Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: Halloween Edition


Given that today is Halloween, and the end of the month, I think it I appropriate to style this EEOC Roundup as the Halloween Edition.  For those planning on going home to watch Hocus Pocus or waiting for the Great Pumpkin this evening, this EEOC Roundup will help pass some time.  Employers beware...the below EEOC updates should serve as a ‘fangtastic’ warning for what can happen when things run afoul in the workplace.  Spooky indeed!

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.



At the start of the month, the EEOC announced it had filed a disability discrimination suit against Family Dollar of Michigan on the grounds that the company unlawfully refused to hire an applicant that suffered from a disability.  The applicant, who suffered from paralysis on his left side and had to use a brace on his left arm.  After applying for a position, being interviewed, and offered a job, the employer never put the applicant on the work schedule, despite his attempts to start his employment.  The company nevertheless proceeded to interview non-disabled applicants.  This ‘haunting’/alleged conduct is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants or employees because of a disability.



Boo!  I rarely come across Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (“GINA”) cases, so let this EEOC settlement serve as somewhat of a rudimentary guide on the topic.  Of note, the SMS Group was subject to an EEOC investigation which found reasonable cause to believe that the company contracted with a third party medical provider to conduct post offer medical and fitness for duty examinations.  Applicants and employees were asked to complete occupational health questionnaires which required disclosure of family medical histories.  This conduct is in violation of GINA which prohibits an employer from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information about applicants or employees (except in very limited circumstances).  GINA further prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of generic history, including family medical history.

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