Skip to main content

EEOC Roundup: November Edition


As always, there are some EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review developments on that front.  In fact, by my count, it has been about a year since I last highlighted some recent EEOC cases.  I suppose twelve months later is as good of a time as any to do another EEOC Roundup.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that caught my eye this week. 


Former Owner of VHS West Suburban Medical Center Agrees to Settle Disability Discrimination Suit

The former owner of VHS West Suburban Medical Center has agreed to settle a disability discrimination suit for $150,000 following a recent lawsuit that was filed following claims of a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  The lawsuit claimed that a worker requested a reasonable accommodation of a temporary, part time schedule in January 2016.  Her employer instead put her on unpaid leave.  Even after notifying her employer that the reasonable accommodation was no longer needed, she was not allowed to return to work and was subsequently terminated in July 2016.  This alleged conduct is in violation of the ADA which prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee/applicant on the basis of a disability as well as failing to provide a reasonable accommodation. 


Greyhound to Pay $45,000 to Settle Religious Discrimination Suit

Last week, it was announced that Greyhound would pay $45,000 to settle a religious discrimination suit after it allegedly discriminated against a worker that requested to wear an abaya (a loose fitting ankle length outfit that covers the wearer’s body with the intent to protect the wearer’s modesty.)  According to the lawsuit, when interviewing for a position with Greyhound, the worker requested to wear the abaya if hired.  She was apparently told that was fine.  However, after starting training, she was told she could not wear it, despite the requested accommodation.  Greyhound stipulated that while a few revisions could be made to the required workplace outfit, the abaya could not be worn as another Muslim worker accepted Greyhound’s minor revisions (sans abaya) to the workplace outfit.  The worker subsequently withdrew from the training program and filed suit against Greyhound on the grounds that she was unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of her religion.  These alleged actions by Greyhound are in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which requires employers to accommodate an employee/applicant’s sincerely held religious beliefs so long as it would not pose an undue hardship on the employer.

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