Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: March 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.


IT Staffing Company to Pay $50,000.00 to Settle Age Discrimination Suit

Earlier this month, the EEOC announced that Diverse Lynx, LLC agreed to settle an age discrimination claim for $50,000.00.  The suit alleged that the IT staffing company discriminated against an applicant when, after learning of his age, sent him an email informing him he would no lingering be considered for a position because of his age.  This conduct was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee or applicant as a result of their age.  Note to employers, going forward, ensure you do not refuse to hire an applicant because of their age...and do not put in writing that you are not hiring an applicant because of his/her age.  Use Diverse’s situation as an example of what not to do.


Dollar Tree Stores Location Faces Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

A Dollar Tree Stores location in Georgia is facing a pregnancy discrimination suit as the EEOC alleged the location denied a pregnant employee breaks, assigned her tasks in violation of her pregnancy related restrictions, and scheduled her to work on days when she had doctors’ appointments scheduled.  This alleged conduct is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from discriminating against a employee because of a pregnancy.  As readers are likely aware, the EEOC has made pregnancy discrimination claims a major focal point as of late.  Tread carefully when dealing with pregnancy related issues in the workplace...or risk running afoul of the EEOC and being confronted with a similar pregnancy discrimination suit.


Pay Discrimination Suit Filed Against California Charter School

Recently, the EEOC filed a pay discrimination suit against the Guidance Charter School on the grounds that the school unlawfully discriminated against a female math tutor when she was paid less than her male counterparts for jobs that were interchangeable.  This conduct, if true, is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from paying male and female employees different wages for similar work.  I note that at this point, no answer had been filed by the charter school, so the only thing known so far is what was alleged in the EEOC’s petition.

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

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more