Posts Tagged ‘EEOC’
We have blogged in the past about the Family Medical Leave Act which allows you to take up to twelve weeks off, of unpaid leave, to address a family pregnancy, adoption, illness or death. Upon returning to work, your employer is required to make sure your job or one substantially the same is still available. One problem, though, is that the Federal law only covers employers with at least 50 employees. This can be problematic for many employees of smaller companies with no comparable state law protections, case in point, Claudia Rendon of Philadelphia.
Claudia Rendon, 41, of Philadelphia, said her employer, Aviation Institute of Maintenance, fired her after she took time off to donate a kidney to her son.
Rendon, who worked for a year and a half in the school’s admissions office, said she notified the school that she planned to take leave on July 19 to undergo kidney transplant surgery on July 21 at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania on behalf of her 22-year-old son, Alex, whose kidney failed last January. After extensive testing in early July, Rendon was found to be a match.
Kidney transplant surgery normally requires at least six to eight weeks of recovery time, and Rendon said the Aviation Institute agreed to give Rendon unpaid leave until Sept. 1. Rendon told ABCNews.com that on her last day of work before the surgery, her manager promised Rendon she would have her job upon her return, but one hour later, asked her to sign a letter acknowledging that her job was not secured.
“They said, ‘If you don’t sign this letter, you are abandoning your job and quitting,’” Rendon told ABCNews.com. “I said, ‘I am not abandoning my job. I am saving my son’s life.’”
The fact that the FMLA does not cover Ms. Rendon does not necessarily mean she is out of luck, there is also a possibility that she can bring claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act or relevant disability insurance policies.
If you find yourself wrongfully terminated, speak to an employment lawyer to learn your legal rights. Feel free to call Scott M. Behren and the Behren Law Firm for a free consultation.
In the interim, everyone should send hate mail to the wonderful people at Aviation Institute of Maintenance in Philadelphia.
This blog frequently blogs about sexual harassment in the workplace and the remedies available to employee where they experience sexual harassment.
Well, the television show, “The Price Is Right” has now been accused of sexual harassment in the workplace. A former model on “The Price Is Right” game show filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging wrongful termination and sexual harassment by producers who continually humiliated and berated her, according to court papers.
Lanisha Cole names the producers of the popular game show, Michael G. Richards and Adam Sandler as well as their production company, Fremantle Media North America.
Cole began working on “The Price Is Right” in 2003 but beginning in December 2009, the situation began to deteriorate when Richards suddenly and inexplicably stopped speaking to Cole and began showing favoritism to another model with whom he was having a relationship, the suit alleges.
According to the court papers, Richards used policies “which never before existed” to limit her modeling work on the show and engaged in abusive behavior.
While called into a meeting about alleged sexual harassment involving another model, Cole complained about her own treatment.
Months later, Cole informed management she had to miss a day of work because of a family commitment and was told she would not be able to work for that week, the lawsuit says.
When she returned, she was told she was “holding the show hostage” because of her complaint.
We will continue to keep you posted on any developments in this new lawsuit. In the meantime, if you have problems with sexual harassment in the workplace, go to Human Resources or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to make a Complaint. If that does not work or the problems become worse, speak to an employment lawyer that handles sexual harassment matters. Feel free to call Scott Behren and the Behren Law Firm for a free consultation.
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.
Dustin Hoffman in the Graduate was told just one word, “Plastics.” However, plastics did not appear to be a good business decision for several employees of plastic company Promens USA.
Promens USA Inc. has agreed to pay $225,000 to four women to settle a sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC has announced.
The women worked at the former Bonar Plastics rotational molding plant in West Chicago, Ill., that was acquired by Promens hf, based in Kópavogur, Iceland, in 2005.
EEOC said the violations occurred during the five years that Promens owned the factory.
The women, who were employed in the finishing department in West Chicago, filed discrimination charges with EEOC in 2007, which sued Promens on their behalf last fall.
The women alleged that a Promens supervisor “repeatedly propositioned temporary female workers,” EEOC said in a news release announcing the settlement. When the women rejected the supervisor’s advances, he fired them.
“This pattern of quid pro quo harassment continued until Promens USA fired this supervisor in July 2010 after yet another woman complained of sexual harassment,” EEOC said.
When EEOC investigated, the agency also found that Promens USA excluded women from jobs in the rotomolding department, which paid more than the finishing department.
The EEOC stated that “Employers should take notice that women cannot be excluded from a class of jobs based on stereotypes about their physical strength of assumed lack of interest. The EEOC uncovered evidence that Promens systematically excluded women from higher-paid positions as machine operators,” Hendrickson said. “Federal law plainly forbids work force segregation on the basis of sex.”
If you believe you have been subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace, speak to your human resources department. If your concerns are not addressed, go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or an attorney that handles employment law cases.
If you have been subjected to sexual harassment or believe you have suffered discrimination in the workplace, call Scott Behren and the Behren Law Firm for a consultation.
Long time no blog, now that summer vacation is over its time to getting back to updating my readers on whats the latest and greatest in employment law issues. A fitness companies recent settlement with the EEOC, shows that sexual harassment of employees is bad and even worse is when you retaliate against them rather than attempt to remedy their complaints of discrimination and harassment.
Allstar Fitness, Seattle, has agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The agency claimed that a Latina janitorial worker who worked at two Allstar Fitness clubs in Seattle was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her immediate supervisor. The EEOC also said that the supervisor forced her to have sex with him on a regular basis and warned her to keep quiet about it.
When the worker told the supervisor not to harass her anymore, he fired her the next day, according to the EEOC investigation. After she reported the supervisor to the company’s upper management, the EEOC and the worker claim that Allstar Fitness failed to investigate the matter and expressed disbelief in her allegations.
The EEOC filed the lawsuit in July 2010 on behalf of the 38-year-old worker, a mother of three.
EEOC District Director Michael Baldonado said the settlement will ensure that Allstar Fitness implements employee training, written workplace policies and a complaint procedure “to help prevent this from happening again.”
“No one should be forced to choose between personal dignity and the paycheck that feeds your family,” Baldonado said.
If you believe you have been subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace report it to your Human Resources Department or the EEOC. If the situation does not get fixed or if you suffer retaliation as a result, speak with a lawyer that handles employment law matters. Feel free to consult with the Behren Law Firm and Scott Behren on these types of issues.
College View Donuts, LLP paid $290,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the EEOC charged that a manager of a Wynantskill Dunkin’ Donuts store sexually harassed female employees.
The EEOC said at the time the suit was filed in November 2009 there may have been as many as 15 victims, some of whom were 16 or 17 years old. The manager was fired after the harassment allegations surfaced, but the EEOC said store management allowed the manager to continue harassing employees for a year after two employees first complained.
The manager engaged in unwanted touching and hugging, as well as making lewd sexual comments, the EEOC said.
College View Donuts will pay $290,000 to the former employees and has agreed to a six-year consent decree that calls for appointing an equal employment opportunity coordinator and for all employees and managers to undergo sexual harassment prevention training. The settlement was announced Tuesday.
If you believe you have been the victim of sexual harassment by a supervisor, you probably want to take it to your Human Resources Department in order to address and/or investigate it. If you continue the experience problems, speak with an experienced employment law attorney. You can call Scott M. Behren and the Behren Law Firm for a free consultation.
As you all may know, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from discriminating or terminating an employee based upon a disability or perceived disability. One question that came up in Florida Court is whether it is a violation of the ADA to require employees to participate in wellness programs or face an insurance premium surcharge.
In 2009, Broward County, Florida implemented a wellness program for its employees. The program required participants to take a health assessment test and produce a blood sample to determine glucose and cholesterol levels. Those who didn’t participate had a $20 surcharge on health plan premiums.
Broward County employee Bradley Seff filed a class-action complaint, alleging that the county’s wellness incentives violated the ADA. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the lawsuit, saying, “The wellness program is not a subterfuge; it was not designed to evade the purpose of the ADA. Rather, it is a valid term of a benefits plan that falls within the ambit of the ADA’s safe harbor provision.”
The court noted that the two requirements of the safe harbor provision were met in this case:
(1) that the party in question be a bona fide benefit plan
(2) that the provision in question be based on underwriting, classifying, or administering risk and not be used as a subterfuge for discrimination.
The EEOC has suggested informally that a wellness program that is mandatory or involves a penalty may violate the ADA, although it has not issued any formal guidance.
If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination at the workplace based upon a disability, feel free to call Scott Behren and Behren Law firm for a free consultation.
Here is a copy of the decision of the Federal Court in Bradley Seff v. Broward County.
For those of you who have seen the movie “Waiting”, when I read this post, visions of “The Bat” kept coming to my mind. Anyone who has seen the movie will recall what I am talking about and those who have not, check the movie out it is a very funny look at behind the scenes in the restaurant industry.
That being said, this week the EEOC advised Flemings Prime something that is probably good business sense, don’t flick your co-workers genitals. Whether these co-workers be male or female.
The EEOC announced that Fleming’s Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar, at DC Ranch in Scottsdale, Ariz., will pay nearly a quarter million dollars and furnish other relief to settle a same-sex sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
Read the rest of this entry »
You may recall that I have blogged recently about EEOC complaints that credit checks on job applicants is potentially a violation of Federal discrimination laws. Well now there has been a class action lawsuit filed against the University of Miami based upon the credit checks it performs on job applicants.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Loudy Appolon of Miami, Florida, accuses the University of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by rejecting or firing qualified individuals because of their credit background, even though credit history does not predict employment performance. In fact, there is no correlation between credit history and job performance or trustworthiness, and credit reports are often rife with inaccuracies.
Samuel R. Miller, a senior attorney at Outten & Golden LLP, said, “By all accounts, Ms. Appolon was well-qualified for the position – that’s why the University of Miami offered her the job. But instead of evaluating Ms. Appolon on an individual basis, as a person who – like many Americans today – may have struggled with and overcome some personal financial difficulties, and who showed promise to be an excellent employee, the Hospital stigmatized her based on her credit history. When companies act this way, they make it impossible for Americans to break the cycle of lending and bad credit, rebuild their lives, and contribute to their families and communities. And the employers hurt themselves by losing out on some of their best potential workers.”
Sarah Crawford, counsel with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, stated, “The University of Miami’s policies and practices are illegal because they adopt and perpetuate the racial disparities in the credit system. We see this problem occurring in private and public employment across the country, despite the fact that employers, credit reporting agencies, and researchers have found no link between credit history and job performance. At a time when unemployment rates are skyrocketing, particularly for minority jobseekers, this unjustified and discriminatory practice only exacerbates the problem. Employers need to know that the practice is discriminatory and must end.” Ms. Crawford testified about the discriminatory effects of credit checks at an October 20, 2010 hearing of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
According to the Complaint, “Defendants’ hiring policy duplicates the racial discrimination present in the credit reporting system . . . This discriminatory denial of employment affects not only the individuals who are rejected or terminated, but also their families and entire communities, replicating minority under-employment and compounding credit inequities in the process.”
The lawsuit alleges that Ms. Appolon interviewed for a senior medical collector position with the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine in June 2009. She was offered the position, but the day before she was due to start her new job — after she had already resigned from her previous job — the University informed Ms. Appolon that she would not be hired because of her credit history. “I was shocked,” says Ms. Appolon. “I’ve worked in this industry for years, and my credit was never a problem.”
The case is “Loudy Appolon v. University of Miami, et al.” Class Action Complaint No. 1:10-cv-24166, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.
If you have been denied a job based upon a background check on your credit history, you may want to speak with an employment lawyer to discuss your available legal remedies. Behren Law Firm can assist you with these types of issues.
More and more in the news today, there is frequent coverage of sexual harassment lawsuits. In most cases, these involve an employee and one of their employer’s employees. However, recent cases indicate that employers may also be responsible for sexual harassment of third parties and/or customers if they are aware of the harassment but fail to remedy or address it.
On September 27, 2010, the EEOC filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Beacon Hill Investments Corp., which does business as Synergy Home Care, on behalf of a group of female employees assigned to care for one of the employer’s home bound male clients. The female employees’ duties included sleeping at the client’s home overnight. The client allegedly fondled the female employees, made suggestive comments to them, and accosted them in their sleep. The employees allegedly complained to several managers and requested to be transferred. The employer is accused of ignoring their complaints and failing to take any remedial action. The female workers then quit, allegedly because of the employer’s inaction.
The EEOC claims that, by failing to take prompt remedial action in response to the female employees’ complaints, Synergy Home Care subjected them to a sexually hostile work environment and constructively discharged them. The EEOC seeks permanent injunctions against Synergy Home Care to prevent future discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and an order that Synergy Home Care institute policies and programs to provide equal employment opportunities for women which eradicate the effect of the alleged discrimination. The EEOC also seeks damages for the female employees, including: backpay; frontpay; out-of-pocket losses, such as job search expenses; pain and suffering; loss of enjoyment of life; and punitive damages.
Many employers and managers may not realize that, as the above-mentioned lawsuit urges, an employer may be “responsible for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace.” 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e). For an employer to be liable for non-employee harassment, the employee must show that: (i) he or she was subjected to unlawful harassment on the basis of his or her sex; (ii) the harassment was unwelcome; (iii) the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to affect a term, condition, or privilege of his or her employment, and (iv) the employer knew or reasonably should have known about the harassment by the third-party and failed to take prompt remedial action.
So in the event you, as an employee, are sexually harassed by your employer or third parties such as their customers, and the employer has knowledge of what is taking place, you may want to file a complaint with the EEOC or contact and experienced employment lawyer to address these issues.