Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: June 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:


Chick-Fil-A Franchise Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

A Chick-Fil-A franchise in North Carolina agreed to pay $10,000.00 to settle a pregnancy discrimination suit filed by a prospective employee who was not hired because she was pregnant.  During her interview at Chick-Fil-A, several questions were asked about when the employee was due, how long she had been pregnant, and what her child care plans were for the baby.  These types of questions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the prospective employee sued the Chick-Fil-A franchise for pregnancy discrimination when she was not hired.  As part of the settlement, the Chick-Fil-A franchise agreed to implement a policy that would prohibit pregnancy discrimination.

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-5-14.cfm


Bobby Dodd Institute Settles Discrimination Suit

The Bobby Dodd Institute settled an age discrimination suit for $40,000.00.  Two women, both over the age of 70, applied for a shared mail clerk position with Bobby Dodd and were extended job offers.  After their ages were revealed to the company CEO, however, the job offers were revoked one day before the scheduled start date.  As well, the EEOC claimed that after preventing the two women from working, Bobby Dodd hired two younger workers to fill the position.  These actions violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which prohibits employers from subjecting individuals to discrimination due to age. 

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-17-14.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, 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