New Laws Enhance Workplace Protections for Family Violence Victims and Require Employers to Provide Leave

CONNECTICUT--Two new laws in Connecticut strengthen the workplace protections available to family violence victims. These laws, which take effect on Oct. 1, require virtually all employers in Connecticut to provide employees who are victims of domestic violence with up to 12 days of family violence leave per calendar year.

House Bill 5497 (P.A. 10-144) amends existing protections for crime victims at work, explicitly prohibiting an employer from “refusing to hire, terminating, penalizing, threatening, or otherwise retaliating against any employee because the worker is a victim of family violence.” The law also provides protection for employees participating in court proceedings related to family violence.

The bill also doubles, from 90 to 180 days, the time an employee has under the statute to bring a civil action against an employer and provides for mandatory attorney's fees if the employee prevails. The statute already provides for fines and criminal penalties, including imprisonment, for employers who violate this law.

Another section of the bill gives employees a new right to take "family violence leave," by requiring all Connecticut employers with three or more workers to provide family violence victims with at least 12 days of paid or unpaid leave if reasonably necessary to:

• seek medical care or psychological or other counseling for physical or psychological injury or disability,
• obtain services from a victim services organization,
• relocate due to family violence reasons, or
• participate in any civil or criminal proceeding related to or resulting from such family violence.

The new law does not require employers to pay the employee while on leave but permits employees to use their accrued compensatory time, vacation time, personal days, or other paid time off in connection with the leave. The bill also specifies that this new leave does not affect any other rights available to workers under state or federal law.

Connecticut employers covered by these laws should revise their personnel policies and procedures to be consistent with the new requirements. It would also be prudent for employers to seek advice of counsel when creating a family violence leave policy or updating existing non-retaliation provisions to comply with the new laws.

US Department of Labor settles hiring discrimination case with The Wackenhut Corp.

DENVER — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has announced that The Wackenhut Corp., doing business as G4S Wackenhut, has entered into a consent decree to settle findings of hiring discrimination at its Aurora, Colo., facility. The consent decree settles OFCCP's allegations that Wackenhut engaged in hiring discrimination against 446 rejected African-American applicants for the position of traditional security officer for a two-year period.

OFCCP investigators found that the company engaged in hiring discrimination against African-Americans from Jan. 1, 2002 through Dec. 31, 2003. Under the terms of the consent decree and order, filed with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges, Wackenhut will pay a total of $290,000 in back pay and interest to the 446 rejected African-American applicants and will hire 41 of the applicants into traditional security officer positions.

The company also agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure that all hiring practices fully comply with the law and will immediately correct any discriminatory practice. In addition, Wackenhut will ensure compliance with Executive Order 11246 recordkeeping requirements.

Temp Agency ADECCO USA Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit

PITTSBURGH - Adecco USA, a Global Fortune 500 staffing company, will pay $12,000 and provide equitable relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  In addition to this settlement, the EEOC also won $79,500 from the plastics company in another lawsuit where the discrimination victims were sent by Adecco to work, for a total of $91,500 in damages for the victims in this case.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Adecco USA assigned Veronica Jalpa, Tonya Claypool, and other female employees to work at Pittsburgh Plastics Manufacturing, Inc.’s facility in Butler, Pa.  The EEOC alleged that on several occasions a Pittsburgh Plastics male supervisor engaged in unwelcome physical touching of Jalpa, Claypool, and other women, including intentionally rubbing against them, hugging them, and slapping them on the buttocks.  He also allegedly made frequent lewd and offensive sexual comments to them.

The EEOC charged that even though Jalpa and Claypool complained to Adecco officials about the sexual harassment, the temporary agency not only failed to protect its employees from sexual harassment at the Pittsburgh Plastic site, but it continued to assign female employees to work under the alleged harasser’s supervision. The EEOC further charged that Adecco retaliated against Jalpa by firing her. Claypool was forced to quit due to the ongoing and intolerable harassment, according to the EEOC’s lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 09-1246.

In addition to the monetary relief for Jalpa and Claypool, the two-year consent decree settling the lawsuit contains significant remedial measures, including enjoining the company from creating or tolerating a sexually hostile work environment for temporary employees at the place of business of any client serviced by Adecco’s Butler facility and prohibiting any unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII.  Adecco will also provide anti-harassment training to managers, supervisors, employees, and temporary employees as well as reports to the EEOC, and will post notices on this suit.

On March 11, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Reynolds Hay approved a consent decree resolving the EEOC’s previous sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against Pittsburgh Plastics Manufacturing, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-1148. The settlement with Pittsburgh Plastics provided a total of $79,500 in monetary relief to Jalpa, Claypool, and two other women who were sexually harassed.

EEOC Sues City of Boone, Iowa for Age Discrimination

DES MOINES – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit alleging that the City of Boone, Iowa violated federal law by hiring a 25-year-old rather than a more qualified 62-year-old because of the latter’s age.

According to the lawsuit, the EEOC’s investigation which preceded the lawsuit revealed that in 2005 the city rejected a U.S. Navy veteran, Larry Cook, for the new position of municipal infractions officer despite his extensive construction, electronic, communications, and management experience. Instead, the EEOC claims, the city chose the youngest candidate, a 25-year-old with little relevant experience.

Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay and liquidated damages for Cook as well as an order barring future discrimination. The suit, captioned EEOC v. City of Boone, Iowa (Civil Action No.04:10-cv-00233), was filed in federal district court in Des Moines and assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert W. Pratt.

Senate Tax Bill Omits COBRA Subsidy Extension

An extension for federal COBRA premium subsidies for laid-off employees was not part of a revamped tax bill introduced to the Senate. A similar bill that has passed the House also omitted any extensions of the subsidies.

The COBRA premium subsidy, which has expired and is not available to workers who were terminated involuntarily after May 31, is now less likely to be extended. The Senate had approved a tax bill to extend the subsidy through the end of the year, but the House stripped the COBRA subsidy and the projected $8 billion cost from the bill, sending the bill back to the Senate.

US Department of Labor Recovers $4.2 Million in Back Wages for 603 Oregon Workers

SEATTLE — An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division has resulted in the payment of more than $4.2 million in back wages owed to 603 employees of EG&G Technical Services, based in Hermiston, Ore., for work at the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Umatilla, Ore.

The investigation by the Wage and Hour Division's District Office in Portland, Ore. determined the 603 employees involved in maintenance, munitions, DSA tender, operations, control room, and warehouse work were underpaid for their time in the workplace. In some instances, workers were not relieved for their lunch time, resulting in inappropriate pay deductions for lunch breaks that could not be taken. The pay deficiencies are a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other federal labor laws. Civil money penalties have been assessed for the violations.

A related investigation turned up violations at a separate plant in Arkansas operated by EG&G Technical Services. That investigation resulted in payment of $1.6 million in back wages for 404 employees there.

Under the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act, contractors and subcontractors performing on federal service contracts in excess of $2,500 must pay their service workers no less than the wages and fringe benefits prevailing in the locality. The Contractor and Work Hours Safety Standards Act requires the payment of time and one-half the basic rate of pay for all hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek.

Contractors must ensure that their subcontractors are fully informed of requirements under federal government contract labor laws. Those who fail to properly compensate their workers are subject to federal withholding contract clauses that allow the government to withhold contract payments until all workers are paid the prevailing wages and fringe benefits.

Ann Arbor Days Inn Sued by EEOC for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

ANN ARBOR, Mich. – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against Ann Arbor Nights, Inc., doing business as Days Inn Hotel of Ann Arbor, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (Case No. 2:10CV12197).

The EEOC’s suit charged that the Days Inn violated federal law when a supervisor subjected a female housekeeper to a sexually hostile work environment, including inappropriate sexual comments, physical assaults, and at least one attempted sexual assault. The EEOC also said that the housekeeper was discharged following her repeated attempts to complain about the harassment.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction enjoining Days Inn from further subjecting its employees to a sexually hostile work environment or retaliating against individuals who complain.

Morley Missouri Construction Company Settles Racial Harassment and Retaliation Suit with EEOC

ST. LOUIS – Dollins Construction Company of Morley, Mo., has settled a race harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC’s suit, which was filed last September, charged that Dollins violated federal law by racially harassing three African American construction workers and then taking reprisals against them when one complained.

In its lawsuit (Case No. 1:09-cv-00137), the EEOC alleged that three Black construction workers were subjected to unlawful racial harassment at a work site in Corydon, Ind., which included the use of racially charged comments and the display of a noose. The suit said that after one of the victims complained about the conduct to the owner of the business they were not sent out on any further jobs.

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

The consent decree settling the suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, provides for the payment of $15,000 for lost wages and compensatory damages, implementation of an effective anti-discrimination policy, training for all management employees and reporting and monitoring requirements.

USDA Offers Settlement of Discrimination Suit with Female and Latino Farmers

The Obama Administration has offered $1.33 billion to settle complaints from female and Latino farmers who say they faced discrimination from the Agriculture Department. The lawsuit against the USDA, Garcia v. Vilsack, alleged discrimination against women and minorities who applied for loans and other assistance that routinely went to whites. The Department of Justice will work with the Hispanic farmers to finalize the settlement.

This settlement comes on the heels of a proposed settlement with the USDA of $1.25 billion for African-American farmers in a similar discrimination case. The agency is also negotiating with Native American farmers in another lawsuit.

The Bell Company Sued for Sex Discrimination and Retaliation

BALTIMORE – The Bell Company / The Bell Company, LLC, allegedly violated federal law when it fired a skilled female equipment operator and materials handler for complaining about discrimination because of her sex.

In its suit, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged that Elaine Cusato was fired after she complained about a hostile work environment because of her gender. The EEOC claims that on a daily basis, Cusato was subjected to unfair criticism about her work and other inappropriate treatment by her supervisor, the plumbing crew foreman. The EEOC alleges that the foreman used profanity and was aggressive toward Cusato, which was different from the way he behaved with male workers. The foreman’s behavior, which was witnessed by others, included throwing a shovel at Cusato, cursing at her in front of co-workers, subcontractors, and site inspectors, and repeatedly calling her sexually offensive names. Cusato’s complaints to human resource officials allegedly intensified the foreman’s sex-based offensive treatment towards her and culminated in her retaliatory discharge.

The Bell Company, a privately held New York company, and The Bell Company, LLC, a Delaware limited-liability company, provide construction services to the U.S Army at its Aberdeen, Md., location.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex and retaliation for complaining about it. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01342-BEL) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including policies, procedures and training to prevent future workplace discrimination. The EEOC also seeks to have the company compensate Cusato for her monetary losses and emotional pain and humiliation.

Oklahoma Amends State Anti-Discrimination Act to Include Pregnancy as a Form of Discrimination

Oklahoma has amended the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA) to include pregnancy as a form of discrimination. With this amendment, working expectant mothers can now file private lawsuits at the state level when they feel they’ve been discriminated against because of their pregnancy.

The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include pregnancy as a form of discrimination; however, Oklahoma’s corresponding state law had not been amended.  With Senate Bill 1814 passed and signed into law, that loophole has been corrected.

New Rule to Make it Easier to Form Unions in Railroad and Airline Industries

The National Mediation Board has adopted a new rule making it easier for employees in the railroad and airline industry to unionize if more than half of the voting employees approve of the union. The new election procedures will apply to applications filed on or after June 10, 2010.  For more information visit http://www.nmb.gov/representation/proposed-rep-rulemaking.html.

Under the old rule that was in place since the 1930’s, a union could only be certified if it was approved by a majority of the entire workforce that would be organized. Under the former process, workers who didn’t cast ballots were counted as “no” votes.

Arizona Sheriff’s Staff Awarded $2 Million in Back Wages

PHOENIX — The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in Phoenix have agreed to pay overtime back wages totaling $2,059,807 to 1,690 detention officers and sergeants for uncompensated pre-shift meeting time. The meetings were part of the daily routine at six detention facilities throughout Maricopa County.

An investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division found that, beginning in 2007, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office attempted to reduce overtime expenses, leaving the time for the pre-shift meetings off the official paid time recorded for detention officers and sergeants at the six facilities.  The back wages were computed for these 1,690 workers based on records provided by the county and overtime worked between November 1, 2007, and March 4, 2009.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), covered employees must be paid for pre- and post-shift time for required meetings.  The law also requires that employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates of pay, including commissions, bonuses, and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week.  Employers must also maintain accurate time and payroll records.

Hooters Facing Second Weight Discrimination Lawsuit

MICHIGAN--Hooters of America Inc. is now facing a second weight discrimination lawsuit from a former employee at the same Macomb County restaurant as a lawsuit filed a week ago.

Leanne Convery claims that she was placed on “weight probation” and was then fired when she did not comply.

Convery claims she was given 30 days to “make her extra-small uniform fit more properly” or she would be terminated. She lost 15 pounds during that time, but after a little more than a month she was told she had not made any improvement and was fired.

Michigan state law explicitly bans employers from discriminating based on weight under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Employee Upset over Pay Suspected of Killing Bosses

Boulder County, Colorado – Police are investigating a suspected murder-suicide case where an employee is believed to have killed his two bosses before committing suicide. Robert Montgomery, a former software engineer at Boulder Stove & Flooring, was found with a handgun, having himself suffered a single gunshot wound. Sean and Staci Griffin, the owners of Boulder Stove & Flooring, had been killed.

Police reported finding some writings with journal-type entries where Montgomery indicated he was upset over a recent change in commission and bonus policies at the company and documented some of the events leading up to the shooting. 

Hooters Employee Claims Weight Discrimination

Roseveille, Michigan – Twenty-year-old waitress Cassandra Smith has filed an antidiscrimination lawsuit against the Hooters restaurant chain after she was placed on “weight probation” and was offered a free gym membership. The suit, filed in Macomb County Circuit Court, claims that Hooters violated Smith’s civil rights when store managers and corporate employees threatened to fire her if she failed to lose weight during a 30-day probation period.

Under the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, employers are barred from discriminating on the basis of religion, marital or familial status, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height and weight. 

Employees of Yellow Transportation Claim Discrimination

DALLAS-Four employees of Yellow Transportation have filed a discrimination lawsuit in federal district court against the transport services company, as well as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.   

According to the Dallas Business Journal, the suit alleges “the company has a consistent and pervasive history of treating its minority employees less favorably than their white employees.”

The suit further alleges that the union failed to speak out in defense of Black employees, who were often disciplined and terminated for no cause and without due process.

The plaintiffs claim they endured “racial graffiti in the workplace, dangerous physical intimidation by white co-workers, and a ‘hit list’ of minority employees who have been marked for termination.”

Orkin Pest Control Sued By EEOC For Age And Religious Discrimination In Hiring And Advertising

PHOENIX – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing pest control company Orkin of discriminatory hiring practices in denying jobs to older workers and favoring Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) (Mormon) applicants, particularly returned missionaries. The EEOC also charged that Orkin retaliated against an applicant who complained to the company’s corporate headquarters about the alleged discrimination.

According to the EEOC’s suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Orkin discriminated during the hiring process against Thomas Kokezas, as well as a class of individuals, based on their age, over 40, and/or religion, non-Mormon. The EEOC’s complaint alleges that Orkin advertised on Craig’s List for a recruiter “to assist in hiring LDS missionaries for seasonal employment” and stating that the summer position was great for “RMs,” which stands for “returned missionaries,” who tend to be in their 20’s.

According to the EEOC, this type of advertising is illegal because it shows a preference for a particular religion and for younger workers. In addition, the EEOC alleges that the discrimination implied by the advertisements became a reality when Orkin filled the summer jobs with applicants in their 20’s, most of whom were LDS/Mormon.

The lawsuit arose out of a charge of discrimination filed by Kokezas, who responded to the Orkin ads on Craig’s List. The EEOC alleges that Orkin’s agent asked Kokezas his age, and then cut the interview short after learning Kokezas was 51. According to the complaint, in a subsequent call, Orkin’s agent admitted that he asked all applicants their age. Kokezas then called Orkin’s corporate office to complain about the company’s discriminatory hiring practices, and was referred to other managers, but was never hired or even allowed to submit an application, which, the suit alleges, was in retaliation for his complaints. According to the EEOC, instead of hiring Kokezas, one of Orkin’s agents, Brandon McNeil, selected a group of applicants who were all in their 20’s and predominantly LDS members.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits age-based employment discrimination against individuals age 40 or older, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of religion, are implicated.

The EEOC is seeking monetary relief for Kokezas and the class of individuals denied employment based on age or religion, an end to any discriminatory employment practices by Orkin, and other equitable relief.  

Overland Park Restaurant Sued By EEOC For Sexual Harassment Of Teen Worker

KANSAS CITY – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that The Cactus Grill, Inc. allowed a manager to sexually harass an 18-year-old server at its restaurant in Leawood, Kansas.

According to the suit, an assistant manager at the restaurant asked the server for sex, touched her, and made unwelcome sexual advances toward her, to the point where the server was forced to quit her job.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from sex discrimination, which includes sexual harassment.

“Sexual harassment in the workplace is always wrong, but harassment of teenage workers, who are often in their first ‘real’ job, is even more egregious,” said James Neely, director of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office. “Employers must provide safe, harassment-free workplaces for all of their employees, including teenagers.”

“Training is key to preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is especially crucial for employers with teenage employees. All employees must be trained that sexual harassment is unlawful and will not be tolerated. But all employees, and especially teenagers, must also be trained to recognize sexual harassment and to know what to do if it happens to them,” Barbara A. Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, added.