Calling Employees Terrorists Because of their National Origin Can Create a Hostile Work Environment3/9/2020
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against Porous Materials, Inc., in which the EEOC alleged that the company had harassed employees because of their race, sex, and national origin. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that the company subjected its employees to sexism, racism, and national origin discrimination by a manager’s use of racial slurs, references to foreign-born employees as “terrorists,” and racist remarks to the company’s only black employee that involved a noose. This manager also complained that immigrants stole American jobs and told immigrant employees to leave America. The lawsuit also alleged that the manager made discriminatory comments about women and said that women could not perform a “man’s job.” This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits race discrimination, national origin discrimination, and sex discrimination as well as harassment. See EEOC v. Porous Materials, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01099 (N.D.N.Y.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit for $20,000 in which the EEOC had alleged that a company paid one of its female welders less than it paid to its male welders who had the same amount of experience and skill. The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying its employees less because of their sex, and this alleged conduct is a violation of the Equal Pay Act. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. SnoBear USA, Inc., No. 18-cv-3446-JNE-KMM (D. Minn.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against M&M Limousine, in which the EEOC had alleged that the company refused to hire a qualified individual because of his disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that M&M did not hire an applicant because he was deaf. The Complaint also alleged that the company did not even consider whether the prospective employee could perform the job but informed him that they were not hiring him because he is deaf, even though this applicant met all of the qualifications for the position. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers and prospective employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled employees and prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee or prospective employee’s disability. See EEOC v. M&M Limousine, No. 19-CV-4213 (N.D. Ill.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a case against Hat World, Inc. after the EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that Hat World had discriminated against one of its store managers because she complained and filed an EEOC Charge regarding sexual harassment. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the store manager had made written complains to Hat World’s corporate HR department regarding sexual harassment. In particular, this store manager claimed that her district manager was sexually harassing her. In addition to these written complaints, the employee also filed an EEOC Charge of Discrimination. Shortly after this, Hat World terminated her employment. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from retaliating for complaints of sexual harassment. See EEOC v. Hat World, Inc. d/b/a Lids, No. 2:19-cv-00314 (E.D. Va.).
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 recently announced a settlement against Cottle Strawberry Nursery, Inc., in which the EEOC claimed that the company discriminated against one of its employees because of her sincerely held religious beliefs. The EEOC’s complaint alleged that Cottle’s employee, Helen Perez, is a Seventh-day Adventist, and because of her sincerely held religious beliefs, Perez could not work during the Sabbath, which lasts from sunset on Fridays and ends at sunset on Saturdays. After about two years of Perez working for the company, Cottle told all of its employees that its workers were now required to work seven days per week. Perez informed the company of her need for a religious accommodation, and the company fired her in response. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. Cottle Strawberry Nursery, Inc., No 7:19-cv-00064-BO (E.D.N.C.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit with General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, in which the EEOC claimed that the company fired an employee in retaliation for complaints of race discrimination. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that Ivy Couch complained on multiple occasions to the company’s Human Resources Department that the company had discriminated against her due to her race and also retaliated against her for these complaints. Global Ministries fired her after she made these complaints. This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination and retaliation. See EEOC v. General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, No. 1:19-CV-2989 (N.D. Ga.).
The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit against American Woodmark Corporation alleging disability discrimination and a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The employee had asked only for two days of unpaid leave in order to see a doctor to treat her disabilities. Rather than grant this reasonable accommodation, the company gave the employee, who had worked for American Woodmark for 16 years, attendance points. These points caused the employee to exceed the company’s allowed number of attendance points even though she had provided a doctor’s note and FMLA forms, and the company used this excuse to terminate her employment. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to provide their employees with reasonable accommodations. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Woodmark Corp., No. 5:19-CV-381 (M.D. Ga.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced that it settled a lawsuit against a Zaxby’s Restaurant franchise in which the EEOC alleged that a female cashier employee was sexually harassed by making inappropriate sexual comments and almost daily requests for sex. The cashier complained to one of the restaurants owners, and the company responded by firing her mere days later in retaliation for this complaint. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits both sexual harassment and retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment. See EEOC v. BCD Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Zaxby's, No. 1:19-cv-00903 (M.D.N.C.).
The EEOC reports that it recently settled a lawsuit alleging that M&T Bank discriminated against an employee because of her pregnancy-related disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that a branch manager informed a vice president that she would require surgery for her pregnancy related disability. During her approved leave of absence, M&T told the employee that they would fill her position with somebody else if she did not receive a medical clearance to return to work in only ten days. The employee was not cleared to return by her doctor until months later after she had given birth. At this time, M&T required her to apply for a vacant position instead of reassigning her to the position that she had (the reasonable accommodation that she had requested). The employee did re-apply to numerous positions, but she was not hired for any of the positions. The EEOC claimed that M&T had 24 vacant positions in the region where the employee lived. The Court held that M&T was obligated to provide the employee the reasonable accommodation of reassignment to a position for which was qualified without having to apply. The EEOC won partial summary judgment on the reasonable accommodation issue. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See EEOC v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co., No. CV ELH-16-3180, 2019 WL 4305365 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2019).
The EEOC recently reported that an IHOP franchise agreed to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the franchise’s owner has sexually harassed female employees by groping them, stalking them and making inappropriate sexual comments to them. Female employees who rejected the inappropriate sexual advances allegedly had negative changes made to their schedules. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. Swami Pancake, LLC, No. 0:19-cv-60714 (S.D. Fla.).
The EEOC reported that Scottish Pines Rehabilitation and Nursing has agreed to pay $30,000 and other relief to settle a lawsuit that the EEOC brought against it alleging pregnancy discrimination. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that the company provided accommodations to employees who suffered injuries or illnesses but refused to provide the same accommodations to pregnant employees who had work restrictions related to their pregnancy. The lawsuit further claims that one of the company’s employees requested a 50-pound lifting restriction, but the request was denied. The EEOC also alleged that the company refused a 20-pound lifting restriction from a different pregnant employee and that the company terminated her employment after she was unable to return to work without restrictions. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. Century Care of Laurinburg, Inc., No 1:18-cv-00170 (M.D.N.C.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a non-profit blood bank in which the EEOC had alleged that the company’s FMLA policy violated federal discrimination laws. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the company had a policy wherein the company would not provide disabled employees with leave after the federally mandated twelve weeks, and that the company required employees to return to work with no restrictions. The EEOC further alleged that the company had fired employees who could not return to work without restrictions or who had used all of their medical leave. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA requires that employers not discriminate against disabled employees and make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees. Indeed, the EEOC has listed inflexible leave policies as one of six areas that it wants to address in its Strategic Enforcement Plan. See EEOC v. Blood Bank of Hawaii, No. 1:17-cv-00444 (D. Haw.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit in which the EEOC claimed that El Tio Tex-Mex Grill had subjected an employee to offensive and inappropriate homophobic slurs and taunts regarding his sexual orientation. The lawsuit further alleged that these comments were also directed at one of the server’s friends, a busser who was straight, because of their friendship. The busser and server reported the harassment to their managers on multiple occasions, but the company took no action to stop the harassment, which allowed it to continue. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment. See EEOC v. Mejia Corp., No. 1:18-cv-01226 (E.D. Va.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against a retirement community that the EEOC said discriminated against a potential employee because of her potential to become pregnant in the future. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that a manager working for the retirement community sent a text message to a job applicant asking when she planned to have another baby. The manager also said that the position does not allow “a lot of time off for long periods of time.” After this, the company did not interview that job applicant and instead hired an older employee, which it believed would not become pregnant. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits pregnancy and sex discrimination by an employer or potential employer. See EEOC v. Glenridge on Palmer Ranch, Inc., No. 8:18-cv-02340 (M.D. Fla.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a disability discrimination lawsuit it had filed against Vallen Distribution Inc., which is a company that provides industrial supplies. The EEOC alleged that Vallen discriminated against one of its delivery drivers because he suffered from prostate cancer and requested a period of leave for his treatment and time to recover. Instead of giving the employee time to recover, Vallen fired him the day before his surgery. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires that employers grant reasonable accommodations for an employee’s disability and prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability. See EEOC v. Vallen Distribution, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00146 (S.D. Ga.).
The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit against Kroger, the national grocery store chain, wherein the EEOC had claimed that Kroger discriminated against an employee because of his disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that Kroger offered a job as a courtesy clerk to an employee in 2016. However, during this employee’s job orientation, he requested an accommodation to complete the computer-based segment of the orientation, because he had a vision impairment. Instead of granting the employee this accommodation, Kroger immediately fired him. Such alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of a disability. See EEOC v. Kroger Co., No. 1:18-cv-03095 (N.D. Ga.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against American Medical Response in which the EEOC alleged that the company refused to grant an employee’s request for a religious accommodation and then terminated his employment. The EEOC’s Complaint claimed that the employee, who is a practicing Jehovah’s Witness, had requested Sundays off of work for worship. The company initially allowed this request but then later stopped accommodating the request and fired the employee. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their sincerely held religious beliefs and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for such religious beliefs. See EEOC v. American Medical Response, No. 2:17-cv-02725 (W.D. Tenn.).
Piggly Wiggly recently agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that a male employee at the grocery store made inappropriate and lewd sexual comments and advances to two other female employees. The victims of the sexual harassment made multiple reports of harassment to their manager, but the manager laughed at the complaints and did nothing to stop the sexual harassment. The EEOC further claimed that Piggly Wiggly retaliated by cutting the hours of one of the victims and then later firing both victims. Such alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment. See EEOC v. Rockdale Grocery, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-03778 (N.D. Ga.).
The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit that it had brought alleging that a company doing defense contract work terminated an employee by forcing him to resign because of his disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that one of the company’s engineers, who had worked there since 2008, suffered two depressive episodes, causing him to take a medical leave of absence. The employee’s doctor later released him to return to work, but the company forced the engineer to take a “fitness-for-duty” exam. The employee passed the exam and the psychologist administering the exam concluded that he could return to work. Despite this, the company told the employee that it was terminating his employment and that he could either resign or be fired. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees because of their disability. See EEOC v. L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, No. 3:17-cv-00538 (N.D. Tex.).
|
Categories
All
|