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