Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: June Edition


As always, there are some EEOC cases that jumpy out at me when I review developments on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that caught my eye this month.



At the start of the month, the EEOC announced that Albertsons had agreed to pay $210,000.00 to settle a national origin discrimination suit brought against the company.  According to the allegations, the company allowed a manager to harass Hispanic employees at one of its locations in California.  The lawsuit went on to allege that the manager focused on employees that had limited English speaking abilities.  This conduct is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin.



Recently, Jet Propulsion Laboratory agreed to pay $10 million to resolve an age discrimination suit filed against the company.  The suit alleged that the company systematically laid off employees over the age of 40 yet retained younger employees.  Older employees were also allegedly passed over for rehire in favor of younger, less qualified employees.  This alleged conduct is in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  It is worth recognizing that this was not a judgment awarded against Jet Propulsion by a judge or jury, but rather an agreed upon settlement to resolve the dispute.  Whether the company could have (or would have) presented adverse witnesses to counter the age discrimination allegations is unclear (and something that will go unanswered as a result of this settlement.)

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

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more