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,...
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