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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...
Post a Comment
Read more