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, 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