National Labor Relations Board Rules that Ban on BLM Marking Violated National Labor Relations Act3/31/2024
The National Labor Relations Board recently ruled that a Home Depot store has violated the National Labor Relations Act by insisting that one of its employees remove a "BLM" marking from their uniform. The NLRB determined that mandating the employee to remove the marking from Home Depot's orange apron constituted an unfair labor practice. In a separate recent NLRB decision, the NLRB reinstituted a former rule in which an employer's interference with insignia, banners, or badges is presumptively viewed as unlawful, unless there are special circumstances for the interference. In this present matter, Home Depot insisted that its employee remove a BLM logo from his apron, which the employee had drawn on the apron six months before this request, and told the employee that they feared allowing this logo could lead to other employees to request to put swastikas on their aprons. This eventually led to the employee being forced to resign. The NLRB determined that there were no special circumstances permitting Home Depot to prohibit the BLM writing, that Home Depot had forced the employee to resign, and that the employee had engaged in concerted activity because his behavior was a logical outgrowth of other employee complaints of bias against people of color. Such alleged actions are a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, which protects employees who engage in protected concerted activity to improve workplace conditions. See Home Depot USA, Inc. and Antonio Morales Jr Case 18–CA–273796.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against Cedar Point amusement park in which the EEOC alleged that Cedar Point had discriminated against employees due to their age. The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that Cedar Point provided its out-of-town seasonal employees with housing for far below market rate. In 2021 and 2022, however, Cedar Point changed its policy and provided this housing only to employees (other than entertainers) who were below thirty years of age. The EEOC's lawsuit further alleged that this policy prevented its older out-of-town employees from having the ability to renew their seasonal employment, because of economic barriers that this policy created. This alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits employers from implementing policies that discriminate against and disadvantage employees over the age of forty. See EEOC v. Cedar Fair L.P., et al., Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-01843-JGC (N.D. Ohio).
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a case against a transportation service company that the EEOC had alleged discriminated against its employees due to their sex and sexual orientation. The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that the company subjected four of its female employees to discriminatory and disparaging comments and actions. For example, the owner called these employees "f*cking lesbians" and "fat ugly b*tches." He also told them that he hated dealing with women and that "women like [them]" would be "killed in [his] country." This harassment resulted in all four women's employment being terminated on the same day. When terminating their employment, the owner announced to the entire company that all of the lesbians were fired. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against employees due to their sex or sexual orientation, prohibits harassment due to these protected classes, and prohibits retaliation for complaining about discrimination on this basis. See EEOC v. Sandia Transportation, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00274-MV-GJF (D.N.M.).
The United States Department of Labor recently recovered unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages for more than two dozen employees of a home healthcare agency that were denied time and a half overtime wages for hours that they worked over forty in a workweek. The DOL found that the home health agency, which operates three different facilities, paid these employees only their regular straight time hours for this overtime work, rather than the time and a half wages that it was obligated to pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay non-exempt overtime employees, such as most hourly employees and even certain salaried employees, time and a half overtime wages for hours that they work over forty in a workweek. Failure to pay these employees these required wages may result in the offending employer being obligated to pay the unpaid back wages, an equal amount as liquidated damages, and the statutory attorney's fees and costs that the employees' suffer to collect these damages. See https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20240307
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against Voyant Beauty, in which the EEOC alleged that the company had terminated an employee because of their disability. The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that Voyant hired an employee, but, on the first day of her employment, Voyant learned that this employee was deaf. After learning this, Voyant terminated her employment, despite the new employee being qualified for the job and being able to perform the job with or without an accommodation. Rather than discussing whether the employee would need any accommodations, Voyant assumed that she could not perform the job and fired her. Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against employees due to a disability and which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees who need such accommodations. See Civil Action No.1:23-cv-014023 (N.D. Ill.).
Companies Must Provide Reasonable Accommodations for an Employee's Disability and Pregnancy2/25/2024
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit against Gracious, LLC, a bakery, for allegedly discriminating against an employee due to her disability and pregnancy. The EEOC's lawsuit claims that the bakery terminated an employee from her job because she missed two shifts to receive emergency medical treatment related to her pregnancy. Indeed, the employee was ready to return to work after two days, but Gracious, LLC informed her that it was choosing to terminate her employment because her pregnancy complications caused a reliability issue. This alleged conduct violates both the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against an employee due to their disability or perceived disability, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against employees due to their pregnancy. See EEOC v. Gracious, LLC d/b/a Gracious Bakery + Café), Civil Action No. 24-cv-00218 (E.D. La.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has recently filed a lawsuit against a property management company in which the EEOC alleges that the company revoked a job offer that it had made to an applicant after the company learned that the prospective employee suffered from a disability. The EEOC's lawsuit claims that the company made a job offer to the employee to work as an administrative employee, but then learned that the employee had subsequently been diagnosed with a common form of breast cancer. The prospective employee's doctor confirmed that she could still perform the job, but she would need limited time off of work each week for treatment. Instead of discussing this request for a reasonable accommodation with the employee, the company withdrew her job offer. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees, including those who have not yet started working, due to a disability or a reasonable request for an accommodation related to a disability. See Case No. 1:24-cv-10370 (D. Mass.)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit against a rent-to-own furniture company, Affordable Rent-to-Own, LLC, in which it claimed that the company subjected an employee to racial slurs and then fired him after he complained about the use of these racial slurs. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that a Caucasian employee at Affordable Rent-to-Own, LLC repeatedly used the word “n****r” while working with a manager-in-training who was African American. The African American employee complained to other managers at Affordable Rent-to-Own about the use of these racial slurs. Instead of disciplining the offending employee or addressing the issue, Affordable Rent-to-Own, LLC terminated the employment of the African American employee who had complained. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits companies from subjecting employees to racially hostile work environments, prohibits race discrimination, and prohibits retaliation for complaints of such discrimination. See EEOC v. Affordable Rent-to-Own, LLC d/b/a Affordable Home Furnishings, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00676 (M.D. La.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a manufacturing and distribution company, J&M Industries, in which the EEOC had alleged that J&M discriminated against one of its employees due to their age. The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that J&M terminated the employee because she refused to retire after she turned 65 years old. As her 65th birthday neared, a manager repeatedly asked her about retirement. In response, the employee told the manager that she had no plans to retire. After learning this, the company terminated her employment under the pretense that her position was being eliminated for economic reasons. Less than a month later, however, J&M hired an employee in his thirties for the very same position it had claimed to eliminate. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees over the age of 40 due to their age. See EEOC v. J&M Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-01100 (E.D. La.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a case against a luxury boutique hotel in which the EEOC had alleged that the hotel failed to accommodate a former employee who worked at the front desk and suffered from a disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the employee, who worked as a guest services agent, requested the reasonable accommodation of being permitted to use a chair or a stool while they worked, because their disability made it difficult or impossible to stand for prolonged periods of time. Instead of granting this reasonable accommodation, the company offered undesirable alternatives. The employee attempted to work without the accommodation, but eventually had to resign because of the negative impact that the hotel’s failure to grant the accommodation was having on the employee’s health. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees suffering from a disability. See EEOC v. 299 Madison Ave. LLC d/b/a Library Hotel, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-08306 (S.D.N.Y.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit that it had filed against Cash Depot, LTD, in which the EEOC alleged that Cash Depot had failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to one of its employees who suffered from a disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the employee, a field service technician, had suffered from a stroke and was hospitalized. After this, Cash Depot placed the employee on a leave of absence. Cash Depot told the employee that it would hold his job open until a certain date. Despite this promise, Cash Depot posted his job and hired a different field service technician to replace the employee. When he was released by his doctor and permitted to return to work, Cash Depot fired the employee, claiming that it could not accommodate the work restriction that the employee had. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which requires to provide reasonable accommodations to employees suffering from a disability. Such reasonable accommodations may include holding open an employee’s job for a reasonable period of time. See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cash Depot, LTD, Case No. 4:20-cv-03343 (S.D. Tex.).
The U.S. Department of Labor recently obtained a consent judgment in federal court requiring a home healthcare agency to provide backpay for unpaid overtime wages that the agency had deliberately denied to nearly 300 of its employees and former employees. A previous investigation by the Department of Labor found that the company had paid its employees only straight time wages even for their hours worked over forty in a workweek, did not combine hours that an employee worked between multiple clients for the purposes of calculating overtime hours worked, did not pay for time that employees spent traveling between clients, did not accurately track time that employees worked, and did not keep all payroll records required. These alleged actions are violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires employers to pay time-and-half overtime wages to certain employees who work over forty hours in a workweek. Employers who do not comply with the FLSA can be required to pay back the unpaid wages plus additional penalties and attorney’s fees and costs. See Julie A. Su v. Aging with Care, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 23-cv-654-JMY (E.D. Pa.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit against a hotel, in which the EEOC alleged that the hotel’s ownership had discriminated against one of its employees who was suffering from depression. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the general manager advised his supervisor in fall 2019 that he needed to go to the hospital to treat his depression, and he would, therefore, be out of work for a short time for this treatment. Two days later, when this manager was discharged from the hospital, the hotel terminated his employment. The hotel informed the manager that it was terminating his employment because they were afraid that he may hurt other people. These alleged actions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA protects employees who are suffering from a disability from discrimination on the basis of that disability, and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees’ disabilities. See EEOC v. Anant Enterprises, L.L.C., et al., Civil Action No. 8:22-cv-345 (D. Neb.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit alleging that a workplace facility management company, ISS Facility Services, refused to grant reasonable accommodations to one of its employees who suffered from a disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that, for months, ISS required its employees to work remotely four days per week due to COVID. After that requirement ended, the employee in the EEOC's lawsuit asked for ISS to permit her to work from home for two days per week and to allow her additional breaks while at work. Despite permitting other employees in the same job as her to work from home, ISS refused her requested reasonable accommodations. Such alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s disability or requests for accommodations due to a disability. See EEOC v. ISS Facility Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03708-SCJ-RDC (N.D. Ga.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement agreement with a company that provides insurance products, after the EEOC sued the company for retaliation. One of the employees of the company, Proctor Financial, filed a Charge of Discrimination against Proctor alleging that she was not given a promotion due to her race. Later, she amended that Charge of Discrimination and added a new claim alleging that she was paid less because of her race. Shortly after this, Proctor suspended the employee. The EEOC alleged that the suspension (the employee’s first discipline in more than eight years) was in retaliation for the EEOC Charge and Amended Charge of Discrimination. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and retaliation on the basis of an employee’s race. See EEOC v. Proctor Financial, Inc., Case No. 2:19-CV-11911 (E.D. Mich.).
The U.S. Department of Labor recently announced that it reached an agreement with Krispy Kreme after a DOL investigation found that Krispy Kreme had denied time-and-a-half overtime wages to over 500 employees throughout the nation. The DOL's investigation began with a single store, before it expanded when the DOL determined that the overtime violations were systemic. The DOL found that Krispy Kreme had failed to include monthly bonuses in the regular rate of pay for some of its employees, which denied them certain time-and-a-half overtime wages to which they were entitled. Many employees who receive bonuses must have these bonuses included for overtime calculation purposes, and a failure to do so may be a Fair Labor Standards Act violation.
See https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20221117. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit alleging retaliation against Keystone Foods LLC, in which the EEOC alleged that Keystone retracted a job offer after it learned that the applicant had previously filed a Charge of Discrimination against it. The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that, during a job fair, Keystone offered jobs to seventeen applicants who previously worked for them. Keystone offered the employee in this lawsuit a job the same day as the job fair, and the applicant accepted the job offer on the spot. After making the offer and it being accepted, however, Keystone learned that this employee had previously complained about pregnancy discrimination at Keystone and filed an EEOC Charge of pregnancy discrimination against the company. Upon realizing this, Keystone immediately retracted the job offer. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation for complaints of discrimination and the filing of Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC. See EEOC v. Keystone Foods LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00629-MHT-JTA (M.D. Ala.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement agreement with a company to resolve a charge of discrimination in which the employee had claimed that the company discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation. The employee alleged that Resource Environment Services subjected him to a hostile work environment and then refused to return him to work because of his sexual orientation. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees due to their sexual orientation. The U.S. Supreme Court recently recognized sexual orientation discrimination as a protected class pursuant to Title VII. The EEOC and the employer reached a settlement agreement through the EEOC's conciliation process. See https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-and-resourceful-environmental-services-agree-conciliate-sexual-orientation-charge.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently sued a home health care company for terminating an employee because of her pregnancy and a disability. The EEOC's lawsuit claims that Heartfelt Home Healthcare Services, Inc. terminated one of its scheduling coordinators because she was pregnant and because she suffered from hypertension. The lawsuit further alleges that the president and vice president told her that she was a "liability to the company" on numerous occasions, and that they terminated her employment after she was treated at the hospital for early contractions. The termination occurred even though the employee did not have medical restrictions that prevented her from performing her job. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Discrimination against an employee because of their sex or because of their pregnancy is illegal. See U.S. EEOC v. Heartfelt Home Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00280-CB (W.D. Pa.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against Sinclair Broadcast Group, alleging that the company had discriminated against an employee because of her race. The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that Sinclair had paid this employee, who is African American, less than it paid to employees who were not African American and that Sinclair also treated employees of other races more favorably than it treated this employee. The lawsuit further alleges that the employee reported the discriminatory wage practice and that Sinclair refused to do anything to address the complaint, resulting in the employee being forced to resign. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, including pay disparities based on race. See EEOC v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02477 (D. Md.).
|
Categories
All
|