  This alleged conduct is in violation of the Equal Pay Act as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Interesting to see what response the company will file.

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