Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: February 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.



Earlier this month, the EEOC announced a settlement had been reached with Llanerch Country Club ("LCC") after the employer agreed to pay $30,000.00 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit.  The suit arose out of a claim that LCC began to treat its oldest groundskeeper in the grounds maintenance department differently than younger workers.  LCC was apparently laying the oldest groundskeeper off during the winter season.  As recently as December of 2016, the oldest groundskeeper was laid off for the winter but was later informed he would not be recalled or rehired in 2017 because LCC was "looking to take the staff in a younger direction".  Less than three weeks later, LCC hired nine other groundskeepers that were significantly younger.  This conduct violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which protects workers age 40 and over from employment discrimination because of their age, including discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment and employment and in discharge and hiring decisions.


Systematic Sex Discrimination Suit Filed Against American Freight Furniture and Mattress

The EEOC has filed a systematic sex discrimination suit against American Freight Furniture and Mattress, charging that since 2013 the employer has engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of discrimination against women and intentionally excluding qualified female applicants from sales and warehouse jobs because of their sex.  Of note, corporate managers instructed store managers to not hire women because women "complain and make trouble".  This alleged conduct, if proven true, would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Multiple Franchisees of IHOP Settle Sexual Harassment & Retaliation Suit For $700,000.00

Several franchisees of IHOP in Nevada and New York faced a lawsuit by the EEOC which charged that these franchisee owners, supervisors, managers, and co-workers subjected female employees to ongoing egregious sexual harassment at restaurant locations in these two states.  The suit alleged the harassment included groping, sending pictures of male genitalia, propositions for sex, viewing of pornography, vulgar comments, and unwanted touching and kissing.  Going one step further, the suit also alleged that instead of the company taking corrective action when the victims complained, the victims were instead retaliated against with many having their work hours reduced or being terminated.  This alleged conduct, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, resulted in these franchisees agreeing to settle the suit for $700,000.00.

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

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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