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 developments on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out:


Applebee's Faces Sexual Harassment Claim

Earlier this month, the EEOC filed a sexual harassment claim against Applebee's on the grounds that a male assistant manager created a sexually hostile work environment for two female employees and restaurant management, apparently aware of the alleged harassment, allowed the situation to exist.  According to the suit, the male assistant manager sexually harassed the two female employees, both sisters, for several months in 2014.  This alleged harassment is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from allowing a sexually hostile work environment to exist in the workplace.


$57,000.00 Settlement Reached on Sex Discrimination Claim

A settlement was reached between the EEOC and an education company recently in which the company will pay $57,000.00 to resolve a sex discrimination claim filed by a former job applicant.  The job applicant alleged that the company's CEO asked her out on a date and suggested that she "party" with him after she had been offered a position with the company.  After she declined the CEO's offer and said she hoped "we can move forward in a strictly professional manner", the company declined to hire her and instead hired a male candidate.  This conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on sex and forbids retaliating against individuals who object to this discrimination.  A note to employers (and those in charge of interviewing and hiring job applicants):  Do not ask applicants out on dates or to "party" and then turn around and decline to hire them when they say no.  As this case demonstrates, more often than not, that leads to major problems and avoidable litigation.


Ruby Tuesday Charged With Age Discrimination at Boca Raton Location

Earlier this month, the EEOC filed an age discrimination suit against Ruby Tuesday after one of its locations in Boca Raton allegedly refused to hire a qualified applicant because of his age.  The EEOC alleged in its suit that although the applicant had over 20 years of experience in the food and beverage industry, the chain location refused to hire him for a general manager position because the company wanted a candidate who could "maximize longevity".  This alleged conduct is in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") which prohibits discriminating against an employee or applicant because of their age.  With suit having just been filed, this has a ways to go before a final resolution is reached.  Stay tuned.

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