The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit in which the EEOC claimed that a company refused to hire a job applicant because of his disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that a deaf job applicant applied for a warehouse position. However, when the applicant arrived for the interview, the site manager canceled it and told the prospective employee that the interview would be rescheduled when an HR representative and an interpreter could attend the interview. The company, however, did not reschedule the interview. Instead, the site manager sent the prospective employee a text message, which said “we have determined that there is no job we can offer that would be safe for you . . . .” Despite this comment, the company never asked the applicant whether he could perform the essential job duties of a warehouse position with or without a reasonable accommodation. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and prospective employees on the basis of their disability. See EEOC v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-01980 (D. Md.).
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.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit alleging that a company refused to provide a reasonable accommodation to one its employees who suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, and asthma. The employee requested that the company allow him to work on the ground floor of an office building in which he worked, because the building did not have an elevator. This request was made so that he could avoid the need to walk up and down the stairs. The lawsuit alleged that the company refused this request and then later fired the employee because of his disability. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to provide their employees with a reasonable accommodation unless such accommodation would create an undue burden. See EEOC v. InsideUp, Inc., No.: 3:17-cv-01961 (S.D. Cal.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit where it alleged that a company refused to hire an employee because of his need for a religious accommodation. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that an applicant was offered a position with the company and told that his start date was October 3, 2016. The applicant told the manager that he would be unable to start then because he observed Rosh Hashanah on that day. The manager initially told the applicant that he thought it would be acceptable for him to start on October 4, 2016 instead. However, later the same evening, the Vice President of the company called the applicant and told him that it would not provide this religious accommodation. The EEOC claimed that the company revoked the employment offer because of the employee’s need for a religious accommodation. Discrimination on the basis of an applicant or employee’s religion is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., No.1-17:cv-01342 (D. Md.).
The EEOC reached a settlement with a company regarding a lawsuit that it had filed alleging that the company discriminated against an employee because of the employee's sincerely held religious beliefs. The lawsuit claimed that the employee had requested the reasonable accommodation of being permitted not to work on Saturdays because she observed the Sabbath. The company originally accommodated the request until a new supervisor started in January 2014, after which the accommodation was repeatedly denied and then eventually terminated the employee. See EEOC v. Decostar Industries, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00054 (N.D. Ga.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement of $30,000 with an operator of a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit claiming that the company’s owner fired one of its managers in July 2015 after it discovered that she was taking medications that her doctor had prescribed to her to treat her bipolar disorder. The EEOC alleged that the owner used obscene terms in reference to the medications and then forced the manager to flush the medications down a toilet at work. Subsequently, the manager told the owner that she intended to continue taking her prescription medications, and the owner terminated her employment. The alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their disability. See EEOC v. Hester Foods, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-000340 (S.D. Ga.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity reached a settlement of over $36,000 with a company providing commercial janitorial services that allegedly had discriminated against a female employee by paying her less than a male counterpart and then retaliating against her. Rivera worked as a day porter who janitorial services. The EEOC claims that Rivera complained about the difference in her wages compared to male employees and that she requested a raise. Instead of receiving the raise, the EEOC alleges that Rivera was assigned more work, subject to verbal harassment by the company, and then terminated. See EEOC v. Vador Ventures, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01083 (E.D. Va.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a disability discrimination lawsuit with Pioneer Health Services, Inc. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that one of Pioneer’s social workers/therapists became disabled and was forced into hospitalization due to liver failure. The employee requested and was approved for leave for surgery to transplant her liver. When the employee requested additional leave for several weeks to continue recovering from surgery, however, she was denied. The company then fired her after she had exhausted company-approved leave. The lawsuit further claims that the company refused to re-hire the disabled employee several months later for an open social worker/therapist position. See EEOC v. Pioneer Health Services, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00016 (N.D. Miss.).
Trinity Health, has agreed to pay $95,000 and other relief in order to resolve a suit alleging pregnancy and disability discrimination, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that Trinity did not provide light-duty work to a pregnant nurse who was placed on lifting restrictions due to a health condition related to her pregnancy. The lawsuit further alleges that in addition to not granting the light duty work, the company fired the nurse who had made the requested lifting accommodation. Companies are typically obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees and may not discriminate because of an employee’s pregnancy. See EEOC v. Trinity Health, No. 1:17-cv-00200 (D.N.D.).
Bojangles Restaurants has agreed to pay $15,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit that was brought by the EEOC. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that a transgender employee was subjected to offensive comments regarding her appearance and gender identity. The employee, who was born male but identifies as female, was told by management to act and groom in ways that are stereotypically male. Wolfe reported the harassment, but it did not stop. The Complaint alleged that Wolfe was eventually fired in retaliation for reporting the harassment. See EEOC v. Bojangles Restaurants, Inc., No. 5:16-cv-00654 (E.D.N.C.).
Mission Hospital, Inc. has agreed to a settlement in a religious discrimination case. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the company mandates that employees receive a flu vaccination each year. The company permitted employees to request an exemption for religious accommodations, but the company required the requests to be made by September 1. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that three employees of Mission Hospital requested accommodations based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, but were denied because they made the request after September 1. These three employees were later terminated. See EEOC v. Mission Hospital, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00118 (W.D.N.C.).
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.).
A health staffing agency, Dependable Health Services Inc., has agreed to pay $38,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to the federal agency. The lawsuit alleged that Sheena Berry, requested a reasonable accommodation of not working at a mobile blood drive because she suffered from pregnancy complications related to sickle-cell anemia. Dependable Health initially refused the accommodation but later accommodated Barry by temporarily transferring her to an outpatient department. After Berry began her maternity leave, she requested a permanent reasonable accommodation of working at a position that would not require her to staff mobile blood drives. In response, Dependable Health terminated Barry effective February 27, 2017. The conduct alleged by the EEOC is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Employers may not terminate employees because of their disability or their request for a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC v. Dependable Health Services, Inc., No. 8:17-cv-02316 (D. Md.).
American Queen Steamboat Company has agreed to pay $50,000 to resolve a retaliation lawsuit by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that in 2015, American Queen terminated a cruise director after he submitted a written complaint regarding a co-worker who had been suffering from ongoing sexual harassment. The complaint blamed a manager, who was also a friend of the alleged harasser, for the manner in which he handled the victim’s initial complaint of sexual harassment. The manager then confronted the cruise director and threatened his job. The cruise director also reported this alleged retaliation to his supervisor. The supervisor took no action, and the cruise director was later terminated. An employee may not be fired in retaliation for that employee’s reporting and complaint of sexual harassment of a co-worker pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. American Queen Steamboat Co., No. 17-cv-02669 (W.D. Tenn).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement in a case alleging that an IT analyst had informed her employer that she had bipolar disorder, and she requested a leave in order to see her doctor. The company terminated the employee within one day later. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against or termination of an employee because of the employee’s disability. Terminations that occur close in proximity to a request for medical leave are often indications that a company has discriminated on the basis of an employee’s disability. See EEOC v. AccentCare, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-03157 (N.D. Tex.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced that it entered a consent decree in a disability discrimination and retaliation case. The EEOC alleged than an electrician had filed a disability discrimination charge and then, in retaliation, the company sent details of the charge (including the employee’s name, union, and medical restrictions) in a letter to 146 members of his local union. In a ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment, the court found that a reasonable jury could find that the letter could have the effect of “intimidating the letter’s recipients with respect to communicating with the EEOC about possible disability discrimination . . . .” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits disability discrimination and retaliation for complaining about or filing a charge of disability discrimination. See EEOC v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-1416 (D. Conn.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently reached a $75,000 settlement with New England Shellfish to resolve a lawsuit that it had filed on behalf of three female ex-employees. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that a male employee had made inappropriate sexual comments to female employees on a near-daily basis, such as making comments about their genitalia, spreading rumors about their purported sexual activity, and spying on them when attempting to use portable toilets. The lawsuit further alleges that the conduct did not stop even after the female employees' complaints. The EEOC claims that the comments led some women to fear that the offending male employee would sexually assault them. Sexual harassment is illegal pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. Trans Ocean Seafoods, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01563 (W.D. Wash.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit alleging pregnancy discrimination with an apparel company, R. Siskind & Co., in exchange for $50,000 and implementation of other anti-discrimination policies. The EEOC had filed a lawsuit alleging that Siskind fired an employee because of her pregnancy and emergency caesarean section. After the employee attempted to return to work, the employer provided her with pretextual reasons to deny her return to work and informed her that she no longer had a position with the company when she attempted to return. Employers may not discriminate against employees on the basis of an employee’s pregnancy and related medical conditions. Such discrimination would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. See EEOC v. R. Siskind & Co., No. 17-cv-5175 (S.D.N.Y.).
Paying Employees a Lower Wage Because They Were Born Outside the United States is Illegal11/27/2017
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached an agreement with a car dealership to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit alleging that the dealership paid certain employees less money because of their country of origin. The lawsuit claimed that the dealership had paid Chinese emergency and accessory installation technicians $3 less than its non-Chinese employees in the same position, even when certain non-Chinese employees had little or no relevant experience for the job. The lawsuit further alleges that the company reprimanded Chinese employees who complained about the unfair pay treatment and threatened to fire Chinese employees if they sought legal advice. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin. See EEOC v. Chas. S. Winner, Inc., No. 1:16-06137 (D.N.J.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit with Spec Formliners, Inc. that alleged the company had made wage decisions on the basis of its employees’ sex. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the company had paid one of its female sales representatives less than a male sales representative, and also that the company required her to make more sales than the male representative in order for her to earn the same sales commission. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits paying an employee less on the basis of her sex. See EEOC v. Spec Formliners, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-02066 (C.D. Cal.).
|
Categories
All
|