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,...
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

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