Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: October 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 couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out:


EEOC Sues Coca-Cola of Mobile for Sex Discrimination

Recently, the EEOC brought suit against Coca-Cola of Mobile on the grounds that it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against a job applicant on the basis of sex.  In June 2010, Martina Owes applied for two vacant warehouse positions but was not selected.  In her August 2010 EEOC charge, she complained the company hired less qualified male applicants instead.  During its investigation, the EEOC requested Coca-Cola provide the employment applications for potential and actual hires dating back to February 2010.  However, Coca-Cola of Mobile allegedly could not produce these applications and thus was in violation of the federal recordkeeping requirements.  

In essence, federal law requires covered employers to retain records for at least one year from the date the record was made or the decision was made, whichever occurred later.  Note, some employers are subject to longer retention requirements.  In any event, Coca-Cola of Mobile's inability to produce these applications could prove to be a major problem for them.  Stay tuned.


Austin's Pizza N Park Sued For Disability Discrimination

Earlier this month it was announced that the EEOC had filed suit against Austin's Pizza N Park on the grounds that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by firing an employee because of his intellectual disabilities after he was denied a reasonable accommodation.  Apparently, the employee had difficulties logging in and out of work after the company implemented a new computerized system.  The employee's mother and legal guardian noticed he had not been getting paid for several months and contacted the general manager to find out why.  After the mother requested that an accommodation be made for the employee so he did not have to use the computerized system, the company refused and terminated him a few months later.  


National Tire & Battery to Pay $22,500 to Settle National Origin/Religious Harassment Suit

I figured that since we have two updates on the EEOC having recently filed suit, I might as well highlight at least one settlement this month.  In this case, the EEOC alleged that an Arab and Muslim mechanic who worked at two National Tire & Battery locations was harassed because of his religion and national origin.  His managers and co-workers apparently called him "Taliban", "al-Qaeda", and "bin Laden", among other derogatory terms.  The EEOC alleged that National Tire and Battery was aware of the harassment (in part because the mechanic complained repeatedly to management) yet did nothing to stop the harassment from recurring.  This alleged conduct was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In settling the case, National Tire and Battery is to pay the mechanic $22,500.00 and enter into a two year consent decree with the EEOC to not engage in national origin or religious harassment or retaliation in the future.


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

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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