Emergency Aid: EEOC Corrals $162K Settlement From Ambulance Service for Pregnant Paramedic

Will 2020 be the year that pregnancy discrimination becomes a thing of the past?

Call me skeptical–based on this case and others. Employers keep making the same mistakes.

Nationwide medical transportation company American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc. (AMR) will pay $162,500 and provide other relief to settle a federal pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced Tuesday.

According to the EEOC’s suit, a paramedic, who worked for AMR in Spokane, Wash., requested light duty for the last part of her pregnancy and supplied a doctor’s note in support. AMR denied her request. Rather than give her the light duty tasks it made available to its employees injured on the job, AMR directed the paramedic to take unpaid leave or work without any restrictions.

Refusing to provide light duty to a pregnant employee when similarly abled, non-pregnant employees are permitted light duty violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). After an investigation by the EEOC and after first attempt­ing to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process, the EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (Case No.2:19-CV-00258-RMP). The employee intervened in the EEOC’s lawsuit after it was filed, bringing additional claims under federal and state law.

The two-and-one-half-year consent decree settling the lawsuit provides $162,500 in compen­satory damages to the paramedic. The decree also requires AMR to provide anti-discrimination training on Title VII and the PDA to all its Washington supervisors, safety and human resources personnel, and employees at AMR’s Spokane facilities. AMR must revise its policies and procedures for Title VII compliance and post a notice for employees describing the company’s obligations under the consent decree and employee rights under Title VII and the PDA.

“An employer must accommodate pregnant employees to the same extent that it accommodates other employees similar in their ability or inability to work,” said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney May Che. “Pregnant workers should not be forced to choose between losing the ability to make a living and risking the health and safety of their baby by being required to work without accommodation.”

EEOC San Francisco Deputy Director Nancy Sienko added, “Pregnancy discrimination continues to be a persistent problem in the American workforce. Combating such unlawful conduct is a top priority for the EEOC and we will continue working to prevent and remedy it.”

AMR is a medical transportation company that provides and manages community-based medical transportation services, including emergency (911), non-emergency and managed trans­portation, fixed-wing air ambulance and disaster response. According to its website, https://www.amr.net/about, AMR is the largest ambulance service provider in the nation, with locations throughout the United States. In March 2018, AMR became a subsidiary of Global Medical Response, the largest medical transportation company in the world.

One of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) is to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, including accommodating pregnancy-related limitations.

Book Value: Baltimore Librarians Awarded $200K to Make Up for Lower Wages Than Men Were Paid

Librarians should get equal pay for equal work just like the rest of us–a lesson that Charm City had to be reminded of.

On Dec 23, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that Baltimore City and its Enoch Pratt Free Library violated federal law by paying female Librarian Supervisor Is lower wages than a male coworker because of sex.  The ruling followed a five-day virtual bench trial which occurred September 28 through October 2.

According to the suit filed in September 2017, Enoch Pratt Library rehired a male in June 2015 as a Librarian Supervisor I at a salary which was thousands more than that paid to the five females who held that position even though the male had fewer years of service and experience.  U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis rejected the Library’s argument that the male and female Librarian Supervisor Is did not perform the same work, noting that the Library treats Librarian Supervisor Is as “fungible” by not recruiting for specific branches and transferring them from branch to branch on short and long-term bases.  Judge Xinis also rejected the Library’s argument that the salary disparity was based on a reason unrelated to sex, finding that the Library had failed to produce any evidence to explain the male’s higher salary. 

In addition to awarding full back pay to the five female Librarian Supervisor Is (nearly $200,000 in all), Judge Xinis also awarded liquidated damages in an amount equal because the defendants failed to show that the pay disparity was in good faith and that they had reasonable grounds to believe that they were not violating the law. The Court also ordered appropriate adjustments to the females’ retirement benefits in light of the award of back wages.

“The City and Library had numerous missed opportunities to equally compensate these long-term female employees, but instead chose to litigate the matter,” said Assistant General Counsel Maria Salacuse.  “The Court’s judgment validates that their work is of equal value.”

“This ruling is a significant reminder to employers, including public employers, that they have a responsibility to ensure that their employees are paid equally for equal work,” said EEOC Philadelphia Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. 

Philadelphia District Director Jamie R. Williamson said, “The EEOC remains committed to eradicating sex-based wage discrimination. Employers must pay women equal wages for equal work.”

Ensuring equal pay protections for all workers is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan.

The EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office is one of four offices in the Philadelphia District Office, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. Attorneys in the Philadelphia District Office also prosecute discrimination cases in Washington, D.C. and parts of Virginia.

OSHA Seeks Nominees for Safety Panel

Got ideas on improving worker safety in construction jobs?

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is accepting nominations for individuals to serve on the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health. The 15-member group advises the Secretary of Labor and Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health on developing standards and policies affecting the construction industry.

OSHA is seeking nominations for 14 members with experience and expertise in construction-related safety and health issues to fill five employee, five employer, two state safety and health agency, and two public representative vacancies. The members generally serve two-year staggered terms, except the representative designated by the Department of Health and Human Services and appointed by the Secretary of Labor, who serves indefinitely.

Nominations may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal, by mail, or facsimile. Read the Federal Register notice for submission details. The deadline for submissions is Jan. 8, 2021.

General inquiries should be directed to Damon Bonneau, OSHA Office of Construction Services, at Bonneau.Damon@dol.gov. Press inquiries should be directed to Frank Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, at 202-693-1999.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

OSHA Speeds Up Debt Collection Letters

The feds have raised their game on collecting unpaid fines from employers committing safety violations.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) last Tuesday announced a new initiative designed to better collect citation penalties.

OSHA is implementing a series of three penalty payment letters to be sent seven, 30 and 60 days after an establishment fails to timely pay a penalty based on a final order. In addition, OSHA will contact establishments by phone 14 days after the payment comes due. Establishments that pay their penalties by their due date will not receive the new letters or phone call.

If an establishment fails to make a civil monetary penalty payment from an inspection resulting in a citation, and is not on an affordable payment plan, OSHA will place the establishment on a priority list for further inspection. In addition, OSHA compliance safety and health officers will gather employer identification numbers (EIN) as part of the pre-inspection preparation.

“These steps will enhance the effectiveness of OSHA’s enforcement program,” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia. “The Department will ensure that firms with safety and health violations are held accountable and pay their debts to the United States Government.”

OSHA’s initiative is part of broader efforts across the U.S. Department of Labor. Today, the Department announced a final rule intended to improve the Department’s debt-collection policy. The rule, which builds on a June 2020 Secretary’s Order to improve Department’s collection of delinquent debts and enhance the deterrence and effectiveness of the Department’s enforcement programs, encourages second and subsequent demand letters to be sent more rapidly. Prior to this final rule, the existing rule provided that “second and subsequent demands shall generally be made at 30-day intervals from the first.” Today’s final rule amends the current rule to more clearly allow agency heads or their designees to send demand letters at intervals separated by less than 30 days.

“By getting demand letters out with quicker action, the Department will maximize collections of delinquent debts owed to the Government,” said Chief Financial Officer James Williams. “The Department owes it to the public to ensure we are doing everything possible to hold violators accountable for their actions.”

“Expediting the notifications to employers who have not paid OSHA fines will work to improve OSHA’s enforcement presence,” said Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. “At the conclusion of an OSHA inspection where a final order is issued, employers must abate hazards to protect workers and pay assessed civil monetary penalties.”

$700K Later, Tech Subsidiary Settles Age Bias Suit Over Nationwide Layoffs of 40+ Year Olds

Age discrimination didn’t come cheap at this tech consulting company.

Computer Science Corporation (CSC), a technology consulting subsidiary of Tysons, Va.-based DXC Technology Corporation, will pay $700,000 and furnish other relief to resolve an age discrimina­tion suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced December 11.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, CSC targeted employees who were 40 or older in a series of layoffs nationwide. The company’s decision to focus on older workers was directed by its then-CEO, the EEOC said.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees aged 40 and over and prohibits a company from laying off older workers because of their age. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (EEOC v. Computer Science Corp., Civil Action No.1:20-cv-10372-SHS), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Under the two-year consent decree settling the suit, the company will pay $700,000 in lost wages and damages to the former employees who suffered discrimination. The decree requires the CEO of CSC’s parent company to issue a statement to all employees that age discrimination will not be toler­ated. The companies must also review and revise layoff procedures to ensure compliance with federal laws protecting older workers.

“The EEOC appreciates this company’s willingness to resolve the case without protracted litigation,” said Jeffrey Burstein, the EEOC’s regional attorney for the New York District Office. “The agency remains committed to enforcing federal law to ensure that people are not targeted for layoffs because of their age.”

EEOC New York District Director Judy Keenan said, “Unfortunately, age bias re­mains prevalent in the technology industry. We applaud CSC’s willingness to begin making changes necessary to reduce that kind of discrimination.”

The New York District Office of the EEOC is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in New York, northern New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

Wheels Up: Motorcycle Dealer Settles EEOC Suit Over Relentless Harassment of Female Employee

This settlement–and others like it–should send a message that harassment will not be tolerated.

Three companies operating a now-closed Harley-Davidson dealership in Glenview, Ill., have agreed to pay a former employee $193,750 and furnish other relief under a consent decree rather than face trial for the employee’s sex harassment and retaliatory firing claims in a case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced December 16.

The EEOC charged that managers and coworkers at the dealership subjected a female employee to constant sex harassment and retaliated against her after she complained. The sex harassment included repeated propositions for sex, constant commentary on her body, including requests to wear more re­vealing work apparel, and sharing numerous, unwanted and graphic sexual images and videos.

Additionally, the employee alleged that because she complained, the dealership moved her start time in a way that interfered with her childcare schedule, and then fired her for fabricated reasons.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC and the employee filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (EEOC, et al. v. DP Fox Ventures, LLC; Fox Glenview, LLC; and Fox Illinois Staffing, LLC) in February 2020 after first attempting to reach a settlement through the EEOC’s pre-lawsuit conciliation process. The defendants agreed to settle the lawsuit prior to the parties engaging in discovery.

Under the two-year consent decree settling the suit, agreed to by the parties and entered by the court, the former employee will receive $193,750. The decree mandates harassment prevention policies and training on Title VII’s prohibitions on sex harassment and retaliation, and periodic reporting to the EEOC of sex discrimination complaints received during the duration of the decree.

“No one should be subjected to the kind of harassment this woman faced, and no one should be terminated for having the courage to report it,” said Gregory Gochanour, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago. “The EEOC is glad that a fair outcome was reached quickly for the victim and that these defendants will likely pay more attention to protecting their employees from sex harassment and retaliation moving forward.”

Julianne Bowman, the EEOC’s district director in Chicago, added, “The EEOC continues to receive thousands of claims of sexual harassment annually. Sex harassment interferes with workers’ ability to succeed, as does the termination of workers who have the temerity to complain. The agency is determined to eradicate sex discrimination and hopes this case will serve as a warning to employers to monitor their workplaces for harassment and respond appropriately to complaints.”

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimin­ation, adminis­trative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

Justice for Harassed Female Welder as EEOC Settles Suit Against Steel Fabrication Company

It’s still an uphill battle for many women in male-dominated professions.

Moore & Morford, Inc., a steel-fabrication company in South Greensburg, Pa., will pay $80,000 to settle a sex harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Tuesday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Moore & Morford employees subjected a female welder to a hostile work environment because of her sex. The EEOC charged that male employees repeatedly called the female welder various offensive, sex-based epithets, told her that “women don’t belong on the floor,” and manipulated steel beams and equipment to threaten her safety. After the female welder reported the harassment to the company’s owners, her foreman treated her worse—he grabbed her by the shirt collar, denied her tools and equipment, and ordered her to clean feces in the women’s bathroom, the EEOC alleged. Then days after she told the owners she contacted EEOC and had begun the process of filing a discrimination charge, Moore & Morford retaliated against her by firing her, EEOC alleged.

The EEOC charged that such conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment and discrimination because of sex. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee because she opposed harassment or discrimination, or because she participated in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Moore & Morford, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00892-LPL) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The federal court approved the two-year consent decree resolving the litigation. In addition to paying $80,000 to the female welder, Moore & Morford is prohibited from engaging in sex discrimination or retaliation. Moore & Morford must report to the EEOC on its employment of women and on any future complaints and investigations of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation. Moore & Morford must disseminate a revised anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedure, train its employees on Title VII, and conduct additional training on investigating complaints of discrimination and retaliation.

“Despite important strides in historically male-dominated industries like heavy manufacturing, women continue to fight for equal treatment and against outmoded stereotypes about women’s role in the workplace,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. “Title VII requires that employers treat all workers fairly regardless of sex and act diligently to prevent sex harassment and promptly end it when it occurs.”

EEOC Philadelphia District Director Jamie Williamson added, “Workers have the right under federal law to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC, act as witnesses in pending cases, or just inquire about their rights or the possibility of filing a charge. The EEOC relies heavily on information from the public to carry out its law-enforcement functions and the agency will continue to protect workers against retaliation for exercising their right to communicate with the EEOC about discrimination.”

The EEOC’s Pittsburgh Area Office is a component of the Philadelphia District Office, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. Attorneys in the EEOC Philadelphia District Office also prosecute discrimination cases in Washington, D.C., and parts of Virginia.

Settlement High: $175K Payment Ends EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit Against Cannabis Store

Pot dispensaries have to obey employment discrimination laws just like any other employer.

Maryland Health Management, LLC, doing business as Nature’s Medicines, and AMMA Investment Group, LLC, will pay $175,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to settle a federal sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Monday. Nature’s Medicines is a retail distributor of medical cannabis products. AMMA Investment Group, LLC, performed business operations, including human resources and payroll functions, for Nature’s Medicines.

According to the suit, the general manager of the Nature’s Medicines facility in Ellicott City, Md., subjected patient service providers to a sexually hostile work environment. Patient service pro­viders stock display cases, provide customer service, and ring up sales. The EEOC charged that the harassment in­cluded unwelcome touching, highly offensive sexual comments to and about staff and customers and showing an employee a nude picture on his phone, and that the harassment continued after employees complained.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. AMMA Investment Group, LLC and Maryland Health Management, LLC, d/b/a Nature’s Medicines, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02786-DKC) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.

In addition to the $175,000 in monetary relief to the six class members, the three-year consent decree settling the suit enjoins Nature’s Medicines and Amma Investment Group from engaging in sex-based harassment or retaliation in the future. Nature’s Medicines and Amma Investment Group must provide training on federal anti-discrimination laws, with an emphasis on preventing sex-based harassment, and implement and disseminate an anti-discrimination policy. Nature’s Medicines and Amma Investment Group must also report to the EEOC on how they handle any future complaints of sex-based discrimination and post a notice in their workplace about the settlement.

“We commend Nature’s Medicines and AMMA Investment Group for working to resolve this matter amicably and expeditiously,” said EEOC Philadelphia District Office Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “In addition to the monetary relief, this settlement contains important policy, training and reporting requirements designed to protect workers from unlawful harassment.”

EEOC Philadelphia District Office Director Jamie R. Williamson added, “All employers, in­cluding those in newer and emerging industries, must be vigilant about their responsibility to protect their employees from harassment. This includes enforcing effective anti-harassment policies and taking appropriate action when receiving complaints.”

Preventing harassment is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan.

The EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. Attorneys in the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office also prosecute discrimination cases in Washington, D.C. and parts of Virginia.

Down but Not Out: EEOC Settles Suit With Employer Over Firing of Depressed Worker

Fears about mental illness are not a lawful reason for terminating a person’s employment.

Interconnect Cable Technologies Corporation (ICTC), an electronics manu­facturer in Brooksville, Fla., has agreed to pay $35,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced last Friday.

The EEOC charged that ICTC violated federal law by demoting and later firing an employee after she was hospitalized for a mental illness. The employee was hospitalized and diagnosed with major depressive disorder. When she returned to work the following week, ICTC immediately stripped her of her job duties and later demoted her and cut her pay. ICTC terminated her employment about four months after her hospitalization.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits emp­loyers from discriminating based on disability. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (EEOC v. Interconnect Cable Technologies Corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-00644-SCB-SPF) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its concili­ation process.

In addition to the $35,000 in monetary relief, the three-year consent decree settling the lawsuit requires ICTC to appoint an ADA coordinator, develop and distribute a written policy against disability discrimination, and to conduct anti-discrimination training for all company personnel. ICTC must also post a notice at its worksite about the lawsuit and submit annual written reports to the EEOC.

“This settlement reflects the EEOC’s strong commitment to protecting the rights of qualified and capable employees living with mental illness,” said Robert Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Miami District. “Employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about mental illness are unlawful, and the EEOC will take action to prevent it.”

Evangeline Hawthorne, director of the EEOC’s Tampa Field Office, said, “Demoting or firing individuals because of disability, whether physical or mental, violates federal law. This resolution brings the EEOC closer to achieving its mission of eliminating disability discrimination from America’s workplace.”

Safety First: OSHA Part of Compact to Eliminate Injuries in Telecom Tower Building and Upkeep

As the nation expands its broadband reach, keeping workers who build those wireless towers safe is of growing concern.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has signed a national strategic partnership with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association. The partnership is intended to improve worker safety in the communications tower erection industry.

“The demand for wireless communications and broadcast services has increased the need for construction, service, and maintenance of towers throughout the country,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Loren Sweatt. “The partners will work together to focus resources on eliminating hazards and improving the safety and health of tower workers. This work has become even more important as America’s workers rely on wireless technology in all industries.”

The three-year partnership seeks to eliminate injuries and fatalities among workers performing wireless and telecommunications, tower erection, and maintenance operations. The partnership will address some of the industry’s frequently encountered hazards, including falls from height, electricity, falling objects, tower collapses, and inclement weather.

“Tower technicians do the hard, often gritty work to build, maintain and upgrade broadband networks throughout the country. The pandemic has further demonstrated everything our wireless workforce does to keep Americans connected, and it is imperative that we do everything we can to keep them safe,” stated Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. “As the United States ramps up its 5G rollout, this national partnership agreement will only become more important. The FCC looks forward to working with OSHA and NATE to ensure the safe buildout of wireless infrastructure.”

“The timing of this national partnership agreement is critical as the association’s member companies and their technician workforce are on the front lines deploying the next generation technologies and broadband infrastructure that are simultaneously enabling a 5G future and helping close the digital divide,” said NATE Chairman Jimmy Miller. “The Association looks forward to partnering with U.S. Department of Labor and the FCC in order to elevate and enhance the industry’s safety culture and keep our workers healthy.”

OSHA’s Strategic Partnership Program works with employers, employees, professional and trade associations, labor organizations, and other interested stakeholders to establish specific goals, strategies, and performance measures to improve worker safety and health.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education, and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

Postscript: My thanks to NATE for tweeting about this post.