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

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies i...
Post a Comment
Read more

What I've Been Reading This Week

Recently, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Commissioner, Chai Feldblum, had her re-nomination on the brink, after Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee took steps to block it .  Readers might have heard that late last week, Commissioner Feldblum's re-nomination quietly slipped away and she tweeted out a thank you to supporters and friends, acknowledging that her time at the EEOC was over.  While there has not been much in the way of a further update in regard to that ongoing saga, we wait to see how things will play out at the EEOC, now that it has lost a quorum until additional Commissioners are confirmed by the Senate. For the time being, there are other developments for readers to review this week.  In particular, I call attention to the article on managing a wage & hour audit by the Department of Labor as well as steps an employer can take to better ensure compliance with the ADA. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. ...
Post a Comment
Read more