Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: December 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.


Cato Corporation Pays $3.5 Million to Settle Systemic Investigation

The EEOC announced that the Cato Corporation will pay $3.5 million and update it’s reasonable accommodation policies for disabled or pregnant employees in order to resolve a nationwide, systemic investigation launched by the EEOC.  The investigation found that the Cato Corporation denied reasonable accommodations to certain pregnant employees or those with disabilities, made certain employees take unpaid leaves of absence, and/or terminated them because of their disabilities.  Failing to accommodate pregnant employees can place an employer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  As for denying disabled employees job modifications, leaves of absence, or a return to work, this conduct can have employers run afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Employers, take this matter as a reminder to review your own accommodation policies...or risk having to settle for a rather large amount if your policies conflict with the relevant statutes.


Jury Verdict Returned Against Favorite Farms in Sexual Harassment & Retaliation Suit

Last week, a unanimous jury verdict was returned against Favorite Farms in regard to a sexual harassment and retaliation suit brought by a female farm worker against the company.  The jury found that the management at Favorite Farms failed to properly investigate a complaint made by the farm worker that she was raped by her supervisor.  Further, the company was found to have sent the farm worker home from work without pay the next work day and subsequently forced her to take a leave of absence.  Despite evidence that there were other sexual harassment claims made against the supervisor, no action was taken against him and he was allowed to continue supervising women in the fields.  This alleged conduct was found to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and such, the jury awarded the farm worker $850,000.00 in damages.

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