Tag Archives: EEOC

by | May 31, 2013 · 6:00 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Hawaii Restaurant Group Settles “Sexual Harassment” Lawsuit With EEOC For $150,000, Harassment Training For All Employees & Managers

“…the (kitchen) supervisor subjected the workers, some of whom were between the ages of 17 and 19, to sexual comments, language and advances, the EEOC said.  Upon reporting the harassment to the general manager, the EEOC said, Panda Express management failed to take EEOCenough action to stop or correct the situation…”

Chinese quick service restaurant giant Panda Express will pay $150,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit on behalf of at least three female teenagers who were allegedly sexually harassed between 2007 and 2009 while working in a restaurant in Kauai, Hawaii, the federal agency announced today.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC filed its lawsuit in September 2012 in U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (EEOC v. Panda Express, Inc. and Panda Restaurant Groups, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-00530-SOM-RLP) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.  As part of the settlement announced today, the parties entered into a two-year consent decree requiring Panda Express to designate an in-house equal employment opportunity (EEO) coordinator; revise and distribute its anti-harassment policy and procedures; and provide annual sexual harassment training to all employees in Kapaa and to all general managers in the state of Hawaii.  EEOC will monitor compliance with the agreement, and Panda Express agreed to reinforce its protocols relating to complaints of sexual harassment in its Hawaii region.

“We commend Panda Express for working with the EEOC to correct serious lapses in dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, which includes Hawaii in its jurisdiction.  “We trust that Panda Express’s company values are consistent with the goals of the EEOC’s mission, and we commend them for agreeing to broader injunctive remedies to ensure that the workers in Hawaii are protected.”

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13a.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Hawaii Restaurant Group Settles “Sexual Harassment” Lawsuit With EEOC For $150,000, Harassment Training For All Employees & Managers

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | May 27, 2013 · 6:37 am

Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: Mississippi Restaurant Sued For “Race Discrimination” By EEOC; Hired Only Whites As Servers, Bartenders And Other Front-Of-The-House Positions

“…The EEOC  claims Stone Pony Pizza refused to hire African-American  applicants as a class for certain positions because  of their race.  Stone Pony is alleged to  have hired only whites for front-of-the-house positions such as server,  hostess, waitress, and bartender, and hired African-EEOCAmericans for  back-of-the-house positions such as cook and dishwasher. Additionally, the EEOC  charged that Stone Pony maintained a  racially segregated workforce and failed to keep job applications as required  by law…”

Stone  Pony Pizza, Inc., a Clarksdale pizza restaurant and bar, violated federal law  by refusing to hire a class of African-American applicants because of their  race, according to a lawsuit filed on Friday, May 17, 2013 by the U.S. Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No., 4:13-cv-00092, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of  Mississippi, Greenville Division, after first attempting to reach  a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The  suit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which  prohibits discrimination based on race and color.  The suit seeks monetary relief in the form of  back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, hiring relief and an injunction  against future discrimination.

“Employers simply cannot  refuse to hire applicants based on their race, nor can they segregate employees  into certain positions based upon their race,” said Katharine Kores, district  director of the

EEOC’s Memphis  District Office.  “Applicants should be  evaluated based upon their qualifications, not the color of their skin.”

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, especially  class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate against racial,  ethnic and religious groups, older workers, women, and people with  disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the Commission’s  Strategic Enforcement Plan.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-20-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: Mississippi Restaurant Sued For “Race Discrimination” By EEOC; Hired Only Whites As Servers, Bartenders And Other Front-Of-The-House Positions

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | May 18, 2013 · 6:48 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: EEOC Issues Revised Protections Against “Disability Discrimination” Including “Employees With Cancer, Diabetes, Epilepsy And Intellectual Disabilities”

Disability discrimination also occurs when a covered employer or other entity treats an applicant or employee less favorably because she has a history of a disability (such as cancer that is controlled or in remission) or because she is believed to have a physical or mental impairment that EEOCis not transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less) and minor (even if she does not have such an impairment).

The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer (“undue hardship”).

The law also protects people from discrimination based on their relationship with a person with a disability (even if they do not themselves have a disability). For example, it is illegal to discriminate against an employee because her husband has a disability.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued four revised documents on protection against disability discrimination, pursuant to the goal of the agency’s Strategic Plan to provide up-to-date guidance on the requirements of antidiscrimination laws.

The documents address how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to applicants and employees with cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities. These documents are available on the agency’s website at “Disability Discrimination, The Question and Answer Series,” http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm.

“Nearly 34 million Americans have been diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, or epilepsy, and more than 2 million have an intellectual disability,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “Many of them are looking for jobs or are already in the workplace. While there is a considerable amount of general information available about the ADA, the EEOC often is asked questions about how the ADA applies to these conditions.”

In plain, easy-to-understand language, the revised documents reflect the changes to the definition of disability made by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) that make it easier to conclude that individuals with a wide range of impairments, including cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities, are protected by the ADA. Each of the documents also answers questions about topics such as: when an employer may obtain medical information from applicants and employees; what types of reasonable accommodations individuals with these particular disabilities might need; how an employer should handle safety concerns; and what an employer should do to prevent and correct disability-based harassment.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-15-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: EEOC Issues Revised Protections Against “Disability Discrimination” Including “Employees With Cancer, Diabetes, Epilepsy And Intellectual Disabilities”

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Legislation, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | April 21, 2013 · 12:27 pm

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: California Restaurant Franchisee Settles EEOC “Disability Discrimination Lawsuit” For $100,000; Former Floor Supervisor With “Intellectual Disability” Demoted To Janitorial Position

“…The EEOC contends that once Alia took over,  Alia management demoted Morgan to a janitorial position, cut his hours and reduced  his hourly EEOCwages, thereby forcing him to find other employment and resign by  June 2009.   The EEOC’s lawsuit argued  that Alia Corporation thus engaged in disability discrimination that violated  the Americans with Disabilities Act  (ADA)…”

Alia Corporation, a franchisee  with over 20 fast-food chain restaurants throughout Central California, agreed  to pay $100,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced  today.

The EEOC originally filed suit against the Merced,  Calif.-based company in 2011 on behalf of Derrick Morgan, a former floor  supervisor with an intellectual disability (EEOC v. Alia Corporation, Case  No. 1:11-cv-01549-LJO-BAM, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of  California).  Morgan was known to be a good employee and  promoted by previous management from crew member to super­visor in 2008.

As  part of the settlement announced today, the parties entered into a three-year  consent decree requiring Alia to hire an equal employment opportunity (EEO) monitor  to create anti-discrimination policies and procedures; a complaint process and  impartial investigations; a centralized tracking system for discrimination  complaints; a system to hold employees accountable for discrimination; and,  annual live disability discrimination training for all management and human  resources employees.  The $100,000 in  monetary relief shall be paid entirely to Morgan.  The EEOC will monitor compliance with the agreement.

“Employers cannot allow biases and stereotypes to factor  into employment decisions,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s  Los Angeles District Office, which includes Fresno in its jurisdiction.  “The EEOC commends Alia Corporation for  today’s settlement, as it marks a new path for Alia — one which includes equal  employment opportunity for all of their employees, regardless of disabilities.”

Melissa  Barrios, director of the EEOC’s Fresno Local Office, said, “Disability discrimination  charges are on the rise in California, comprising 30% of all charges  filed.  Workers who are unjustly  penalized due to their disabilities have protections under federal law, and the  EEOC is here to help.”

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-18-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: California Restaurant Franchisee Settles EEOC “Disability Discrimination Lawsuit” For $100,000; Former Floor Supervisor With “Intellectual Disability” Demoted To Janitorial Position

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Insurance, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Training, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | April 17, 2013 · 7:22 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Hotel And Restaurant Hiring Policies Must Be Neutral On Employee “Sex Stereoyping”; EEOC To Enforce “Broad Definition Of Sex Discrimination”

The EEOC Title VII effort to protect LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) workers relies on a broad definition of sex discrimination, treating harassment and discrimination claims under a “sex stereotyping” theory…The EEOC’s new emphasis on LGBT protections will shape its EEOCfuture en­­force­­ment and litigation against private employers, especially in states that don’t protect gender identity or sexual orientation. Expect the EEOC to educate the LGBT community about its recent rulings. Also expect more charges and more vigorous investigations…Make sure your policies are neutral with regard to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and prohibit harassment based on sexual preference, gender stereotypes or intolerance.

Federal law doesn’t prohibit discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) workers. Instead, LGBT protections are a varied patchwork of judicial and agency interpretations and state and local laws that make discrimination actionable only under specific circumstances. LGBT workers continue to face employment discrimination with relatively few legal protections.

In response, the EEOC has begun an effort to protect LGBT workers’ rights by broadly interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC’s newly released Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2013-2016 lists “coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII” as one of its top six national en­­forcement priorities. Expect the EEOC to take significant enforcement actions soon and litigate issues more aggressively.

No national law explicitly bans workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Title VII’s language only protects individuals on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or natural origin.” LGBT advocates have tried to amend Title VII to add sexual orientation, expression and identity, but have consistently failed.

For more:  http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/35121/eeoc-steps-up-efforts-to-protect-against-lgbt-bias-harassment

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Hotel And Restaurant Hiring Policies Must Be Neutral On Employee “Sex Stereoyping”; EEOC To Enforce “Broad Definition Of Sex Discrimination”

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | April 14, 2013 · 6:56 am

Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: North Carolina Restaurant Franchisee Faces “Civil Contempt” Charges For Breach Of EEOC “Sexual Harassment Lawsuit” Settlement

“…an 18-year-old female employee was being sexually harassed by a male coworker who talked to her about his sex life in addition to making EEOCsexual gestures toward her…the suit goes on to claim that the female worker was fired after police went to the restaurant to investigate her complaint…The decree required the company to pay $17,500 in relief to the female employee in addition to establishing or enforcing policies against sexual discrimination and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment…”

A franchisee operating the Dairy Queen restaurant in Winston-Salem’s Hanes Mall is being held in civil contempt by a federal judge because it breached terms of an agreement resolving a sexual harassment lawsuit, according to the Winston-Salem Journal. In December 2011, the agency filed a lawsuit against YS&J Enterprises Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

Back pay and monetary damages were sought in the suit.

According to the Journal, the company entered into a consent degree with the EEOC, which was signed by Judge James Beaty in October.

For more:  http://myfox8.com/2013/04/13/dairy-queen-at-hanes-mall-held-in-contempt-over-harassment-suit/

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: North Carolina Restaurant Franchisee Faces “Civil Contempt” Charges For Breach Of EEOC “Sexual Harassment Lawsuit” Settlement

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Liability, Management And Ownership, Training

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | April 6, 2013 · 6:23 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Restaurant Operator Sued By EEOC For “Religious Discrimination”; Muslim Food Prep Worker Fired For Refusing To Cut Off Beard

“…(plaintiff) applied for a job with a Bojangles’ restaurant in Charlotte and was interviewed for a food prep position…the manager informed Charles that he might need to cut his beard, to which Charles responded that he could not cut his beard for religious reasons, informing her that EEOChe was a Muslim. Charles was hired and worked at the restaurant on May 18 without incident…Charles reminded the manager that he could not cut his beard because of his religion, and requested an accommodation of wearing a beard net, similar to a hair net, which the restaurant manager refused. The restaurant manager told Charles to leave the restaurant, and to not return to work until he shaved off his beard. Charles refused to shave his beard and was consequently fired…”

Bo-Cherry, Inc., a North Carolina corporation that operates several Bojangles’ restaurants in the Charlotte metro area, violated federal law when it failed to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and then fired him because of his religion, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Devin Charles has been a practicing Muslim for the past 14 years. As a male Muslim member of his sect of the Sunni branch of the Islamic faith, Charles is required to grow and maintain a beard and is not allowed to trim or cut his beard unless it exceeds the length of his fist when holding his beard in his closed hand under his chin, commonly referred to as “fist length.” In accordance with his sincerely held religious beliefs, Charles has not trimmed or cut his beard unless it exceeded a fist length

The manager instructed Charles that her supervisor, the district manager, had come to the restaurant, seen Charles’ beard and instructed her to tell Charles that he needed to shave off his beard to continue working for Bojangles’.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees as long as doing so does not pose an undue hardship on the employer. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division (EEOC v. Bo-Cherry, Inc. d/b/a Bojangles, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00210) only after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages and reinstatement or front pay. The complaint also seeks injunctive relief.

“Under federal law, employers have an obligation to attempt a fair balance between an employee’s right to practice his or her religion and the operation of their business,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “This case demonstrates the EEOC’s commitment to fighting religious discrimination in the workplace.”

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-4-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Restaurant Operator Sued By EEOC For “Religious Discrimination”; Muslim Food Prep Worker Fired For Refusing To Cut Off Beard

Filed under Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | March 14, 2013 · 5:53 am

Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: Michigan Motel Settles “Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit” For $27,500; Safety Of Unborn Fetus No Reason For Employment Exclusion

“…according  to the EEOC’s suit, Ramin fired a housekeeper after she reported her pregnancy  to them.  Management stated it could not  allow the employee to continue to work as a housekeeper because of the  EEOCpotential harm to the development of her baby, the EEOC said…”

Ramin Inc., the owner of a Comfort Inn & Suites  in Taylor, Mich., will pay $27,500 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit  (EEOC v. Ramin, Inc., 2012-cv-15015) filed by the U.S. Equal Employment  Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

Title VII  of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act  (PDA), protects female employees against discrimination based on  pregnancy.  Under the statute, an  employer may not exclude pregnant women from employment based on the employer’s  supposed concerns about the safety of the mother or unborn fetus.  The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to  reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In a consent decree filed with the  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the company agreed to  pay $2,500 in back pay and $25,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.  In addition, Ramin agreed to a permanent  injunction enjoining it from discriminating against an employee due to her  pregnancy or requiring a pregnant employee to provide medical documents that  releases her to work.  The decree  requires that Ramin provide training to all of its managerial and non-managerial  employees on sex and pregnancy discrimination; draft a new employee policy  regarding sex and pregnancy discrimination; post a notice regarding the suit  for all employees; and report to the EEOC for four years.  The injunction, training, policy revisions,  and EEOC monitoring constitute targeted, equitable relief that aims to prevent  similar violations in the future.

For more: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-12-13a.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: Michigan Motel Settles “Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit” For $27,500; Safety Of Unborn Fetus No Reason For Employment Exclusion

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Insurance, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Training

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | March 9, 2013 · 8:19 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Idaho Restaurant Chain Sued By Male Employee Who Claims “Only Women Allowed To Work As Bartenders”

“…lawsuit claims that service manager (stated) that the Louisville,Ky.-based chain’s regional director “only wanted girls working in the bar.” The complaint (states that restaurant) told women employees to wear tank EEOCtops and shorts to work and to “flirt with every guy that sits at the bar top…”

A former employee of the Texas Roadhouse restaurant in Ammon alleges only women can work as bartenders there, according to a complaint filed with the U.S. District Court of Idaho. Tim Fenton was employed at the restaurant as a trainer, bartender and server before his dismissal in October 2012.Fenton lost out on bartending assignments and Baird allegedly promoted a woman to tend bar that he had a crush on.

Baird also demoted Fenton from his position as a trainer allegedly in retaliation for his and his wife’s reports to Texas Roadhouse about the discrimination. Sam Angell, Fenton’s attorney, said his client made a formal complaint to the chain’s human resources department, but did not receive a report back regarding an investigation of the charges or its findings.

According to the Texas Roadhouse in Ammon, Baird is no longer employed at the restaurant. A representative for Texas Roadhouse corporate headquarters said he hadn’t seen the lawsuit so could not comment.

In order to pursue a job discrimination lawsuit in federal court, plaintiffs must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. According to Angell, the EEOC determined it would not be able to complete its investigation in the required 180 days so it issued a “Notice of Right to Sue.”

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Idaho Restaurant Chain Sued By Male Employee Who Claims “Only Women Allowed To Work As Bartenders”

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Insurance, Labor Issues, Management And Ownership, Training

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | February 22, 2013 · 6:54 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Restaurant Owners Increasingly Targeted With EEOC Lawsuits Over “Family Medical Leave Act” Liability; Employees Who Use Up “Available Paid Sick Leave” Assert Disability Rights

“…Previously, if an employee had exhausted all twelve weeks of FMLA leave and any other available leave, they could be terminated without employer liability…however, the EEOC recently has taken the position that Paid Sick Leave In Hospitality Industryonce leave is exhausted under the FMLA, this can trigger an employer’s affirmative duty to provide a reasonable accommodation  to an employee’s disability, which can include providing additional leave..”

For 2013, food service employers can expect a continued aggressive approach from the Equal Empoyments Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) as to violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in the restaurant industry.  The significant increase of ADA charges and lawsuits by the EEOC and private claimants, which began in early 2012, shows little sign of abating in the new year.

Back in 2008, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act (“ADAAA”), which was intended to counter a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that significantly limited employees’ ability to assert and prevail in disability lawsuits.  Under the ADAAA, and the EEOC’s final regulations, approved in 2011, the definition of what constitutes a disability was significantly broadened.  As a result, employees who previously would not have been considered disabledEEOC under the ADA, now fall under its statutory protections.  Prior to the amended Act, employers could often prevail in litigation on the basis of whether the employee actually was considered disabled under the narrow interpretations of the Supreme Court decisions.  With the new broad definition, most cases now hinge on whether the employer reasonably accommodated the employee’s disability..

One source of increased litigation and attention from the EEOC is when the ADA intersects with the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) as to leave for a serious medical condition.   Under this scenario, employees who were terminated after exhausting FMLA leave are asserting EEOC Charges and filing lawsuits under the ADA.  Employers are also being forced to agree to high dollar settlements with the EEOC to avoid the prospect of the federal agency filing suit on behalf of employees and former employees.

For more:  http://www.bluemaumau.org/surge_ada_disability_lawsuits_continue_2013_restaurant_and_food_service_employers_crosshairs

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Restaurant Owners Increasingly Targeted With EEOC Lawsuits Over “Family Medical Leave Act” Liability; Employees Who Use Up “Available Paid Sick Leave” Assert Disability Rights

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Health, Insurance, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , , ,