Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: October Edition


Happy Halloween to readers.  In between waiting for trick or treaters this evening, feel free to peruse the below EEOC developments to pass the time.

As always, there are some recent EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review developments on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out.



At the start of the month, the EEOC filed a disability discrimination suit against Home Depot after it allegedly failed to accommodate and then fired an employee who had a disability related emergency at work.   The lawsuit claimed that the employee held a position at a Home Depot store in Peru, Illinois.  After the employee had a medical related emergency related to her disability that required prompt attention, Home Depot is alleged to have failed to provide her adequate means to attend to the disability and then fired her for minor infractions (caused by Home Depot's alleged failure to accommodate her.)  This alleged conduct would be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") if proven to be true.  It will be interesting to see what additional facts come out as litigation progresses (and what response Home Depot files.)



Last Thursday, it was announced that Ruby Tuesday would pay $45,000.00 to settle an age discrimination claim brought by the EEOC.  The suit came about after Floyd Cardwell (a "qualified" applicant with over 20 years of experience in the food and beverage industry) applied for a general manager position at a Ruby Tuesday location and after he inquired as to why he was not hired, he was informed it was because they were seeking a candidate who could "maximize longevity."  This conduct is in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") which prohibits discrimination against an employee (or applicant) on the basis of age.

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

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

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more