Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: May Edition


As always, there are some recent EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review recent development on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out:


Tiny's Organic Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Suit for $17,500.00

Earlier in May, the EEOC announced that Tiny's Organic would pay $17,500.00 to settle a pregnancy discrimination claim brought by a former employee.  The EEOC had alleged that Tiny's fired Maria Guillen nine days after she disclosed that she was pregnant with twins.  Even though Guillen had worked at Tiny's for over six years and had worked her way up, her employer claimed it feared for her safety and company liability.  Even though Guillen had a doctor who cleared her to perform her job without medical restrictions, Tiny's refused. 

This conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, or any medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. 

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-4-15.cfm


Ruby Tuesday to Pay $100,000.00 to Settle Sex Discrimination Suit

The EEOC recently announced that it had settled a sex discrimination claim filed against Ruby Tuesday, with the company agreeing to pay $100,000.00 and implement preventative measures.  Ruby Tuesday was charged with denying two male employees the opportunity to work as servers at its Park City, Utah location.  When the company posted an internal announcement for summer positions with company provided housing (and a chance for higher earnings), the announcement also stated only females would be considered because of alleged concerns over housing employees of both genders.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from giving more advantageous terms and conditions of employment to one group of individuals based upon gender.  This conduct by Ruby Tuesday violated that statue as the two male employees who complained of the discrimination were prohibited from an employment opportunity based upon their gender.

EEOC Press Release:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-21-15a.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