Lakeshore Sport and Fitness has agreed to pay $45,000 to settle a lawsuit that the EEOC brought alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that one of Lakeshore’s employees was sexually harassed by a co-worker at the fitness club’s restaurant. The lawsuit further alleges that she complained about the sexual harassment, but the club ignored her complaints and then fired her for making these complaints. The allegations of this first employee who complained of sexual harassment were supported by two other female employees who claimed that they too suffered sexual harassment from the same individual. Such alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and retaliation for complaints of such sexual harassment. See EEOC v. LHC Operating LLC d/b/a Lakeshore Sport and Fitness, No. 1:17-cv-06803 (N.D. Ill.).
Masterbuilt Manufacturing recently reached a $60,000 settlement to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The lawsuit alleged that a Masterbuilt employee who had been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome requested a short leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation, because he needed treatment and counseling for stress related to his disability. On multiple occasions, the employee complained that his supervisor’s conduct was inappropriate, including comments that she made about the employee referring to him as “special.” Masterbuilt later fired the employee while he was on leave related to his disability, even though he had been cleared to return to work and had requested that Masterbuilt permit him to return. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects disabled employees from workplace discrimination related to an employee’s disability. See EEOC v. Masterbuilt Manufacturing, LLC, No. 4:19-cv-00052 (M.D. Ga.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced a settlement in a case where it had sued a company for failing to grant a reasonable accommodation to one of its prospective employees who needed the use of a service animal due to his disability. The lawsuit alleged that a Navy veteran suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and that he needed to use a service dog because of his disability. Ultimately, the company refused to hire him because of its “no pets” policy. The EEOC brought a lawsuit alleging that the company discriminated and retaliated against the prospective employee because of his disability. The alleged actions are a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination and retaliation against employees and applicants who suffer from a disability. See EEOC v. CRST International Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00129 (N.D. Iowa).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit alleging that Stanley Black & Decker violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate a disabled employee who had requested time off of work for doctor’s appointments and treatment related to her cancer. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Black and Decker fired an employee who worked as an inside salesperson after she exceeded her sales goals, because she had “poor attendance.” However, the employee had requested an unpaid leave of absence for doctor’s appointments and treatments for her cancer. However, Black and Decker did not grant the leave and instead used those absences as an excuse to terminate her employment. The Americans with Disabilities Act protects employees from workplace discrimination due to a disability and requires that employers provide a reasonable leave of absence to employees who need such leave as an accommodation. See EEOC v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-02525 (D. Md.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against a rehabilitation and healthcare company, Senior Care Properties, Inc. after the EEOC alleged that the company forced a disabled employee to take unpaid leave and then fired her for taking the leave that it forced her to take. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that Katrina Friend suffered from rheumatoid arthritis. As a result of this disability and a delay in her ability to fill her prescription for the disability, she requested four weeks of light duty work. Instead of granting this request for a reasonable accommodation, Harborview forced Friend to take an unpaid leave. It did not offer any other accommodation to Friend. Then, after obligating Friend to take this unpaid leave, Harborview fired Friend because she had exceeded the company’s maximum two-week leave policy. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disability. See EEOC v. Senior Care Properties, Inc., No 4:17-cv-00136 (E.D.N.C.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a case against Flash Market, Inc., a company that operates convenience store gas stations. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that Flash Market subject an employee to sexual harassment and then retaliated against the employee after she complained. The lawsuit claimed that one of the company’s female cashiers had been propositioned by the area manager for sex, and that the area manager made inappropriate sexual comments and inappropriately touched the employee on multiple occasions. The cashier complained to a store manager. However, the store manager informed the cashier that she could not help because the area manager had also sexually harassed the store manager. The cashier filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, but the area manager fired her after she filed this charge. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment are prohibited by this Act. See EEOC v. Flash Market, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn.).
The EEOC reached a settlement with an oil and gas company, Murex. The EEOC claimed that Murex subjected one of its African-American employees to a racially hostile work environment. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that Murex’s employee, Derrick Jenkins, endured racial harassment from his co-workers during his employment in 2014. Jenkins’ co-workers called him offensive racial slurs such as “spade,” “spook,” and “Buckwheat.” In addition, the co-workers used other inappropriate racial terms such as “n***** rigged.” Jenkins supervisor observed the racial harassment but did nothing to stop it. In addition, the EEOC also alleged that another African-American employee for Murex complained to an executive at the company, but that that executive also did nothing to stop the harassment. Such alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Discrimination or harassment on the basis of race is illegal. See EEOC v. Murex Petroleum Corp., No. 1:18-cv-00169 (D.N.D.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement with MPW Industrial Services in a lawsuit in which the EEOC alleged that MPW discriminated against two African American employees because of their race. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that MPW had subjected the African American employees to racial harassment including racial epithets, racist comments, racist jokes, hangman’s nooses, and had an alleged KKK meeting at the work location. Such alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. MPW Industrial Services, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00063 (S.D. Ohio).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement with a restaurant that the EEOC accused of religious discrimination. The EEOC claimed that Georgia Blue hired an employee, Kaetoya Watkins, to work as a server. The company’s dress code required that all servers wear blue jeans. However, Watkins’ sincerely held religious beliefs only permitted her to wear skirts or dresses. She requested that the company accommodate these religious beliefs by permitting her to wear a blue jean skirt, instead of pants. The company denied the requested accommodation and instead told Watkins that the owner would not stray away from the company’s dress code. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs and requires that employers must make reasonable accommodations for such religious beliefs. See EEOC v. Georgia Blue, No. 3:17-cv-00777 (S.D. Miss.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against Whole Foods, in which the EEOC alleges that the company discriminated against a disabled employee by refusing to provide an accommodation and then terminating her employment. Butler, who was a cashier, suffers from polycystic kidney disease, which can cause the growth of cysts in the kidneys and could lead to kidney failure. The lawsuit alleges that Butler required a kidney transplant, which forced her to miss work on two occasions for hospitalization and doctor’s visits. The EEOC claims that Butler informed Whole Foods that she would need time off for treatment, but Whole Foods still terminated her employment for absences. Such alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA prohibits discrimination against employees because of their disability and further requires that employers make reasonable accommodations for disabilities. See EEOC v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00494 (W.D.N.C.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit in which it alleged that Rosebud Restaurants subjected two female employees to sexual harassment and retaliated against one when she complained about sexual harassment and offensive references by other employees towards African Americans. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that a server endured sexual harassment from another server that included inappropriate sexual comments, sexual propositions, unwelcome touching, and assault by the wrongdoer grabbing the server between her legs. The server complained to her managers about the sexual harassment. The EEOC claimed that the company failed to sufficiently address the harassment. The lawsuit also alleges that the server (who is Caucasian) complained about other employees referring to African Americans with inappropriate racial slurs. The company fired the server shortly after these complaints were made. Such alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation. See EEOC v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., No. 17-cv-6815 (N.D. Ill.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a $25,000 settlement with Floyd’s Equipment, which the EEOC alleged had discriminated and retaliated against an African American employee due to his race. The EEOC alleged that the company’s foreman repeatedly used the “n word” at work. One of Floyd’s African American employees complained about the racial slur and its use by the foreman. After the complaint was made, the foreman confronted him angrily, and the company then transferred the employee to a job in a different state performing work with a shovel (instead of a backhoe). Eventually, Floyd’s terminated the employee who had complained. Such alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII protects employees against discrimination based on numerous protected classes, including race. See EEOC v. Floyd's Equipment, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00175 (E.D. Mo.).
Cloverland Farms Dairy has agreed to pay $75,000 and other equitable relief to resolve a lawsuit that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought against it alleging disability discrimination. The EEOC alleged that the company abruptly stopped accommodating three of its employees who suffered from disabilities. The employees had worked for Cloverland between eight and twenty-two years, and throughout that time Cloverland permitted the disabled employees to use dedicated parking spots near to the building. The EEOC claims that in July 2017, the company mandated that these disabled employees must now park at a lot that was farther away and simultaneously allowed non-disabled employees to take these previously-reserved spots. Employers must make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the ADA also prohibits discrimination against employees because of their disability. See EEOC v. Cloverland Dairy Limited Partnership, No. 1:18-cv-02759 (D. Md.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a sexual harassment lawsuit that it had filed against Applebee’s Grill and Bar. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the company had subjected two of its female employees, who were sisters, to a sexually hostile work environment. The lawsuit claimed that one of the sisters started working for Applebee’s around 2013 and that her sister started work at the same location around June 2014. The lawsuit alleged that one of Applebee’s managers sexually harassed one sister from about January 2014 until about October 2014 and the other sister from about June 2014 until about October 2014. The Complaint alleged that the harassment included physical groping, sexual comments, and that other members of the management witnessed the harassment and were aware that the sisters had reported the harassment, but the company did not stop the inappropriate conduct. Such alleged actions are a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. New Apple, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-01150 (D.S.C.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit with Signature Industrial Services, LLC, in which the EEOC alleged that the company had discriminated against three of its employees who were brothers and suffered from hemophilia, which is a blood disorder. The brothers’ disability did not impact their ability to perform their job duties, but the employer required them to have expensive medicine in case they suffered some type of injury at work that caused bleeding. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that Signature learned that the medication for the brothers could cause a large increase in insurance costs, and Signature directed the brothers’ project manager to fire them. That manager refused to fire the brothers because of their strong work history. However, after their manager stopped working at the plant, Signature ordered the new supervisor to fire them. The lawsuit alleges that the brothers were told they were terminated due to a layoff on July 3, 2013. The lawsuit further claims that no other employees were laid off for the supposed “reduction in force.” Terminating employees due to their disability is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See EEOC v. Signature Industrial Services, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-70 (E.D. Tex.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that Dollar General had reached an agreement to resolve a sexual harassment lawsuit. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that a store manager at one of Dollar General’s stores subjected one of his female employees to unwanted sexual comments, text messages, and gestures. Other female employees had previously made complaints about this same manager, but the harassment still persisted. The EEOC further alleged that Dollar General employed the manager who was accused of sexual harassment for several months after the initial complaint made against him. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of an employee’s sex. See EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, d/b/a Dollar General Stores, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00023-MPM (N.D. Miss.).
Heritage Home Group, LLC reached an agreement to resolve a lawsuit that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought against it, alleging that the company had discriminated against one of its employees due to his disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that the employee suffered from diabetes. Due to his diabetes, he had surgery to amputate one of his toes in March 2016. In addition, the employee was diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy. In order to recover, the employee needed to take a leave of absence until June 2016, and he informed Heritage Home Group that he anticipated a return in the first week of June 2016. The lawsuit claims that, instead of allowing this leave, Heritage Home Group sent a letter to the employee dated April 29, 2016 informing him that Heritage Home Group was terminating his employment because he would not be able to work until June. See EEOC v. Heritage Home Group, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00018 (W.D.N.C.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement with M.G. Oil Company d/b/a Happy Jack’s Casino after the EEOC filed a lawsuit in which it claimed that Happy Jack’s discriminated against an employee because of her disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the prospective employee suffered from a neck and back impairment that caused substantial limitations in her lifting, bending, performing manual tasks, sitting, and sleeping. Happy Jacks offered the prospective an employee a job that was contingent on her successfully completing a drug test. The prospective employee had a prescription for hydrocodone to treat pain due to her disability, but she was not given an opportunity to provide information regarding her disability or prescription related to the company’s drug testing. After her non-negative drug test, Happy Jacks informed the prospective employee that it was withdrawing its offer of employment. After receiving this notice, the prospective employee asked Happy Jacks to reconsider because the medication was related to the lawful use of her taking a prescribed medication for her disability. Despite this request, Happy Jacks still refused to hire her. In addition, the EEOC’s Complaint alleged that Happy Jacks had an unlawful policy that required all employees to report all prescription and nonprescription drugs that they take, regardless of their relation to their job duties. See EEOC v. M.G. Oil Company d/b/a Happy Jack's, 4:16-cv-04131 (D.S.D.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a $50,000 pregnancy disability lawsuit settlement with a company that sells dietary supplements. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that an employee informed the company that she was pregnant. Just a few days later, she was terminated. In addition, the EEOC contends that the company refused to bring back another employee after her maternity leave ended. 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. Tarr, Inc. and Zenith, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-01660 (S.D. Cal.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached an agreement with Macy’s to settle a lawsuit in which the EEOC alleged that the company had discriminated against an employee because of her disability. The lawsuit alleged that Macy’s fired its employee after she took just a one-day absence because of an emergency related to her asthma. The lawsuit further claimed that, although Macy’s had a policy permitting absences for reasons related to employees’ disabilities, this particular employee’s request for leave was denied despite needing to be treated in an Emergency Room. The employee was fired about three weeks after the ER visit. See EEOC v. Macy's; No. 17-cv-05959 (N.D. Ill.).
|
Categories
All
|