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, 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