Category Archives: Employment Practices Liability

by | June 27, 2013 · 6:25 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Massachusetts Restaurant Faces “Disabilities Lawsuit” After Terminating Employee With Cystic Fibrosis

“…(the plaintiff) claims she told her boss on March 28, 2012, that she would be late for work the Hospitality Industry ADA Lawsuitsfollowing day since “a nurse would be coming to her house to draw blood to check her medication levels.”…That was the first time Connell had mentioned her cystic fibrosis to any of her supervisors, the lawsuit says. It does state, though, that a manager overseeing her was aware of her cystic fibrosis and was encouraged to keep that information private…”

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. was sued on Monday by a former employee claiming the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. According to the Boston Business Journal, the plaintiff, Amanda Connell, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. Connell has cystic fibrosis and was hired to work for the company in December 2011. She worked as a crew member at the Franklin, Mass., location.

When she showed up for work on March 29, 2012, with a shunt showing partly in her arm — it was for a “peripherally inserted central catheter” — the suit says she was questioned by her boss and another manager. Connell explained that it was “for the treatment of lung disease.”

According to the suit, Connell was terminated from her job at Chipotle Mexican grill the next day.

The company has declined to comment on the incident with a spokesman saying they will not speak, pending legal action.

For more:  http://www.ibtimes.com/former-employee-sues-chipotle-after-she-says-she-was-fired-having-cystic-fibrosis-1324995

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Massachusetts Restaurant Faces “Disabilities Lawsuit” After Terminating Employee With Cystic Fibrosis

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | June 21, 2013 · 6:26 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: South Carolina Hotel And Manager Sued For “Sexual Harassment”; Created “Hostile Environment”, Failed To Discipline

“…(the plaintiffs) claim Charleston Plaza “woefully failed in its duty” to provide a non-hostile and productive work environment free from Hospitality Industry Harassment Lawsuitssexual harassment by failing to discipline, monitor or take appropriate action against Lewis when it first learned of his sexual harassment…Charleston Plaza failed in its duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising the employment of Lewis and by failing to act in a reasonable manner to prevent subsequent tortious conduct from occurring; failed to make clear to its employees that the company took its sexual harassment policy seriously; and negligently, recklessly and intentionally retained Lewis as an employee and exposed (plaintiffs) to Lewis’ offensive conduct, according to the suits…”

Two women say their former employer caused a hostile work environment and caused them damages. Penta Charleston B LLC, which is doing business as Charleston Plaza Hotel, and Andrew Lewis were named as defendants in the suit.

From 2011 to 2012, Lewis created a hostile work environment by making grabbing Cassandra Chapman and Marie Foster in front of hotel guests’ making lewd and sexual comments  about guests and co-workers; and making racial comments about African-American co-workers, according to a complaint filed May 30 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Chapman and Foster claim they continually expressed to the district manager that Lewis’ sexual comments were unwelcome and unwanted and that his abusive conduct was interfering with their ability to adequately perform their jobs.

For more:  http://wvrecord.com/news/260766-women-say-charleston-plaza-hotel-is-a-hostile-work-environment

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: South Carolina Hotel And Manager Sued For “Sexual Harassment”; Created “Hostile Environment”, Failed To Discipline

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | June 7, 2013 · 5:51 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Hotel Management Must Evaluate And Prepare For Potential “Punitive Damage Claims” In Lawsuits Arising From Privacy, Over Service Of Alcohol And Criminal Actions Of Employees

“…the No. 1 priority is effective case evaluation and resolution. Early factual investigation is critical in determining what happened, why it happened and who was involved. Knowing and preserving the correct version of facts and events with effective reporting mechanisms is essential Hospitality Industry Lawsuitto knowing what kind of claim possibly can be presented and what kind of exposure exists…”

“…it is critical to evaluate the potential punitive exposure early and assess the potential for a punitive claim to get to a jury. Always consider the risk that punitive damages may get to a jury, how a jury will receive the evidence and whether your hotel could be punished by a jury that is attempting to make a statement that these incidents will not be tolerated…”

Hoteliers may face the problematic public-relations case that contains a punitive damages claim. These claims include: invasion of privacy, inappropriate surveillance, over service of alcohol, and criminal actions of employees and third parties. These cases are difficult for members of the hospitality industry who pride themselves on showing customers a positive experience, want good feedback and want customers to return to their hotel.

Securing and preserving evidence, which includes photographs, videos, an accident report, incident statement and/or witness statements must be undertaken to document what the incident involves. If photographs and videos are not preserved once a hotel has notice of a claim, a court could instruct the jury that they can infer the hotel destroyed the evidence for a reason. It is critical to use technology to best find and preserve evidence. No potential accident can be overlooked as a hospitality group never knows what accidents can turn into a possible lawsuit.

For more:  http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles.aspx/10625/How-to-respond-to-punitive-damages-claims

2 Comments

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | June 6, 2013 · 6:15 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Maryland Restaurant Owner Faces “Sexual Harassment And Retaliation” Charges In Lawsuit Filed By EEOC

“…the EEOC seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Basta Pasta from engaging in sexual harassment or retaliation, as well as lost wages and compensatory and punitive damages for Smith, Doe, Kokkinakos and other similarly-situated female employees, and other affirmative EEOCrelief…’No employee, male or female, should have to endure being subjected to offensive sexual comments and touching in order to earn a living, but the unlawful harassment is even more vile and intolerable when it includes sexual assaults by a company owner’…”

SPOA, LLC, which runs the Italian restaurants Basta Pasta in Fallston and Lutherville-Timonium, Md., subjected female employees to flagrant sexual harassment and fired a manager who complained about the harassment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The EEOC alleged that the restaurant owner repeatedly subjected female employees, some of whom were teenagers, to unwelcome and offensive sexual harassment, including touching them on their buttocks, lower backs and shoulders; rubbing his genitalia against the buttocks of female employees; leering at female employees and making comments about their bodies, including calling them “sexy” or “hot;” making sexually suggestive remarks and crude sexual innuendos; and asking for massages.

The EEOC further charged that the owner pressured female employees to have alcoholic drinks at the end of their shifts and acted offended if they did not stay and drink.  The EEOC alleges that the owner gave one female employee, “Mary Smith,” alcohol, causing her to pass out and later wake up vomiting, and that Smith believed the owner drugged her in an attempt to sexually assault her.  The EEOC also charged that the owner took another female employee, “Jane Doe,” to his house, purportedly to talk about a management opportunity, but instead Doe believes he drugged and sexually assaulted her.  (Given the public interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims and attempted sexual assault victims, the EEOC is utilizing pseudonyms.)

The sexual harassment was so intolerable that these two employees felt compelled to quit their jobs, the EEOC says in the lawsuit.  Jane Doe was 18 years old when she started working for the company and 21 years old when she was forced to quit her job due to the sexual harassment.

The EEOC also charges that a restaurant manager, Dimitra Kokkinakos, had complained to management about the owner’s sexually offensive behavior but the company failed to take action to stop the harassment.  After learning that Kokkinakos had been in touch with Jane Doe, the restaurant warned Kokkinakos to “keep her mouth shut” and fired her in retaliation for her opposition to the sexual harassment.  The restaurant also threatened Kokkinakos when she participated in the EEOC investigation, including pressuring her to recant her testimony, according to the lawsuit.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-5-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Maryland Restaurant Owner Faces “Sexual Harassment And Retaliation” Charges In Lawsuit Filed By EEOC

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

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | June 5, 2013 · 6:33 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Texas Restaurant Group Faces “Wage Violation Class-Action Lawsuit” Over Tip Sharing, Food Discount Deductions

“…(the lawsuit) alleges that a Rainforest Cafes policy illegally required servers to share their tips with some employees who were not part of the wait staff…(plaintiffs were forced) to split tips with hosts, who do not qualify as wait staff because they do not serve food or beverages, or clear Hospitality Industry Wage Violation Lawsuitstables…The suit also targets a “discount program” at Rainforest Cafe that deducts a flat fee from employee paychecks to cover any drinks consumed at work and provides a discount on food…the deduction is too high and violates state law by requiring employees to pay more for food than it costs the employer…”

A Boston law firm filed a suit seeking class-action status Monday against one of the nation’s largest restaurant groups alleging the company’s Rainforest Cafe in Burlington violated state wage laws. Two servers employed at the Rainforest Cafe since 1998 are named plaintiffs in the case. Hundreds of workers might qualify for damages, according attorney Hillary Schwab of Fair Work, P.C.

The defendant, Landry’s Inc., is the Houston parent company of more than 40 restaurants chains across the county with total US sales of about $1.67 billion last year, according to restaurant industry research firm Technomic. Landry’s, run by chief executive Tilman J. Fertitta, a Houston billionaire, owns a number of restaurants groups with a presence in Massachusetts, including Morton’s The Steakhouse, Chart House, McCormick & Schmick’s, and the Oceanaire Seafood Room.

The plaintiffs are seeking restitution for all gratuities not received, wages not paid in full, money deducted from pay, and all court and attorney fees. Schwab said she will attempt to determine whether the tip practice is limited to the Rainforest Cafe or is a Landry’s corporate policy that might affect other restaurants in the state.

For more:  http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/06/03/rainforest-cafe-servers-sue-restaurant-over-tip-policy/IOwix0twRIooe1FP8Cz4fJ/story.html

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Texas Restaurant Group Faces “Wage Violation Class-Action Lawsuit” Over Tip Sharing, Food Discount Deductions

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , ,