Tag Archives: Discrimination

by | April 30, 2014 · 8:38 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Update: “Three Fired Workers Sue Comfort Inn in South Portland”

“…Parker’s lawsuit alleges she was closely scrutinized and was falsely accused of wrongdoing after reporting the harassment. She was fired in February 2011 for violating the hotel’s confidentiality policy. Image The lawsuit alleges she was discriminated against because of her age, which is now 69…”

Three former employees have sued the Comfort Inn in South Portland, alleging they were fired after reporting sexual harassment by a hotel maintenance worker.

The women allege in three separate lawsuits that they faced discrimination and were subsequently fired, all in 2011, after reporting that one of them was repeatedly sexually harassed by the male worker.

For more: http://bit.ly/1koKgyP

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Update: “Three Fired Workers Sue Comfort Inn in South Portland”

Filed under Employee Practices, Hotel Employees, Hotel Industry, Management And Ownership

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

by | September 23, 2013 · 5:47 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Restaurant Operator Sued By EEOC For “Religious Discrimination”; Fired Woman For Wearing Skirts As Part Of Her Pentecostal Church Beliefs

“…(the employee, Sheila Silver, was) a member of the Pentecostal church (and believed) women should wear skirts in accordance with this EEOCreligious belief…Silver worked for various Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants since 1992.  Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home purchased the KFC restaurant where Silver worked in April 2013.  At that time, they informed Silver she must wear pants to work because of their dress code policy.  Silver told Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home she could not wear pants because of her religious beliefs.  The companies ultimately fired her for refusing to wear pants to work…”

Scottish Food Systems, Inc. and Laurinburg KFC Take Home, Inc., two North Carolina corporations that operate a chain of Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in eastern North Carolina, violated federal law by failing to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and firing her because of her religion, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed today.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employees’ due to their religious beliefs as long as doing so does not pose an undue hardship.  The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (EEOC v. Scottish Food Systems, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken and Laurinburg KFC Take Home, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken, Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00796) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.  The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

“Employers must respect employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs and carefully consider requests made by employees based on those beliefs,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office, which includes the EEOC’s Raleigh Area Office, where the charge of discrimination was filed. “This case demonstrates the EEOC’s continued commitment to fighting religious discrimination in the workplace.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment.  Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-19-13c.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Restaurant Operator Sued By EEOC For “Religious Discrimination”; Fired Woman For Wearing Skirts As Part Of Her Pentecostal Church Beliefs

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | September 7, 2013 · 7:12 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Oregon Restaurant Sued For “Racial Discrimination”, Retaliation; Claims “Intentional Bias, Visceral Antagonism”

“…The suit says (the plaintiff) reported Counard’s conduct and “visceral antagonism” to other managers…he was suspended based on an Hospitality Industry Discrimination Lawsuitsallegation that he had told a server to rinse and serve a skewer of shrimp that had fallen on the floor…A month later, after an investigation in which Huleis was not interviewed, he was fired…The lawsuit claims Huleis’ treatment was intentional, was part of a pattern of discrimination against minority employees and was done with a reckless disregard for the company’s societal obligations…”

A Eugene man who says he was fired from his job at the Eugene Red Lobster restaurant because he is of Middle Eastern descent has filed a lawsuit against the chain in federal court. Jim Huleis, who came to Eugene in 2011 to help open a Red Lobster outlet near Valley River Center, seeks unspecified damages on claims of racial discrimination and retaliation. He alleges an area manager who disliked that Huleis was Arab singled him out for bad treatment to discredit and ultimately fire him.

The lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction barring Red Lobster’s parent company, Florida-based GMRI Inc., from discriminating against people based on race or national origin. It also asks for an award compensating Huleis for his economic losses, including his past and future earnings, and for reinstatement to his job.

In addition, the suit asks for compensation for noneconomic damages and punitive damages and for an award covering his legal costs.

“We are a company known for greatly valuing diversity and have zero tolerance for any form of discrimination, so we take any claim like this very seriously,” Bernstein said in an e-mailed statement. “If there are differences between employees and our company during or after employment, the mutual goal is to resolve these issues in a prompt and fair way, and to do that we have a robust dispute resolution process, which includes mediation and arbitration. Mr. Huleis is pursuing this matter through that process.”

According to the suit, Counard immediately treated Huleis different from other managers, giving him inappropriate tasks, minimizing him and barring him from duties he would usually perform.

For more:  http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/30417354-75/huleis-eugene-lobster-red-says.html.csp

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Oregon Restaurant Sued For “Racial Discrimination”, Retaliation; Claims “Intentional Bias, Visceral Antagonism”

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | July 12, 2013 · 6:12 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Maryland Hotel Group Sued By EEOC For “Pay Discrimination Based On Sex”; “Female Worker Paid Lower Wages”

“…Despite her years of similar experience at another hotel before she started work at Extended Stay Hotels and her five years of good job EEOCperformance at the hotel, the hotel paid newly hired male employees more money than it paid to Weaver, even though they performed substantially equal work, the EEOC charged. According to the lawsuit, the hotel paid a class of female guest services representatives lower wages than those paid to their male counterparts for performing equal work…”

A leading hotel chain, Extended Stay Hotels, unlawfully paid female employees lower wages than those paid to male employees for performing equal work, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today. According to the EEOC’s suit, Latoya Weaver worked as a guest services representative at the hotel’s Lexington Park, Md., location. Her duties included answering the telephone, making reservations and checking guests in and out.

Such alleged conduct violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. HVM L.L.C., D/B/A Extended Stay Hotels, Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-01980) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief prohibiting Extended Stay Hotels from paying female employees less compensation than their male counterparts for performing equal work, equitable relief that provides equal employment opportunities for women, as well as lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages and other affirmative relief for Weaver and other similarly situated female employees who were harmed by the hotel’s discriminatory conduct.

“Although we have made great strides in narrowing the wage gap between men and women, this case demonstrates that pay discrimination remains a serious problem in the workplace,” said District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office.

EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, “It is disturbing that even as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the EPA, some employers persist in paying women less than men for equal work simply because of their gender. The EEOC will take vigorous action to remedy sex-based wage discrimination.”

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-11-13a.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Maryland Hotel Group Sued By EEOC For “Pay Discrimination Based On Sex”; “Female Worker Paid Lower Wages”

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

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | July 3, 2013 · 12:21 pm

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Franchise Restaurant Sued By EEOC For “Pregnancy Discrimination”; Refused To Hire Woman Who Was Six Months Pregnant

“…(the plaintiff) interviewed for a team member position with the restaurant’s owner at the restaurant around Nov. 16, 2012…at the time of the interview Morrison was six months pregnant.  During the interview, the owner asked Morrison a series of pregnancy-related questions such as EEOChow many months she had been pregnant; when she was expected to deliver; her childcare plans after giving birth; and how much maternity leave she planned to take…”

“Working women who choose to have children cannot be penalized or treated differently from other employees simply because they are pregnant,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office.  “Employers must remember that refusing to hire a woman because she is pregnant violates federal law, and the EEOC will enforce that law.”

A Chick-fil-A franchise restaurant violated federal law when it refused to hire a female job applicant because she was pregnant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, John Charping, d/b/a Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons, refused to hire Heather Morrison because she was pregnant.    Although Morrison felt that the owner’s questions were inappropriate, she answered them because she wanted the job.  Three days after the interview, the owner called Morrison and informed her that she would not be hired.  The owner told Morrison to call back after she had the baby and had childcare in place.  The EEOC argues that Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons denied Morrison a job because she was pregnant.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).  The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. John Charping d/b/a Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons, Civil Action No.1:13-CV-00535), after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through the agency’s conciliation process.  The suit seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Morrison, as well as injunctive relief.

EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Tina Burnside added, “Pregnant women must be treated in the same manner as other applicants, and employers should not make inquiries related to pregnancy or deny a woman a job based on pregnancy.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-2-13a.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Franchise Restaurant Sued By EEOC For “Pregnancy Discrimination”; Refused To Hire Woman Who Was Six Months Pregnant

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 1, 2013 · 1:02 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Arizona Restaurant Settles “Disability Discrimination Lawsuit” For $65,000; Server With Traumatic Brain Injury Was Fired By New Manager

“…(the plaintiff) worked tirelessly to be a good server after suffering a traumatic brain injury. The ADA prohibits EEOCemployers like Outback from firing individuals like John who add so much to the workplace…”

Outback Steakhouse will pay $65,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, EEOC v. OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC d/b/a Outback Steakhouse and OS Restaurant Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-01754-NVW, charged Outback with firing server John Woods days after a new manager took over at Outback’s Phoenix Metrocenter location. According to the EEOC’s suit, John Woods had worked successfully under Outback’s prior manager, but a new manager terminated Woods because of his disability, traumatic brain injury.

Disability discrimination violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court of Arizona after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

After the court denied Outback’s motion for summary judgment, Outback agreed to a 24-month consent decree that requires the company to pay Woods $65,000; revise its policies concerning disability discrimination; train its Arizona managers on the laws prohibiting disability discrimination; and post notices in Arizona Outback Steakhouses regarding employees’ rights under the ADA.

“Managers cannot fire employees because of their mistaken beliefs about what individuals with disabilities can accomplish,” EEOC Phoenix District Director Rayford Irvin said. “We are pleased with the resolution of this case, and we are hopeful that this agreement will help prevent discrimination in the workplace going forward.”

For more:  http://www.natlawreview.com/article/outback-steakhouse-to-pay-65000-to-settle-eeoc-disability-discrimination-lawsuit

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Arizona Restaurant Settles “Disability Discrimination Lawsuit” For $65,000; Server With Traumatic Brain Injury Was Fired By New Manager

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Injuries, 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 12, 2013 · 6:31 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Hotel And Restaurant Management Must Conduct Criminal Background Checks To Avoid “Negligent Hiring Lawsuits”; Screening Must Be Relevant To Job Description To Avoid Discrimination

“…Hospitality employers (conduct criminal-background checks) to avoid negligent hiring lawsuits – a lawsuit from a guest or customer, for example, based on a hotel’s failure to properly screen an employee who later does Hospitality Industry Criminal Background Checks (2)harm…for each job description, (management) should prepare a memo that describes the relevance of, and need for, such information and how it is related to the particular job description…it is inconsistency in the selection of what type of background check each applicant gets that can often get employers sued for discrimination…”

According to some studies, over 90% of employers conduct criminal-background checks for some job applicants and over 70% of employers conduct background checks on all potential new hires. This includes many hospitality-industry employers. Most decision-makers want information about criminal behavior and other related data before bringing a candidate into the organization.

For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and some states are taking the position that, given the disproportionate rate of minorities that are arrested and convicted of crimes, an employer’s policy of disqualifying all applicants with criminal history can have a discriminatory impact on minority candidates and thereby violate Title VII’s discrimination laws.

Each state has its own position on the use of arrest and conviction records. Even when abiding by those parameters, there is still the need for a comprehensive, consistent set of procedures regarding the use of criminal history to avoid claims of discrimination. The key here is to identify by job description prior to hiring candidates, what kind of criminal background information (including how many years back) the company will look for and to ensure that the same level of background check is done for every applicant for that position.

Establishing a policy and procedure to make sure each applicant for a job description gets the same background check and having a defensible job-related justification for the relevancy and need for the information for each job position is critical to defending against future discrimination claims.

For more:  http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/225564/employee+rights+labour+relations/And+By+The+Way+Are+You+A+Criminal

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Hotel And Restaurant Management Must Conduct Criminal Background Checks To Avoid “Negligent Hiring Lawsuits”; Screening Must Be Relevant To Job Description To Avoid Discrimination

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

Tagged as , , , , , ,