Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: October Edition


Note, I realize this EEOC Roundup:  October Edition blog is finally being posted nearly halfway into November.  My apologies for the delay, but work has kept me busier than normal and I have not had as much time to pull this one together.

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:



An EEOC investigation revealed that a Hispanic employee suffered differential treatment based on her race and national origin.  The Hispanic employee reported to the Wells Fargo Human Resources department that she was subjected to differential treatment and her supervisor told her not to speak Spanish during non-duty time.  Afterward, Wells Fargo initiated discipline and ended up terminating the employee for practices other employees regularly engaged in without discipline.  

This alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Wells Fargo agreed to settle for $295,000.00 as well as conduct four hours of annual employment discrimination training for all managers and supervisors in the division where the employee worked. 




Recently, the EEOC brought suit against Dollar General for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation towards a female employee.  The EEOC alleged that the employee, Laveta Crawford, was subjected to a barrage of lewd comments and gestures on a daily basis by a male assistant store manager.  Although Crawford complained, the conduct continued.  When Crawford filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and attempted to transfer to a different store, she was subsequently fired.

The conduct complained of violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.




Late last month, a Floria jury handed down a verdict of $35,922.00 based upon an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claim brought by the EEOC.  The EEOC argued that Florida Commercial Security Services violated the ADA after it removed Alberto Tarud-Saieh (who had lost one arm in a car accident) from his security guard position after the president of a community association where Tarud-Saieh was working complained "The company is a joke.  You sent me a one armed security guard."  The company apparently then removed Tarud-Saieh from his post and did not reassign him, in essence terminating his employment.

The EEOC argued at trial that reliance upon discriminatory customer preferences and stereotypes about what individuals with disabilities can and cannot do violated the ADA.  




An assistant store manager at a Walmart store in Maryland offered Laura Jones a job as an evening sales associate, contingent upon Jones passing a urinalysis test for illegal drugs.  Jones stated she could not do this as was has end stage renal disease.  The assistant store manager instructed Jones to notify the drug testing company and inquire about alternate tests.  The drug testing company told Jones that other drug tests could be conducted if the employer requested it.  Jones subsequently relayed that information to the assistant store manager but management refused to order an alternative drug test for Jones.  Jones's application was subsequently closed for failing to take the urinalysis test.  

Suit was filed on the grounds that this alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  Walmart agreed to settle and pay $72,500.00 and provide significant equitable relief such as not taking any future adverse employment actions on the basis of disability.  



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