Posts Tagged ‘refusal to hire men’

EEOC: ‘Gentlemen’s’ Club Violated Title VII

Maybe real men don’t patronize clubs women perform provocative dances and shimmy up a poll, but if they want to work there they have every right to fair consideration under our employment laws.

A gentlemen’s club in Alabama that allegedly didn’t do that is in some hot water with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Gold, Inc., d/b/a Sammy’s Gentlemen’s Club, a gentlemen’s club in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., violated federal law by refusing to hire a male applicant because of his gender and by failing to maintain federally required employment records, the EEOC charged in a lawsuit filed on Thursday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, on Oct. 5, 2015, James Sharp attempted to apply for a position as a bartender at Sammy’s Fort Walton Beach location after seeing an advertisement online. Sharp went to Sammy’s to apply in person, but the manager allegedly stated that Sammy’s did not hire male bartenders. Although Sharp had bartending and management experience, he was not allowed to apply for the position. Sammy’s subsequently hired at least two females for bartending positions at that location. According to the suit, during 2015 Sammy’s employed 17 females and no males in bartender positions at its Fort Walton Beach location.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against any job applicant because of his or her sex. Also, the EEOC charged the company with failing to maintain employment applications and other records, as required by Title VII.

The agency seeks monetary damages, including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent further discrimination.

“Although sex-based discrimination against women may be more common than against men, employers must realize that no person, male or female, can be denied employment based on sex, except in the rare instances when gender is a bona fide occupational qualification,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Marsha L. Rucker. “When hiring decisions are made based on an applicant’s sex, the EEOC will act to enforce the federal laws that were enacted to prohibit such discrimination.

District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas added, “Gender discrimination in the workplace continues to be a major problem, even more than 50 years after Congress passed Title VII, which made it illegal nationwide. All job applicants deserve to be considered based on their qualifications and not their gender.”



EEOC Sues Ruby Tuesday, Alleging It Intentionally Denied Resort Jobs to Men

It is quite audacious in this day and age for an employer to intentionally advertise that it won’t accept job applications from a certain gender. Yet that is what a nationally known restaurant chain stands accused of doing by the nation’s lead civil rights enforcement agency.

Ruby Tuesday violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by refusing to hire any men to fill temporary summer jobs at a resort in Park City, Utah, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged in a lawsuit.

According to the EEOC, the restaurant posted an internal advertisement in the spring of 2013, seeking persons to fill temporary jobs in Park City, Utah. The announcement, posted within a 10-state region, promised company-provided housing for those selected. It expressly said that only would be considered.

Ruby Tuesday’s gender-specific internal posting excluded Andrew Herrera and at least one other male employee from consideration for the temporary assignment. As justification for hiring only men, the restaurant cited fears about housing employees of both genders together.

“It’s rare to see an explicit example of sex discrimination like Ruby Tuesday’s internal job announcement,” noted EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo. “This suit is a cautionary tale to employers that sex-based employment decisions are rarely justified, and are not consistent with good business judgment.”

Here’s more about the lawsuit.

Home Care Services Company To Pay $92K to Resolve DOL Suit Over Hiring Practices

Never let your client’s supposed preference for services provided by one gender or the other determine whom you consider for employment. It will get you in legal trouble, as a federal contractor found out this week.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Progrmas, the unit of the U.S. Department of Labor that enforces the nondiscrimination requirements of Executive Order 11246, this week announced it settled allegations that ResCare HomeCare refused to consider men for caregiving jobs at its facilities in Spokane, Washington.

According to the OFCCP, ResCare insisted that most of its patients are women who prefer being attended to by other women. However, the company provided no evidence in support of this assertion, the government said.

In fact, “[a]n overwhelming majority of client care plans contained no gender preference, and when OFCCP contacted a sample of these clients to ask whether they had a gender preference for their caregiver, nearly half of the female clients indicated that they had no gender preference.”

Under terms of the settlement, 77 rejected male applicants will share in $92,059 in backpay plus interest. ResCare also will hire 8 of the rejected applicants as in-home caregiving jobs become available.

You can read more about the settlement here.