Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: May 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 month.


O'Reilly Automotive Stores Sued for Sexual Harassment & Retaliation

Earlier this month, the EEOC filed suit against O'Reilly Automotive Stores on the grounds that the company subjected a class of female employees at a store in Orlando to sexual harassment and retaliated against one female employee and forced her to quit after she complained of the harassment.  According to the suit, a supervisor at the Orlando store subjected female employees to a hostile work environment by making sexually charged comments.  After several female employees complained directly to the supervisor, O'Reilly managers allegedly laughed and retaliated against the employees that complained.  The suit claims that one female employees was subjected to abusive conduct and retaliation after she complained which culminated in her being forced to resign.  This alleged conduct is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from fostering a hostile work environment and retaliating against employees that complain about harassing conduct.



A school district in Kansas, the Unified School District 245 LeRoy-Gridley (USD 245), has agreed to settle an Equal Pay Act suit for $11,250.00, brought by a former principal of an elementary school in its district.  The suit alleged that the principal, a female, was paid $5,000.00 less than her male predecessor.  After serving as principal for nearly a year, she complained about the unequal pay and was given a $1,500.00 raise.  When she left her position a year later, the school district apparently paid her male replacement the same salary as the prior male principal.  The EEOC proceeded to file suit on the grounds that the school district violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by paying male and females unequally for doing the same job with the same required skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.



A Chicago fitness club was sued after a claim was made that the employer allowed a female employee to be sexually harassed by another employee while working at the fitness club's restaurant.  The female employee claimed her complaints were subsequently ignored and she was ultimately terminated for making the complaints.  (Two other female employees at the fitness club also stated that they were sexually harassed by the same employee.)  This alleged conduct is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Similar to the O'Reilly case, above, an actionable claim for sexual harassment can exist whether the harasser is a supervisor or a fellow employee.  Employers, use this settlement as an example of why it is important to take claims of sexual harassment in the workplace seriously.

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