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,...
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

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