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


American Airlines & Envoy To Pay $9.8 Million to Settle Disability Discrimination Claims

Earlier this month, it was announced that Americans Airlines & Envoy would pay approximately $9.8 million (in stock) to settle disability discrimination claims that had been raised against the companies.  The allegations, in relevant part, alleged that the companies required all employees to not have any restrictions before returning to work from medical leave.  If an employee still had a restriction, they were not allowed to return to work as the companies apparently did not even provide an accommodation (nor even offer one).  This conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of a disability or refusing to offer a reasonable accommodation to a disabled employee unless the accommodation would impose a significant difficulty or expense on the employer.


Winner Ford to Pay $150,000 to Settle National Origin Discrimination Suit

A Ford dealer is alleged to have violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it paid Chinese technicians a lower wage than non-Chinese technicians.  When one of the Chinese technicians noticed the apparent pay disaparity and complained, he was reprimanded and told that if he sought legal advice he would be out of a job.  This conduct violates Title VII which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of national origin or to retaliate against individuals who complain of apparent discrimination.

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