Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: March 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 caught my eye this week.


Party City Hit With Sex & Disability Discrimination Suit

Earlier this month, the EEOC announced it had filed suit against Party City Corporation on the grounds that one of its Texas stores terminated a pregnant employee after she presented the company with physical job restrictions from her doctor.  The suit claims that the employee experienced complications in her pregnancy which resulted in some medical restrictions being put in place for her work.  After these restrictions became known, she was fired because of her pregnancy and medical condition.  This alleged conduct is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits sex discrimination (including pregnancy) as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act which requires employers to try and make reasonable accommodations for medical and physical conditions.



The EEOC filed suit against Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas based upon a charge of disability discrimination by the company.  According to the suit, an applicant applied for an open claims examiner position with the company.  The applicant was required to complete a 35 minute assessment exam which included an audio portion.  Although the applicant was deaf, the audio portion did not contain captions or other visible accommodations for applicants with hearing impairments.  As a result, the applicant could not complete the application process.  The suit claimed that the company was notified of the applicant's disability and requested a reasonable accommodation for the audio portion of the exam.  However, before a reasonable accommodation could be obtained, the company apparently stopped communicating with her.  The suit alleged that this conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is intended to protect employees and applicants from discrimination based on their disabilities and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations.  This $75,000.00 settlement will resolve the claim made against the company.

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