Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: May 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.


EEOC Files Suit Against Staffing Solutions for Alleged Discriminatory Hiring Practices

Earlier this month, the EEOC announced it had filed suit against Staffing Solutions on the grounds that the company either refused to hire highly qualified Black applicants or placed them in the least desirable jobs.  The suit also alleged that the company's owner routinely used derogatory language toward Black applicants, instructed staff to comply with clients' race and sex preferences, placed employees in positions based on race and sex, and rejected pregnant applicants.  Going one step further, the suit claimed that applicants over 50 years of age, applicants with disabilities, and those that the company deemed disabled, were routinely rejected by Staffing Solutions.  An office manager that complained of these hiring practices was warned she would be fired if she failed to comply with this alleged conduct.  The office manager apparently resigned.  Readers will note that this alleged conduct is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination Employment Act which prohibit employers from discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of age, disability, race, or sex, as well as prohibiting employers from retaliating.



After the EEOC filed a pay discrimination suit against the University of Denver, the University agreed to settle the claim for $2.66 million and increase salaries for a group of employees. The suit alleged that the University paid female full professors, on average, $19,781.00 less than those of male full professors.  As well, all female salaries were alleged to have been below the average salary paid to males.  Although this pay discrepancy was brought to the University's attention in 2013, no action was taken.  This conduct was in violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibit discrimination based upon sex.  As well, the conduct was in violation of federal law when the University paid female full professors lower salaries than it paid to their male counterparts that performed substantially equal work under similar working conditions.

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