Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: December 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.


Bojangles' to Pay $15,000 to Settle Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit

Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc. had a lawsuit filed against it in which the EEOC alleged that the company unlawfully subjected a transgender employee to a hostile work environment because of gender identity and then unlawfully terminated the employee for reporting the sexual harassment.  The suit alleged that Jonathan (De'Ashia) Wolfe, a transgender employee that worked at a Bojangles' location, was repeatedly subjected to offensive comments about her gender identity and appearance.  In fact, managers and assistant managers apparently demanded Wolfe behave and groom in ways that were stereotypically male (since Wolfe was born male), although Wolfe identified as a woman.  Although Wolfe reported the comments on several occasions, the harassment continued and Wolfe was subsequently terminated thereafter.  This alleged conduct is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects employees from sex discrimination (including harassment based upon gender identity and sexual orientation) and prohibits employers from retaliating against employees that complain about this discrimination.


Trinity Hospital to Pay $95,000 to Settle Pregnancy Discrimination & Disability Discrimination Suit

Recently, the EEOC announced that Trinity Health (d/b/a Trinity Hospital) would pay $95,000.00 to settle a pregnancy discrimination and disability discrimination claim suit filed by a pregnant nurse that had lifting restrictions because of a pregnancy related health condition.  In lieu of providing light duty work to the nurse as she requested, Trinity terminated her.  The suit alleged that Trinity violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act by not providing the nurse with accommodations for her lifting restrictions although evidence had been presented which showed that Trinity had provided light duty work to other nurses that were injured on the job. As noted, if an employer is accommodating an employee with restrictions that have arisen from a work place related injury, there may be a duty to provide that same accommodation to an employee with a restriction that has arisen out of a pregnancy.

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