Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: January Edition


After a few months of not posting the EEOC Roundup, I wanted to get back into the swing of things and highlight a few EEOC matters from the past month.  Coincidentally enough, two of the cases that I wanted to highlight both deal with religious discrimination claims involving the same religion, Rastafarian.

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:


Triangle Catering Sued for Religious Discrimination

Recently, the EEOC brought suit against a Raleigh, North Carolina company on the grounds that it failed to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and subsequently fired him because of his religion.  The company, Triangle Catering, allegedly told an employee, Michael Reddick, Jr., that he had to remove his religious head covering while he worked for the company.  Reddick had been a practicing Rastafarian for over 15 years and wore a small cap to cover his head for religious reasons.  

Reddick told the company that he could not remove the head covering because of religious beliefs and was subsequently terminated as a result. 

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

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-13-15a.cfm


Mims Distributing To Pay $50,000.00 to Settle Religious Discrimination Claim

The EEOC announced that Mims Distributing will pay $50,000.00 to settle a religious discrimination claim brought by a former employee.  At the time he applied for employment, Christopher Alston, was a practicing Rastafarian.  According to the religion, he could not cut his hair.  However, when Alston was told that if he wanted to be hired as a driver, he would have to cut his hair.  Even though Alston explained he could not cut his hair because of his religious beliefs, Mims apparently refused to hire him because he would not comply.

This conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Mims was required to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs as long as doing so would not pose an undue hardship, which it failed to do.

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-20-15.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

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

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