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

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more