Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: April 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.


JBS Carriers to Settle Disability Discrimination Suit for $250,000.00

At the start of the month, the EEOC announced that JBS Carriers, a nationwide t idling company, was settling a disability discrimination suit for $250,000.00.  The suit against the company alleged that during the pre-employment screening of applicants, those with disabilities (that were otherwise qualified) were unlawfully screened out.  (JBS used a third party to administer the screening.) The screening included a medical history questionnaire for applicants to complete, a physical examination, and a nine point physical ability test.  If an applicant was unable to complete any of this screening, the third party gave JBS a negative job recommendation for that applicant.  JBS apparently  would withdraw a job offer based upon this negative job recommendation.  However, as readers might have gathered h this point, this conduct is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) which prohibits employers from imposing standards or criteria for employees or applicants that have the effect of discriminating based on disability or that screen out individuals with a disability.


Golden Corral Restaurant Franchisee to Settle Disability Discrimination Suit for $31,000.00

A Golden Corral restaurant franchisee has agreed to settle a disability discrimination suit for $31,000.00 after the franchisee was sued for allegedly terminating an employee after it accused the employee of “being unwilling or unable to control her epilepsy.”  This alleged conduct is in violation of the ADA which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of their disability or perceived disability.  This settlement should serve as a gentle reminder to employers of what not to do when addressing an employee’s disability.

Comments

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,...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...