Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: April 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 few recent EEOC cases and settlements that stand out:


Weight Watchers Settles EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit
The EEOC filed a pregnancy discrimination suit against Weight Watchers as a result of Weight Watchers' alleged failure to hire an applicant as a group leader because she was pregnant.  After learning that the applicant was pregnant, Weight Watchers allegedly told her that she would not be hired because she was pregnant and refused to consider the applicant further.  These alleged actions violate federal law which prohibit employers from discriminating against employees and applicants that are pregnant.  
Weight Watchers settled for $45,000 and agreed to provide other relief to settle the suit, including the posting of anti-discrimination notices.

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-7-14.cfm


Checkers Will Pay $100,000 to Settle EEOC Pay Discrimination Suit

The EEOC filed a pay discrimination suit against a Checkers franchise in West Philadelphia and alleged the franchise had failed to pay female shift managers and female cashiers/sandwich makers lower wages than their male counterparts even though they did substantially equal work.  The franchise also allegedly discriminated against its female workers by way of scheduling them for fewer hours.  The EEOC alleged that these actions violated federal law, specifically the Equal Pay Act.

Checkers settled the suit for $100,000 and agreed to not discriminate on the basis of sex with respect to wages in the future.  As well, the franchise will increase the wages its female shift managers and female cashiers/sandwich makers earn to match the pay its male workers earn for equal work. 

It is important to note that this type of discrimination, specifically the difference in wages that male and female employees often earn, is one of the targeted discrimination areas that the EEOC is focused on.  Employers need to be wary, less they make an appearance in one of The Great EEOC Roundups in the coming months.


EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-2-14.cfm


Annapolis Internal Medicine to Pay $22,500 to Settle Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

The EEOC charged Annapolis Internal Medicine with pregnancy discrimination when an employee started her position with the company and asked that her pregnancy be kept confidential.  However, this did not happen and the employee was subjected to unequal treatment.  When the employee requested a counseling report about the complained of treatment, the company failed to address her discrimination claims.  The employee's final complaint regarding her treatment came approximately three days before she was fired.  

Annapolis agreed to settle the dispute for $22,500 which represents the employee's full wage loss as well as compensatory damages.  In addition, Annapolis agreed to not take adverse employment action in the future on the basis of pregnancy or retaliate for any complaints received in regard to any complained of discrimination.

EEOC Press Release:  http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-21-14b.cfm

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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. ...
1 comment
Read more