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 developments on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out.


American Airlines & Envoy To Pay $9.8 Million to Settle Disability Discrimination Claims

Earlier this month, it was announced that Americans Airlines & Envoy would pay approximately $9.8 million (in stock) to settle disability discrimination claims that had been raised against the companies.  The allegations, in relevant part, alleged that the companies required all employees to not have any restrictions before returning to work from medical leave.  If an employee still had a restriction, they were not allowed to return to work as the companies apparently did not even provide an accommodation (nor even offer one).  This conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of a disability or refusing to offer a reasonable accommodation to a disabled employee unless the accommodation would impose a significant difficulty or expense on the employer.


Winner Ford to Pay $150,000 to Settle National Origin Discrimination Suit

A Ford dealer is alleged to have violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it paid Chinese technicians a lower wage than non-Chinese technicians.  When one of the Chinese technicians noticed the apparent pay disaparity and complained, he was reprimanded and told that if he sought legal advice he would be out of a job.  This conduct violates Title VII which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of national origin or to retaliate against individuals who complain of apparent discrimination.

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. ...