Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: November 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:



Earlier this month, it was announced that Safeway will pay $27,000.00 and rehire a store clerk in order to resolve a disability discrimination suit.  The lawsuit claimed that Patricia Bonds ("Bonds") worked at a Safeway location where she sustained a work related injury that limited her ability to lift items.  Although Bonds was initially accommodated, she was placed on indefinite unpaid leave on the grounds that she had exhausted her time limits for modified duty.  Under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), employer discrimination because of an employee's disability is prohibited.  Further, an employer is required to provide reasonable accommodations to a disabled employee as well.  Given the facts in this case, it would likely be difficult for Safeway to establish that it did not unlawfully discriminate against Bonds (and fail to accommodate her disability).


ADEA Suit Brought Against Wing Restaurant Chain in Houston

Recently, a lawsuit was filed against Bayou City Wings on the grounds that the restaurant chain violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") by failing to hire older workers.  The suit claims that since 2008, Bayou City Wings has failed to hire applicants for "front of house positions" because of their age (40 years and older).  Apparently, management at the restaurants were instructed to not recruit or hire older job applicants and disciplined and terminated managers who failed to comply.  On its face, this complained of conduct certainly seems to be in violation of the ADEA.  It will be interesting to see how the restaurant chain responds to the charges.


Pay Discrimination Suit Brought Against Spec Formliners

Earlier this month, suit was filed against Spec Formliners on the grounds the company unlawfully paid a female sales representative less than a male sales representative.  According to the suit, the company not only paid the female sales representative less than the male sales representative in base pay, but also required the female sales representative to sell more to earn the same commission as her male counterpart.  This alleged conduct is in violation of the Equal Pay Act as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Interesting to see what response the company will file.

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