On this Labor Day, a useful reminder that it’s not just adults whose rights are at stake in the workplace but those of teenagers too.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced last month that a Mexican restaurant in Fresno, California, has settlement a Title VII lawsuit stemming from the alleged sexual harassment of a female hostess by her male supervisor in 2009, when she was still a teenager.
According to the action against Sal’s Mexican Restaurant, the supervisor made unwanted sexual propositions and advances, grabbed her body parts and tried to kiss her. The hostess further alleged that he required her to give hugs and back rubs as a condition of employment due to her gender. Her repeated complaints to restaurant management about the behavior were not addressed, and the harassment and discrimination allegedly continued until the hostess felt compelled to resign in 2010.
The restaurant agreed to settle the lawsuit for $15,000 and take other measures to make sure these kinds of alleged violations never occur again, including to hire a third-party consultant to help create, revise and implement new policies and procedures to address and prevent discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and provide all employees with live training on their rights and responsibilities with respect to discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
The EEOC recently updated its Youth@Work website (at http://www.eeoc.gov/youth/), which presents information for teens and other young workers about employment discrimination. The website also contains curriculum guides for students and teachers and videos to help young workers learn about their rights and responsibilities in the workforce.
Read more about the settlement.
Our neighbor to the south is now officially on board with working with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to combat employment discrimination against Mexican nationals working in this country.
And that can mean one thing for sure: Expect the EEOC to be more vigilant about working conditions of immigrant, migrant and other Mexican workers and to file lawsuits where the facts suggest a Title VII violation has occurred.
From the EEOC’s announcement at the signing of the “Memorandum of Understanding”:
“This national MOU exemplifies the overall intent of the EEOC and the Mexican Embassy to continue the efforts to assist the Mexican community. Under the national framework of the MOU, the two entities will cooperate to provide outreach and training, as well as assist with enforcement efforts as needed.”
Read more about the Aug. 29 agreement and what it means for U.S.-Mexico cooperation to eradicate employment bias based on national origin.
Another employer has become caught in the snare of an apparent ADA violation by not allowing an injured employee to return to work.
In this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged that RockTenn CP, LLC formerly known as Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, erroneously placed a supervisor on short-term disability leave and then after informing him of its mistake, fired him. The supervisor had been hospitalized with a severe back condition but had a doctor’s note giving him permission to return to work.
“Smurfit-Stone refused to allow Fraley leave as a reasonable accommodation for his disability for the period from around July 29, 2009 [when HR informed him he had been mistakenly been given short-term leave] until he was released to return to work around August 4, 2009. Rather, the company discharged Fraley because he could not return to work because of his disability,” the EEOC said.
To avoid a trial, the South Carolina-based RockTenn agreed to pay $20,000 to settle the EEOC’s suit and provide other appropriate relief.
“This case is a reminder to employers that they must always consider whether their leave policies and practices for granting leave are in alignment with the requirements of the ADA.”
Read more about the case.
Federal Express has a problem on its hand regarding its drivers in California and Oregon. In separate rulings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the drivers are employees under the respective states’ wage and hour laws.
The court ruled that under the economic realities test used in both states’ wage and hour laws, the drivers are employees, even though they might have “significant entrepreneurial opportunities” to make or lose money.
So now the delivery giant will have to decide whether to keep this case going or settle.
The rulings were Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Systems Inc. and Slayman v. FexEx Ground Package Systems Inc.
I’ve been sounding the alarm bells for months that employers need to shape up when it comes to dealing with pregnant employees, respecting their rights to work in jobs that they see fit–and not imposing stereotypical or patriarchal views of what is good for pregnant women.
A Dallas restaurant is but the latest establishment to feel the EEOC’s wrath for mistreating a pregnant worker.
This week the EEOC charged that Arthur’s Restaurant and Bar, located in Addison, Texas, violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by pressuring a pregnant waitress to leave her job because she was “starting to show.”
According to the EEOC, the restaurant’s owner complained that waitress Jennifer Todd was starting to show, and “the company claimed that her baby’s health was at risk because Arthur’s is a smoking establishment.” Five days later the company forced her to begin her maternity leave early, and never assigned her another shift thereafter, effectively discharging her, the EEOC charged.
From the EEOC’s announcement of the lawsuit:
“Employers should be well beyond archaic prejudices against women who are pregnant,” said Robert Canino, EEOC Dallas District Office Regional Attorney. “Too many employers have continued to deny female workers equal opportunity to earn a living for their families and themselves, simply because they are pregnant or ‘showing.’ The EEOC continues to combat such prejudices and practices as part of its efforts to educate the public about the rights of women in the workplace – everyone should be free from this obvious form of sex discrimination.”
Read more about the case.
Allowing one of your customers to sexually harass your employees is just as illegal as when the employee’s co-worker or supervisor does it. So warehouse retail giant Costco finds itself in hot water with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which charges in a Title VII lawsuit that the company fostered a sexually hostile environment in which it failed to protect a female worker from being stalked by a male customer.
According to the lawsuit, the alleged stalking occurred at the company’s Glenville, Illinois store. The women complained to store managers about pursued, approached and confronted by the man. She even got a protective order against him.
“The employee’s efforts weren’t enough for Costco,” said EEOC;s John Rowe, director of its Chicago office . “One of her managers apparently told the young woman that he agreed the man was ‘not right’ and that Costco would monitor the situation. But what actually happened was that when the situation persisted and the employee complained to the police, Costco management allegedly yelled at her and told her to be friendly to the customer.”
“No employer gets a pass because it is a customer targeting its employee, rather than a manager or fellow employee, said John Hendrickson, EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago. “That’s particularly true when the harassment is especially egregious. If the employer permits the harassment to continue, it’s compounding its liability and troubles.”
Read more about the case.
And here’s information from the EEOC’s website about preventing sexual harassment of workers by customers. Scroll down to the bottom of the page under the heading Employer Liability for Harassment.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration today issued a set of recommended practices to ensure that workplaces are safe for temporary employees. The agency emphasized that all workers are entitled to a safe workplace, regardless of where they work and whether the job is permanent or temporary.
Cooperation and collaboration between temporary staffing agencies and the employer hosting the worker is key to ensuring a safe workplace, the document says.
The recommendations include:
- evaluate the host employer’s worksite’
- train staffing agency staff to recognize safety and health hazards
- ensure the employer meets or exceeds the other employer’s standards.
Read the document here.