Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: June 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.


D.C. Walmart Location Alleged to Have Discriminated Against Disabled Employees

The EEOC has alleged in a recent lawsuit that a D.C. Walmart location violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when two deaf employees were denied reasonable accommodations and not given communications accommodations (such as sign language interpreters).  The suit alleges that without sign language interpreters, these two employees were not able to participate in work meetings, trainings, and other work related communications.


La Fiesta Fresh Mexican Grill and Cantina to Pay $25,000.00 to Settle Sexual Harassment & Retaliation Suit

A Mexican restaurant in Virginia has agreed to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit for $25,000.00 after allegations were made about how a male manager treated a young hostess.  According to the suit, this male manager subjected the hostess, at the time 18 years old, to unwanted sexual comments and touching.  After the hostess complained of the manager’s conduct, her work hours were reduced.  It is interesting to note that at the time this conduct occurred, the restaurant did not have a sexual harassment policy in place.  To make the situation even more troubling, the manager had apparently engaged in similar behavior previously with another employee.  (There was no mention of whether the employer was aware of this manager’s prior conduct).  This conduct, as alleged, is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits an employer from subjecting an employee to sexual harassment and bars employers from retaliating against employees that complain about this harassment.  Employers, use this case as an example:  If you do not have a sexual harassment policy in place, perhaps this is a good time to implement one.


Religious Discrimination Suit Filed Against Blue Moon Diner

Earlier this month, the EEOC filed a religious discrimination suit against the Blue Moon diner in Farmington, New Mexico on the grounds that an employee was not allowed to wear a hijab at work and was later constructively discharged because of her religion.  This alleged conduct is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of that employee’s religion.  No response has been filed by the employer at this time.

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