An aerospace components manufacturer, United Precision Products Co., recently settled a lawsuit that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had filed against it. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that United Precision failed to hire a prospective employee because of his age (64). The applicant sought work at United Precision through a staffing agency, however, during the interview process, United’s Precision’s plant supervisor asked for the prospective employee’s age, when he graduated high school, and his driver’s license. After the interview, this same supervisor told the staffing agency that they were rejecting the applicant because he did not have the “desire” for the job. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or prospective employees due to their age. See EEOC v. United Precision Products Co., No. 2:20-cv-10930 (S.D. Mich.).
The EEOC filed a lawsuit recently against Telluride Express in which the EEOC alleged that Telluride refused to hire an applicant over age 75 because of his age. Having over fifty years of experience with commercial driving, the applicant applied to work for Telluride as a shuttle driver, but Telluride denied the prospective employee’s application the very next day because the company’s commercial auto insurance policy did not cover shuttle drivers over the age of 75. The EEOC’s lawsuit further claims that the prospective employee was just as qualified as younger drivers, recently passed a Department of Transportation medical exam, and had no traffic violations in the past three years. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits employers from refusing to hire older applicants because of their age. See EEOC v. San Miguel Mountain Ventures, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00881 (D. Colo.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that it recently settled a lawsuit against a university because one of the school’s employees was retaliated against after he complained of age discrimination. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the school’s medical center had fired a manager working in its Information Resources Department after he complained that his boss had instructed supervisors and managers to hire young, millennial employees. Indeed, the manager claimed that the department had rejected a well-qualified 60-year-old prospective employee just because of her age. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits age discrimination and retaliation for complaints of age discrimination. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Kansas, No. 2:19-cv-02540 (D. Kan.).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed an age discrimination lawsuit against Burrow Global Services, LLC. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that a manager made comments such as “when are you going to retire?” to one of the company’s employees. That employee was in his 60s but did not intend to retire at that time. By mid-2017, this manager had laid off or fired some of the older members in the 15-employee group. In August 2017, the manager fired the employee whom the manager had asked about retirement. The company’s “termination report” claimed that it “laid off” this employee for a lack of work, but it then replaced the older employee with a new employee who was still in his 30s. This replacement also did not have any formal education past high school while the older terminated employee had a four-year degree. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. See EEOC v. Burrow Global Services, LLC, No. 4:20-cv-00423 (S.D. Tex.).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against White River Health System, who the EEOC alleged discriminated against employees who were over the 72. The Complaint claims that the company terminated a 77-year-old and 80-year-old employee because the company’s health insurance policy excluded any person over age 72 from driving. The Complaint further claimed that the company also removed other employees over age 72 for this very same reason, and the company did not attempt to acquire different driver’s insurance to cover drivers over age 72. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees based on their age. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. White River Medical, No. 3:20-cv-00049 (E.D. Ark.).
The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Capital City Dental Care, alleging that Capital City terminated many of its dental hygienists because of their age. The lawsuit alleges that from September through November 2015, Capital City fired eight dental hygienists over the age of forty at one of its locations (only one hygienist over the age of forty at this location was not terminated). Capital City did not give these employees any notice or explanation for the terminations. Over the next couple of years, Capital City replaced these hygienists with fourteen other employees, thirteen of whom were under 40 years old. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Employers may not terminate employees because of their age. See EEOC v. Michael A. Sisk, DDS, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-00804 (M.D. Pa.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit alleging that an IT company had refused to hire an applicant because of his age. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that the IT company emailed the applicant, after learning of his age, and told him that the company would not consider his application because he was “born in 1945” and also because “age will matter.” The conduct alleged in the lawsuit is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee or job applicant’s age. See EEOC v. Diverse Lynx, No. 17-cv-03220 (D.N.J.).
Montrose Memorial Hospital, has agreed to settle a lawsuit that the EEOC brought alleging age discrimination. The lawsuit alleged that Montrose terminated (through firing or constructive discharge) 29 employees who were forty years of age or older. The lawsuit alleged that the company used performance deficiencies as pretextual reasons for termination, while younger employees received a higher level of leniency for the same or similar performance deficiencies. The lawsuit further alleges that managers made discriminatory comments to the older employees, such as telling them that they preferred “fresher” nurses and that younger nurses could “dance around the older nurses.” See EEOC v. Montrose Memorial Hospital, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-02277 (D. Colo.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced that it settled a lawsuit alleging age discrimination with Ruby Tuesday for $45,000. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Ruby Tuesday refused to hire a qualified applicant because of his age. Although the applicant had over twenty years of experience working in the food and beverage industry, Ruby Tuesday told him that it was looking for a candidate who could “maximize longevity.” When a job applicant is over the age of forty, it is illegal for companies to refuse to hire that applicant because of age. See EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 0:17-cv-60970 (S.D. Fla.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit alleging that a dental surgery practice illegally terminated an employee because of her age, under the company’s mandatory retirement policy. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that the company terminated an employee who had worked for it for over thirty seven years as a receptionist. The lawsuit alleges that the employee was fired four days after her sixty fifth birthday because of a company policy that mandated retirement once an employee turned sixty five years old. Mandatory retirement policies on the basis of age are usually illegal. See EEOC v. Professional Endodontics, P.C., No.: 4:17-cv-13466 (E.D. Mich.).
A Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen franchise has agreed to pay $36,000 in order to resolve an age discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that the restaurant’s general manager refused to hire three prospective employees because they were “too old.” According to the lawsuit, the job application asked them to identify their age, and during the subsequent interviews the general manager asked two of the applicants how old they were and then told them that they were too old to work for the restaurant. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination against individuals who are aged 40 or older. See EEOC v. Coatesville Chicken, LLC , No. 15-5287 (PSD) (E.D. Pa.).
Reserve Casino Hotel was charged this week by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for failing to hire older and female candidates with equal or greater qualifications than males and young applicants who were hired in violation of federal age discrimination law. Reserve Casino Hotel bought the hotel in January 2011 and subsequently hired 240 employees. The EEOC alleges that Reserve Casino Hotel chose to hire males and younger applicants over their more highly qualified female counterparts and that it made comments about getting rid of the “gray hairs” and that former company’s workforce contained “too many old, fat, ugly, and gray-haired employees.” The EEOC’s investigation also revealed a marked disparity between female and male hires, and a notably greater number of applicants under forty years of age were hired over applicants over forty years of age. See EEOC v. RCH Colorado, No. 1:15-cv-02170 (D. Colo.).
AT&T has settled a lawsuit by the EEOC accusing it of age discrimination for refusing to rehire tens of thousands of retired ex-employees. The consent decree requires AT&T to end any prohibitions against rehiring workers who left under several past retirement programs. EEOC v. ATT Inc., No. 09-07323 (S.D.N.Y.).