On one of the spookiest days of the year, it only makes sense to have this month's EEOC Roundup be a "Halloween Edition." Whether you are headed out to trick-or-treat this evening, staying in to hand out candy, or putting on a scary movie, use this EEOC Roundup as a timely reminder of the spooky situations that can arise in the workplace when employers run afoul of employment laws.
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 stand out.
The EEOC recently announced that Halliburton would pay $275,000.00 to settle a charge that it subjected two oilfield workers to national origin and religious discrimination. The suit alleged that one of the workers, Hassan Snoubar (of Syrian descent), was subjected to name calling in regard to both his national origin and his Muslim religion. According to the suit, Snoubar was frequently called derogatory names and was accused of being associated with ISIS. Another worker, Mir Ali (of Indian descent), was subjected to a similar hostile work environment. Perhaps one of the more troubling allegations raised in the suit was the fact that Snoubar was allegedly terminated after he expressed concerns to management and human resources about his working conditions. As readers might recall, employers violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when employees are discriminated against based on national origin and religion.
At the start of October, the EEOC announced it was suing Walmart on the grounds that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing a job applicant the ability to take a pre-hiring physical assessment and subsequently not hiring the applicant. The applicant, who was born with her right arm ending at the elbow, applied for a freight handler position at a Walmart distribution center in Oklahoma. She had prior warehouse lifting experience (including lifting items up to 200 pounds) and successfully interviewed for the position. When Walmart asked her if she needed an accommodation to take the physical assessment, the applicant declined. Nevertheless, Walmart did not allow her to take the assessment without a prosthetic and was not hired.
Earlier this month, the EEOC sued ASICS America Corporation on the grounds that the company unlawfully terminated a temporary worker because of her disabilities. The temporary worker, who had hearing and speech impairments, worked at one of the company's warehouse distribution centers. After completing orientation, the worker was told that ASICS could not employ her because of her impairments (on the grounds that it would be unsafe for her to work in the facility.) In the lawsuit, the EEOC has alleged that ASICS failed to engage in the interactive process with the worker to determine whether the essential functions of the position could still be fulfilled, which is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
A Pei Wei restaurant located in Little Rock, Arkansas has been charged with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allegedly subjecting a class of female teens and young adults to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment. According to the lawsuit, the male general manager and the male kitchen manager engaged in the sexual harassment, which also caused two of the discrimination victims to resign. Employers, use this alleged situation as a reminder to implement steps to address and remedy any claims of harassment that management is made aware of by a victim (or co-worker.) Willfully turning a blind eye to harassment (if that is what happened here), is never a good position to be in when confronted with a Title VII discrimination claim.
Comments
Post a Comment