Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: March 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.



There is quite a bit to unpack with this case.  Let us start with the allegations:  Limenos Corporation d/b/a Ceviche House is alleged to have allowed a general manager to subject a female server to sexual harassment, retaliated against the server when she complained of the alleged harassment, and then proceeded to make her work conditions so unbearable that she was forced to resign.  The manager apparently fostered a sexually charged workplace by regularly discussing sex at work, displaying nude photos of women, and referring to female employees as whores.  This alleged conduct, if true, is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bars employers from discriminating against employees or applicants based upon sex as well as prohibits retaliation against employees who object to the unlawful discrimination.



A manufacturing company in Pennsylvania, Germantown Tool, has settled a sex discrimination suit for $103,000.00, following a claim brought by a former employee.  The former employee alleged that the company harassed him based upon his sex and terminated him in retaliation for his complaints about the alleged harassment.  This alleged conduct is in violation of Title VII which prohibits an employer from harassing an employee or applicant based upon sex.


BHT Constructions to Pay $38,000.00 to Settle Sex Discrimination Suit

A construction contracting company, BHT Constructions, has agreed to settle a sex discrimination suit for $38,000.00 after it apparently engaged in an unlawful hiring practice.  According to the lawsuit, the company failed to hire a well qualified female applicant because of her sex.  (The woman applied for a heavy machine operator position and although she had 20 years' experience, she was denied a job and told by a BHT supervisor that the company did not hire women.)  This alleged conduct is also in violation of Title VII, which as noted above, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants based upon sex.

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