Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: November 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.


Whole Foods Settles Disability Discrimination Suit

Whole Foods has agreed to pay $65,000.00 to settle a disability discrimination suit filed by a former cashier at one of its locations in Raleigh, North Carolina.  This particular employee, hired in 2005, suffered from a kidney disease.  In 2009, she had a kidney transplant.  In 2015, she was hospitalized for a few days as a result of her condition and missed work.  Although Whole Foods was notified of the situation and the employee’s request for time off for her kidney impairment, Whole Foods ended up terminating her employment because of the absences.  This conduct is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of a disability and requires employers to provide disabled employees with a reasonable accommodation (so long as it does not place an undue hardship on the employer).  While the reported facts are somewhat light in regard to any accommodation requested (and subsequently denied by Whole Foods), taking the facts on their face certainly leads to a conclusion that Whole Foods engageD in conduct in violation of the ADA.


Kansas City Wedding Venue Hit With Retaliation Suit

Earlier this month, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against 28 Event Space, LLC, a Kansas City wedding venue, on the grounds that the company retaliated against a black employee.  According to the suit, the owner of 28 Event Space, Doug Lytle, retaliated against one of his employees, Theopilis Bryant, after Bryant had testified as a witness in a race discrimination suit against a company where Lytle was the manager.  After unsuccessfully offering Bryant money and a used limousine (in an effort to keep him from testifying), Lytle apparently threatened Bryant’s job and eventually removed him from the 28 Event Space work schedule.  This alleged conduct is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from retaliating against their employees, including because of the employee’s race.

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