Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: August 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.


Pier 1 Imports Agrees to Settle Race Discrimination Charge For $20,000.00

Prior to a suit being filed, Pier 1 Imports entered into the conciliation process to resolve a race discrimination claim brought by an applicant that sought an assistant manager at one of its stores in Montclair, California.  It was alleged that Pier 1 denied the applicant the position after conducting a criminal background check.  The EEOC's investigation determined that Pier 1's use of the criminal background check limited the employment opportunity of the job applicant based upon his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  While not admitting liability, Pier 1 agreed to pay $20,000.00 to resolve the charge.


Hirschbach Motor Lines to Pay $40,000.00 to Settle Disability Discrimination Suit

Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc. was alleged to have engaged in a practice of using a pre-employment back assessment to screen out and reject job applicants it regarded as being disabled for truck driving positions.  (The back assessment tested a candidate's ability to balance and stand on one leg, touch toes, and crawl.)  Notably, Hirschbach conducted the assessment even though the applicants had already received their Department of Transportation medical certifications with authorized them to drive a truck.  In the suit, it was alleged this assessment was used to screen out job applicants with pre-existing injuries and/or unrestricted medical conditions that had received conditional offers of employment.  This alleged conduct is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits employers from using qualification standards to screen out applicants regarded as disabled (unless the standard is shown to be job related for the position and consistent with business necessity.)


Pregnancy Discrimination Suit Filed Against Orlando Float

Yesterday, the EEOC filed a pregnancy discrimination suit against Azul Wellness, LLC d/b/a Orlando Float on the grounds that the employer unlawfully terminated an employee because of her pregnancy.  The suit has alleged that after the employee told the owners of the business that she was pregnant, they conditioned her return to work on the employee providing a note from her doctor.  The employee was told the doctor's note was "non-negotiable" and there was no flexibility with this policy (even though the employee had not requested an accommodation.)  Upon returning to work for her next scheduled shift, the employee was given a termination letter dated three days after she informed her employer of the pregnancy.  This alleged conduct, if true, is in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

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