Skip to main content

The Great EEOC Roundup: November 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.


EEOC Settles Sex Discrimination Lawsuit with Oatridge Security Group for $375,000

Oatridge Security Group, a Tacoma based employer, has agreed to settle a sex discrimination suit filed by the EEOC for $375,000.00.  The lawsuit alleged that after an employee disclosed her pregnancy and need for leave to her manager, she was unlawfully terminated in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Despite making repeated attempts to regain her job, the employer refused.  This statute prohibits sex or pregnancy based discrimination by an employer.  


Aspire Health Partners Settles Disability Discrimination Suit for $115,000

The EEOC announced that it had settled a disability discrimination suit against Aspire Health Partners with the company agreeing to pay $115,000.00 to resolve the dispute.  According to the lawsuit, an employee that worked for Aspire for nearly 20 years was terminated after she exhausted medical leave that was used following a workplace injury.  The lawsuit alleged that after a doctor cleared the employee to work without restrictions, the employee applied for a new position with Aspire.  A few hours after her interview, the employee was told she was ineligible for rehire at Aspire due to medical records in her prior workers’ compensation file.  This conduct is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits discrimination against an employee (or applicant) because of a disability.

 

EEOC Files Disability Discrimination Suit Against Outokumpu Stainless USA

At the start of the month, the EEOC brought suit against Outokumpu Stainless USA in regard to a disability discrimination claim that the company refused to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s prescribed medication.  The lawsuit alleged that the applicant was offered an employment position with Outokumpu contingent upon the applicant passing a physical exam and drug screening.  When the applicant informed the examiner that he was taking prescribed medication due to anxiety and panic attacks, Outokumpu withdrew the conditional offer of employment.  This alleged conduct, if true, is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits an employer from failing to hire an applicant because of a disability, perceived disability, or record of disability, and applying policies or procedures that screen out applicants with disabilities.

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