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, 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