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.).
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.).
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 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.).
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.).
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.).
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 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 has filed a lawsuit against Anchor Staffing, alleging that the company did not adequately respond to an employee’s complaints of sexual harassment and then refused to provide her with future work. The EEOC claimed that its pre-lawsuit investigation showed that an employee at her first day of work at the Illinois Department of Human Services, to which she had been assigned by Anchor Staffing, was sexually harassed by a second employee of Anchor Staffing, who had also been assigned to the IDHS. The female employee complained to Anchor Staffing, and, in response, Anchor Staffing removed her from her work assignment and then failed to find her other work assignments. The EEOC's claims amount to the employee effectively being terminated by Anchor Staffing. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Discriminating against employees on the basis of their sex, and it is illegal to retaliate against employees who complain about sex discrimination or sexual harassment. See EEOC v. Anchor Staffing, Inc., No. 17-cv-7899 (N.D. Ill.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against Aqua Resources alleging that the company discriminated against African-American employees by subjecting them to a racially hostile work environment and then firing an employee after he complained about the harassment. A supervisor, who was Caucasian, made repeated derogatory comments and jokes to African American employees that were racially offensive. The comments and jokes included comments such as “n*****,” “monkey,” and “boy.” The EEOC also alleges that a supervisor told a white employee not to “n***** the truck up.” Aqua Resources did not stop the harassment after receiving a complaint. Instead, Aqua Resources actually promoted a wrongdoer, placed the wrongdoer as a supervisor over the complaining employee on a project, and then firing the complaining employee. See EEOC v. Aqua America, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-04346 (E.D. Pa.).
The EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against Glaser Organic Farms, alleging that Glaser subjected its kitchen employees to a hostile work environment because of the employees’ national origin and race. The lawsuit also included a retaliation charge as a result of Glaser terminating an employee for filling a discrimination charge with the EEOC. The EEOC’s suit alleges that a kitchen manager created a hostile work environment for Hispanic employees by making disparaging comments such as “You Mexicans are ignorant, “Mexicans are lazy,” and “Mexicans are stupid.” Glaser fired the employee who filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. This conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin, and prohibits an employer from retaliating against employees who oppose this type of discrimination. See EEOC v. Glaser, No. 1:15-cv-23642 (S.D. Fla.).
The EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against Philips Lighting for firing an employee after Philips learned that the employee was the grandson of a former employee who had filed a lawsuit against the company. Philips hired Jake Lee Velasquez to work as a security guard at its lighting facility in Salina, Kansas. On the first day of work, Velasquez was fired after he was recognized to be the grandson of a former employee with a pending discrimination suit against the company. The EEOC says that Philips specifically referenced Velasquez’s grandfather in forbidding Velasquez from returning to work. Philips alleged actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliatory actions by employers that would discourage employees from complaining about discrimination. See EEOC v. Philips Lighting, No. 2:15-cv-9296 (D. Kan.).
The Silver Diner has agreed to pay $25,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit. The EEOC filed the lawsuit after the restaurant allegedly subjected a waitress to a sexually hostile environment, such as the restaurant co-owner rubbing up against her. The restaurant limited the waitress’s hours and then fired her after she complained about the harassment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and retaliation for complaining about discrimination. In addition to paying the $25,000 settlement, the restaurant, under a five year consent decree, will conduct annual training that will focus on sexual harassment and retaliation. See EEOC v. Silver Diner, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-01002 (M.D.N.C.).
The EEOC has filed suit against Lifecare Medical Services in Cleveland, Ohio under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lifecare Medical Services allegedly fired an employee because of his Multiple Sclerosis after he requested additional leave as a reasonable accommodation for his MS, but instead was issued disciplinary actions for absences related to his disability. In October 2010, Adair requested, as a reasonable accommodation, additional points under the company's no-fault attendance policy. Lifecare Medical Services responded to the request for accommodation by firing Adair. See No. 5:13-cv-01447 (N.D. Ohio).
An employee may file an Ohio common law claim for retaliatory firing after reporting a workplace injury to his or her employer, even if the employee had not yet filed for workers' compensation. In order to prevail, the employee must prove that the termination was retaliatory and that the employer lacked an overriding business justification for the firing. The Ohio Supreme Court's ruling is an extention of the rights provided in Ohio Revised Code Section 4123.90, which prohibits firing of workers in retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims. Even if the employee had not yet filed for workers' compensation, the law is now clear that the employee can pursue a common law action. Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., 129 Ohio St.3d 153, 950 N.E.2d 938 (2011).
|
Categories
All
|