Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: January 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.


Age Discrimination Lawsuit Against Montrose Memorial Hospital Settles for $400,000

Montrose Memorial Hospital in Colorado was alleged to have terminated or forced 29 employees to retire (aged 40 and older), in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").  The hospital apparently fired many of these older employees for supposed performance deficiencies, although younger employees were given more leniency.  This conduct was in violation of the ADEA which protects employees 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on their age.  Employers should use this case as a reminder that using age as a pretext for terminating (or forcing retirement) employees 40 years of age or older is never a good idea...


Aloha Auto Group to Pay $30,000 to Settle Retaliation Claim

The EEOC had filed suit against the Aloha Auto Group and alleged the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it terminated an employee after he apparently encouraged a group of Asian-American and Pacific Islander employees at Aloha Auto Group's Harley Davidson dealership to complain about a racially discriminatory comment.  Along with the $30,000.00 settlement with the terminated employee, Aloha Auto Group will also designate an equal employment opportunity monitor to ensure the company complies with Title VII and anti-retaliation policies and procedures.  Note to employers, retaliating against an employee that reports allegedly discriminatory behavior/comments is likely a surefire way to be confronted with an EEOC suit.  Tread carefully...



Earlier this month it was announced that Vador Ventures would pay $36,461.00 to settle an equal pay and retaliation claim.  In relevant part, Vador was alleged to have paid a female day porter less than her male counterparts for equal work.  When the female employee complained about the wage disparity and asked for an increase in pay, Vador apparently assigned her additional work, subjected to her verbal harassment, and proceeded to terminate her.  This conduct was in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Given the increased attention over the past few years to equal pay matters, employers would be wise to proceed with caution when a wage disparity is made known...and refrain from retaliating against an employee who points out an apparent wage gap.  "Punishing" that employee and then terminating them, as was done in this case, is far from the best way to handle the matter.

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

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more