Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: January 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:


Seymour Midwest to Pay $100,000 to Resolve Age Discrimination Suit

Earlier this month, it was announced that Seymour Midwest, a hand tool manufacturing company in Indiana, would pay $100,000 to resolve an age discrimination suit.  According to the suit, Seymour Midwest selected Steve Maril from a group of applicants that had applied for its senior vice president of sales position.  One of the questions asked was whether Maril was within the "ideal age range" of 45 - 52.  When Seymour Midwest learned that Maril was older than that range, they refused to hire him.  As readers could likely guess, this conduct is in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The Act prohibits age based discrimination against individuals who are least 40 years old.  Employers should take care to refrain from asking applicants whether they fall within an "ideal age range"...or risk a suit if that applicant is not hired.



Chalk this one up as a relatively 'standard' sex discrimination claim:  Stanley Martin Companies, LLC allegedly refused to promote a female employee, Carrie Smith, due to her sex.  When Smith was finally promoted, however, she was paid a lower wage than male employees in a similar position even though they were doing substantially equal work.  

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits this type of discrimination based upon sex.  In this instance, Stanley Martin apparently discriminated against Smith when it came to pay and promotion decisions.  Based upon the facts in this instance, a $45,000 settlement was likely warranted.

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