Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: February Edition


As always, there are some 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.


The Cheesecake Factory to Pay $15,000 to Settle Disability Discrimination Claim

A few weeks ago, the EEOC announced that the Cheesecake Factor and its wholly owned subsidiary would pay $15,000.00 and implement changes to settle an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claim brought by a former employee.  The facts alleged that the employee, who was deaf and had just been hired as a dishwasher, was subsequently terminated for issues associated with his disability.  Apparently the Cheesecake Factory denied the employee's request for orientation training either with closed captioned video or an American Sign Language interpreter.  As some readers are likely aware, the ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee (or job applicant) with a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense.  Perhaps just as important, an employer cannot punish an employee with a disability that requests a reasonable accommodation.


Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchise to Pay $30,000 to Settle Disability Discrimination Claim

At the start of the month, it was announced that Hester Foods, Inc. the operator of a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Georgia, would pay $30,000.00 to settle a disability discrimination suit brought by the EEOC.  The suit alleged that the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") was violated when a restaurant manager was fired after her employer found out she was taking prescription medications prescribed by her doctor for her bipolar disorder.  The employer apparently referred to the medications in obscene terms and at one point made the employee flush the medications down a toilet at the restaurant.  Even after all of that, when the manager told her employer that she still intended to take the medications (per her doctor's orders), she was told not to return to work and was subsequently fired.  It is hard to think of worse ways for an employer to violate the ADA...use this employer's poor actions as a guide of what NOT to do.


EEOC Sues Maurizio's Trattoria Italiana for Pregnancy Discrimination

The EEOC recently filed a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against Maurizio's Trattoria Italiana after it allegedly discriminated against and fired an employee after learning of her pregnancy.  As alleged, after the employee notified her employer of the pregnancy, she was apparently discriminated against by being scheduled for fewer hours (which resulted in less pay) and not being allowed to return to her position after she gave birth.  The employee was subsequently fired thereafter.  This conduct is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  (This case is similar to another EEOC case from last year in which an employer, Bob Evans, after being notified of an employee's pregnancy, changed the employee's work schedule so as to not "get screwed over if [she had] the baby."  Needless to say, based upon these comments and other conduct by the employer, the Court found a valid pregnancy discrimination claim existed.  Interesting to see how this one plays out.)


EEOC Sues Memorial Healthcare for Religious Discrimination

A few weeks ago, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Memorial Healthcare on the grounds that the health care provider violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it rescinded a job offer to an applicant because of the applicant's religion and need for a religious accommodation.  According to the complaint, Memorial Healthcare revoked its employment offer to an applicant due to the applicant's religious objection to an influenza shot or spray.  Although the applicant offered to wear a mask, she was still denied the job, although Memorial apparently had a policy in place authorizing the use of masks for those that could not take a vaccine.  (Readers might remember a similar case in which an employee requested an accommodation so a biometric hand scanner did not have to be used at work, based upon that employee's sincerely held religious beliefs.  As that Court noted, Title VII requires an employer to provide employees with a reasonable accommodation, if requested, to allow that employee to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs.  Whether the applicant's accommodation request to use a mask in this case was reasonable will be a question for a jury to ultimately decide.)

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