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,...
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