Posts Tagged ‘back pay’

A consent decree agreement entered Thursday in federal court resolves a disability discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) last year on behalf of former employee Charles Goods, and discrimination claims filed by Goods.

The EEOC took up the Greeneville resident’s case against the retailing giant, claiming in a lawsuit filed in October 2010 that Wal-Mart violated federal law when it fired longtime employee Goods because of a cancer-related disability, and retaliated against him for complaining about the discrimination.

The orders in the decree signed by U.S. District Court Judge J. Ronnie Greer include a provision that Wal-Mart pay $275,000 in full settlement of the claims, including $110,000 in back pay with interest and $165,000 for compensatory damages to Goods.

Back wages are for the years 2009 and 2010.

Wal-Mart was also ordered to conduct anti-disability discrimination training for management and take steps to prevent “further failing to provide reasonable accommodation” to employees with disabilities.

EEOC filed the lawsuit under provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the subsequent ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Goods was hired by Walmart in January 1997 and worked as a forklift operator at the Distribution Center for more than 12 years. In 2005, according to the EEOC civil complaint, he underwent surgery for thyroid cancer.

The surgery severed several nerves and left Goods with limited feeling or strength in his right arm. He remained “a qualified individual with a disability,” the complaint said.

In November 2008, Goods’ supervisor asked him to relieve an employee in the shipping department for a 20-minute break. Goods replied that he could not perform the work because he couldn’t do the manual lifting required there.

He was asked to complete a request for reasonable accommodation, court documents said.

The EEOC complaint demanding a jury trial said that Goods requested reasonable accommodation to continue working in the section of the Distribution Center where he operated a fork lift, adding that he was employed successfully for 12 years, including the three years following his cancer surgery.

Wal-Mart claimed an essential function of Goods’ job “was manual lifting,” the EEOC complaint stated. Goods’ doctor advised Wal-Mart that he could not perform manual lifting.

“In practice, [Wal-Mart] did not require Goods to do any significant manual lifting in order to successfully perform his job,” said the complaint, which claimed the company denied Goods’ requests for reasonable accommodation, asserting that he could not perform essential job functions.

“[Wal-Mart] did not enter into the interactive process to accommodate Mr. Goods’ disability,” the complaint stated, instead placing him on leave “and subsequently discharging him because of his disability.”

Goods was placed on a 90-day leave on Dec. 18, 2008, in response to his request for an accommodation, and denied an appeal before he was advised that “it was his responsibility to find another position that did not have a written requirement of manual lifting.”

He filed a charge of discrimination on May 18, 2009, and was terminated by Wal-Mart on July 16, 2009, “in retaliation for his continuing to request a reasonable accommodation for his disability,” the EEOC complaint stated.

If you believe you have suffered discrimination or job termination due to a disability, feel free to call Scott Behren and the Behren Law Firm for a free consultation.

Share

Discrimination is illegal against all pregnant employees not only while they are working for employers, but also during the hiring process. The EEOC is trying to educate Tampa’s Capri Home Care.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that it filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Capri Home Care, Inc. for refusing to hire a pregnant applicant into an administrative assistant / billing clerk position at its Clearwater, Fla., facility. Capri Home Care is a home health agency that provides skilled nursing and specialized home health care throughout Central Florida.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Capri’s management was so impressed with the applicant at her initial interview that they immediately extended her an offer for the position starting the next day. Following orientation on the applicant’s first day of work, Capri’s sentiment changed after she disclosed she was pregnant. Within an hour, the EEOC said, Capri rescinded its job offer, claiming it had already offered the position to a former employee. A non-pregnant woman was selected several months later, the EEOC said.
Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District, Tampa Division (EEOC v. Capri Home Care Inc., d/b/a Capri Home Care, Case No. 8:11-cv-02211-RAL-MAP) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency is seeking back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for woman who was subjected to discrimination. The suit also seeks injunctive relief to prevent and correct pregnancy discrimination, posting of anti-discrimination notices, and training of Capri’s managers and employees about equal employment opportunity laws.

If you believe you have been denied employment because you are pregnant, you should file a claim with the EEOC or speak with an employment law attorney that handles pregnancy discrimination matters. Feel free to call Scott M. Behren and the Behren Law Firm for a free consultation.

Share

I have previously blogged that alcoholism is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act in many circumstances. Old Dominion Freight Line has now found that out based upon an EEOC lawsuit filed against it.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit this week arguing that Old Dominion Freight Line discriminated against Charles Grams by stripping him of his position and offering him a demotion even if he completed a substance abuse counseling program.

The EEOC says alcoholism is a recognized disability under the ADA and that the company violated the law with its policy that bans any driver who admits alcohol abuse from driving again. The EEOC wants the company to reinstate Grams and another affected driver to their previous positions and provide them with back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits. The EEOC is also seeking to block the company’s alcohol-related policy.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Grams, who had been with Old Dominion for five years without incident, informed the company in June 2009 that he believed he had an alcohol problem. The company suspended him from his driving position, which paid him nearly $22 per hour, including benefits. In compliance with U.S. Transportation Department regulations, Grams met with a substance abuse professional who notified the company that Grams would participate in an outpatient treatment program and could return to work. But Old Dominion told Grams that he wouldn’t be allowed to drive again for the company and instead offered him a part-time position as a dock worker as soon as it became available. The position paid $12 per hour without benefits, the lawsuit alleges.

The EEOC contends that the company’s actions deprived Grams and other affected drivers of “equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, in violation of the ADA.”
“Grams is a qualified individual with a disability under ADA … who can perform the essential functions of a driving position,” the suit says, adding that Grams and other employees wouldn’t need treatment to perform non-driving duties.

If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination in the workplace or had your job terminated based upon a disability, including alcoholism or substance abuse, feel free to call Scott Behren and the Behren Law Firm for a free consultation about your legal rights.

Share

As many of you know from my prior postings, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires all non-exempt hourly employees to be paid for all time worked on an hourly basis and for all overtime worked at time and a half. This includes all work off the clock. Just because your employer tells you to work before punching in and or after punching out does not make it right or legal under the FLSA. In addition, if you are forced to work during your lunch break, you are required to be paid for that time and if it puts you over forty hours per week, then you are entitled to overtime.

Well apparently, someone in Walt Disney World’s vast legal department has not been carefully watching its cast and its supervisors. Since it agreed to pay dozens of clerks $433,000 in back pay for work performed before and after their normal shifts, according to Business Week magazine.

A report said Disney will pay the money to 69 employees of its food and beverage department in its theme park after the company was determined to have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Their work was also performed during meal times, the magazine reported, and managers were not guiding employees according to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

So don’t work without getting paid for it. If you suspect your employer is not paying you correctly get it checked out by the U.S. Department of Labor, who enforces the FLSA, or an employment attorney that handles FLSA cases.

Share
Search
Categories
Links: