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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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. ...
1 comment
Read more