Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: April 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 Salvation Army to Pay $55,000.00 to Settle Disability Discrimination Suit

A few weeks ago, it was announced that The Salvation Army would pay $55,000.00 to settle a disability discrimination suit after it refused to hire an applicant for a donation attendant position at a thrift store location in Alaska.  The applicant, Eric Yanusz, has an intellectual disability and would have been required to accept and sort donated clothing, furniture, and household goods.  After an apparent successful first interview, the EEOC alleged that The Salvation Army imposed a "highly unusual second interview" on Yanusz and ultimately chose not to hire him due to "unfounded concerns about his ability to interact with the public."  (Interesting enough, no details were given as to what all the second interview entailed).  This alleged conduct was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants or employees because of a disability.


Hertz to Pay $45,000.00 to Settle Disability Discrimination Suit

In a recent lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Hertz actively recruited Norman "Dan" Newton to work in its car sales division in Denver, after  Newton's resume was found online.  At an interview, a Hertz manager expressed reservations about Newton's use of a cane and questions over his mobility.  At a later time, Newton was informed that Hertz went with two other applicants instead, although those applicants had less car sales experience than Newton.  Newton subsequently filed suit against Hertz based upon a disability discrimination cause of action.  As noted above, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants or employees because of a disability.  In this instance, it appears that Hertz discriminated against Newton because of his use of a cane (and concerns over his mobility) when it did not hire him.


EEOC Settles Disability Discrimination Suit With Macy's for $75,000.00

Perhaps this month's post should be called the Great Disability Discrimination Roundup?  In August of last year, the EEOC filed suit against Macy's after an employee with asthma was terminated after she missed a day of work because of her asthma.  Apparently the employee needed immediate medical attention for her asthma, went to the emergency room, and took a day off work.  Although Macy's permits excused absences for disability related reasons, Macy's denied the employee's request to have the absence excused and terminated her a few weeks later.  The Americans with Disabilities Act prevents discrimination against applicants or employees because of a disability (as set forth above) and also requires employers to reasonably accommodate disability related absences that enable their employees to perform their job.  

While all the above disability discrimination claims appear to involve unlawful conduct by the employers, I think they all got progressively "worse", in comparison to each other.  Employers, use the conduct of The Salvation Army, Hertz, and Macy's as evidence that even somewhat lesser violations of the ADA are still actionable conduct that could expose you to liability.  Tread carefully.

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