Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: Halloween Edition


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

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

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

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 in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more