Tag Archives: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

by | July 24, 2013 · 5:37 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Hotel Group Settles “Religious Discrimination” Lawsuit With EEOC For $45,000; Refused To Provide “Religious Accomodation” To Employee

“…The EEOC’s suit charged that the hotel group refused to provide Claudia Neal, a Seventh-Day Adventist, with a religious accommodation of not having to work on her Sabbath, which is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday.  Neal began EEOCworking at the hotel in May 2009.  Initially, Neal’s request not to work on her Sabbath was honored.  However, a change in management occurred in October 2010, and in November of that year, the hotel group refused to provide her with a religious accommodation, and fired her…”

A hotel group which owns and operates the Comfort Inn Oceanfront South in Nags Head, N.C., has agreed to pay $45,000 and provide substantial additional relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion.  The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Landmark Hotel Group, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Dare Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Jain and Associates, LP d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; and JRS Partners, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-158) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to providing monetary relief to Neal, the hotel group will implement policies designed to prevent religious discrimination and conduct training on anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws.  The hotel group will also provide reports to the EEOC regarding future requests for religious accommodation.

“Employers need to understand their obligation to balance the conduct of their business with employees’ needs and rights to practice their religion,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “Where there is minimal impact on the business, those religious needs must be accommodated.  No person should ever be forced to choose between her religion and her job.”

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-23-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Hotel Group Settles “Religious Discrimination” Lawsuit With EEOC For $45,000; Refused To Provide “Religious Accomodation” To Employee

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

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 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 | 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 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 | 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 , , , , , ,

by | January 23, 2013 · 8:11 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Texas Restaurant Group Settles EEOC “Religious Discrimination Lawsuit” For $25,000; Female Employee Prevented From Wearing Skirt To Work

“…Fries Restaurant Management has  agreed to pay Ashanti McShan $20,000 for “mental anguish and non-wage damages” and an additional $5,000 in lost wages…The restaurant management company also EEOCagreed to post its policy against religious discrimination on employee bulletin boards in every Burger King it operates in the state of Texas…”

A Burger King in Texas has agreed to pay $25,000 to a Pentecostal womanwho wore a skirt to work, court documents state. The payment settles a lawsuit filed in August by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Fries Restaurant Management, LLC, which owns and operates the Burger King in Grand Prairie, Texas. The store allegedly asked a teenage woman to leave work after she arrived in a skirt. The EEOC’s lawsuit against Fries alleged religious discrimination, which is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964.

In addition, it vowed to hold trainings for managers on federal anti-discrimination laws for the next two years, according to the documents.

McShan was a senior in high school when she came to work at the Burger King wearing a skirt instead of the black pants that are part of Burger King’s uniform.

In August 2010, McShan asked to wear a skirt instead of the restaurant’s uniform pants. Burger King “assured her that she could wear a skirt to work,” the filing says.

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Texas Restaurant Group Settles EEOC “Religious Discrimination Lawsuit” For $25,000; Female Employee Prevented From Wearing Skirt To Work

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

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | January 19, 2013 · 8:17 am

Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: Wisconsin Restaurant Settles EEOC “Sexual Harassment And Retaliation Lawsuit” For $41,000; Companies Must Take “Immediate And Effective Action To Stop It”

“The Supreme Court has held that when an employer learns of sexual harassment, it must take immediate and effective action to stop it…Employers who don’t protect their workers should know that the federal EEOCgovernment will enforce the national policy against sexual abuse in the workplace…retaliation complaints have been the fastest-increasing type of complaint filed with the EEOC over the past 10 years…”

A Merrill, Wis., restaurant will pay $41,000 and furnish other relief  under a consent decree entered by the federal court in a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s suit (EEOC and Sherry L. Brown v. Merrill Pine Ridge LLC, et al., No. 3:11-cv-589), one of the cooks at New Pine Ridge restaurant, Shahi N. Selmani, created a sexually hostile work environment when he repeatedly made crude remarks to waitresses and grabbed their breasts.  The EEOC alleged that, despite the women’s complaints, restaurant owner Qemal Alimi did not stop Selmani’s harassment and instead fired some of the waitresses in retaliation for their complaints.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC filed suit in August 2011 after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Selmani did not stop working for the restaurant until months after criminal charges were filed against him.  Eventually he pled no contest on Dec. 9, 2010 in Lincoln County Circuit Court (Case Nos. 2009CM25 and 2009CM101) to having committed Class A misdemeanor battery against three waitresses.  Charges of fourth-degree sexual assault, bail jumping and disorderly conduct were dismissed but “read into” the record of his conviction.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-17-13a.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: Wisconsin Restaurant Settles EEOC “Sexual Harassment And Retaliation Lawsuit” For $41,000; Companies Must Take “Immediate And Effective Action To Stop It”

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

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | January 12, 2013 · 7:49 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Restaurant Franchisee Settles EEOC “Sexual Harassment And Retaliation Lawsuit” For $2.5 Million; Managers Made Working Conditions Intolerable

The EEOC’s suit charged that Carrols subjected a class of women – including many teenagers – to egregious sexual harassment at Burger King locations throughout the Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast. EEOC alleged that the harassment, which ranged from obscene comments, jokes, and propositions to unwanted touching, EEOCexposure of genitalia, strip searches, stalking, and even rape, was perpetrated by managers in the majority of cases. According to the EEOC, Carrols also retaliated against some of the women by cutting their hours, manufacturing discipline against them, and even firing them, while it forced more women to quit because the harassment made their working conditions intolerable.

Carrols Corporation, the world’s largest Burger King franchisee, will pay $2.5 million and take significant remedial steps to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The lawsuit alleged discrimination against 89 female employees around the country, many of whom were teenagers when they worked for Carrols.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 98-cv-01772 FWS/TWD in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

Under the terms of the publicly-filed consent decree resolving the case, Carrols will pay $2.5 million in compensatory damages and lost wages to the 89 victims. It also will implement a number of measures to increase employees’ awareness of Carrols’ anti-harassment policies and to improve Carrols’ response to complaints brought forward under those policies. Those measures include enhanced training for Carrols’ managers in preventing and responding to harassment; improved mechanisms for tracking harassment complaints; notices posted in all domestic Carrols Burger King locations informing employees about the lawsuit’s resolution and their rights under federal anti-discrimination laws; and an injunction prohibiting further harassment and retaliation.

For more: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-9-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Restaurant Franchisee Settles EEOC “Sexual Harassment And Retaliation Lawsuit” For $2.5 Million; Managers Made Working Conditions Intolerable

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

Tagged as , , , , , ,