A pair of federal sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuits has been settled by the State of New York for a $1 million. The lawsuits were filed by two former female employees of the Willard Drug Treatment Center in Seneca County who claimed that Lt. Michael Cobb, their supervisor, subjected them repeatedly to unwanted sexual advances. When the women complained about the harassment, they were disciplined.
The State of New York has 120 days to pay $666,667 to one woman and $333,333 to the other. Lt. Cobb is required to pay $1,000 toward the total penalty. The settlements were approved by federal judges of the Western District of New York.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
McDonald’s Settles Overtime Suit
McDonald’s offered to pay $2.4 million to settle a suit by more than 2,200 current former employees claiming that they had not been paid for overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The settlement provides for awards to each plaintiff ranging from $675 to $1100.
Assistant managers and employees in similar positions filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware (Justison v. McDonald’s Corp., settlement approved, No. 08-448 (D. Del. Nov. 9, 2010)).
In the lawsuit, they claim that McDonald’s willfully misclassified them as exempt and did not compensate for overtime during mandatory three-month training periods over the course of three years.
The lawsuit contends that McDonald’s knew that assistant managers regularly worked overtime during their training period and they were nonexempt as trainees. During these periods of training, employees had no supervisory duties and exercised no discretion with regard to their duties and worked an average of 10-20 hours per week over the 40-hour overtime threshold. The plaintiffs assert that McDonald’s willfully failed to pay wages due.
Plaintiffs have stated that the primary duties performed in the initial three month time period consisted of nonexempt duties under the FLSA, including preparing food, taking and filling orders, taking inventory, staffing cash registers, and removing trash from trash cans.
Assistant managers and employees in similar positions filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware (Justison v. McDonald’s Corp., settlement approved, No. 08-448 (D. Del. Nov. 9, 2010)).
In the lawsuit, they claim that McDonald’s willfully misclassified them as exempt and did not compensate for overtime during mandatory three-month training periods over the course of three years.
The lawsuit contends that McDonald’s knew that assistant managers regularly worked overtime during their training period and they were nonexempt as trainees. During these periods of training, employees had no supervisory duties and exercised no discretion with regard to their duties and worked an average of 10-20 hours per week over the 40-hour overtime threshold. The plaintiffs assert that McDonald’s willfully failed to pay wages due.
Plaintiffs have stated that the primary duties performed in the initial three month time period consisted of nonexempt duties under the FLSA, including preparing food, taking and filling orders, taking inventory, staffing cash registers, and removing trash from trash cans.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Former Jones Day Alleges that Layoffs Target Minorities
Jaki Nelson, an African-American legal secretary for nearly 18 years at the Jones Day Los Angeles office, claims that her June layoff was pretextual, and was really based on racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation and infliction of emotional distress. Nelson alleges that the Jones Day Los Angeles site employed only a handful of African-American secretaries, many of whom received unfair pay, bonuses, desk assignments and performance evaluations and were essentially treated “like servants”. Nelson also claims that white employees with similar experience were treated with more dignity and received better pay and benefits. Nelson alleges that she was chastised for activities like Internet usage at work, while white support staff also violated these firm policies but were not disciplined. Nelson further describes intra-office sex scandals and alleges that partners in the Los Angeles office fostered racism and used racial slurs and epithets.
Nelson claims that human resources quickly investigated complaints by white employees, but when she complained, human resources ignored her or did not take her seriously and she was treated even worse by her superiors. The lawsuit is scheduled to be heard in August 2011. Jones Day denied the allegations and asserts that Nelson was a difficult employee.
Nelson claims that human resources quickly investigated complaints by white employees, but when she complained, human resources ignored her or did not take her seriously and she was treated even worse by her superiors. The lawsuit is scheduled to be heard in August 2011. Jones Day denied the allegations and asserts that Nelson was a difficult employee.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
10th Circuit Supports Termination of Worker Who Threatened Boss
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the termination of a social worker after an investigation revealed that she made serious threats against her boss and further found that the social worker did not produce sufficient evidence to support her claims of age and sex discrimination.
Fran Howell was a social worker employed by the New Mexico Department of Aging and Long Term Services. In July of 2005 Howell transferred to the Adult Protective Services Division in order to avoid the allegedly harassing behavior of her supervisor, Matthew Thompson. However, Thompson became regional manager for APSD in January 2006 and Howell again reported to him. In June 2006 APSD investigated and found that threats by Howell had made Thompson fearful and put other employees in an “untenable working environment.” APSD requested Howell’s termination, but at about that same time Howell submitted a letter of resignation stating that her relationship with Thompson was negative and that her differences with Thompson were irreconcilable. Howell then sued, claiming discrimination on several grounds, including age and sex, and retaliation. Howell claimed that Thompson harassed her by, among other things, requiring her to provide doctor’s notes when sick, forcing her to seek approval for deviation from her normal schedule, rating her performance unacceptable, threatening corrective action to address work and attendance issues, requesting work outside her normal duties, and using “informants” to spy on her.
Howell relied on four pieces of evidence to prove Thompson created a hostile work environment based on age or sex: two phone interviews conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a document (unsigned and unauthenticated) supposedly written by a supervisor at APSD, a handwritten sheet of notes and her negative performance appraisal. Howell also submitted an affidavit alleging discriminatory comments made by Thompson.
APSD moved for summary judgment on all of Howell’s claims, but Howell only responded to the age and sex claims. Ruling in favor of APSD, the trial court found that the case really involved a “personality conflict” and issues with performance, and commented that the evidence relied on by Howell “was either unreliable and inadmissible, or simply not probative of illegal discrimination.” The 10th Circuit affirmed.
As to the sex and discrimination claims, the 10th Circuit rejected much of the offered evidence as inadmissible and observed that other evidence, such as Howell’s resignation letter, suggested that the real problem between Howell and Thompson “was either a supervisory issue or a personality conflict.” The Court also noted that “[t]here is no evidence that APSD did not honestly believe the results of the investigation or that it failed to act in good faith upon its belief.” This case is a helpful reminder of the importance of conducting an unbiased, thorough and well-documented investigation into allegations of employee misconduct before imposing disciplinary action.
Howell v. New Mexico Department of Aging & Long Term Services, 10th Cir., No. 10-2020 (Oct. 12, 2010).
Fran Howell was a social worker employed by the New Mexico Department of Aging and Long Term Services. In July of 2005 Howell transferred to the Adult Protective Services Division in order to avoid the allegedly harassing behavior of her supervisor, Matthew Thompson. However, Thompson became regional manager for APSD in January 2006 and Howell again reported to him. In June 2006 APSD investigated and found that threats by Howell had made Thompson fearful and put other employees in an “untenable working environment.” APSD requested Howell’s termination, but at about that same time Howell submitted a letter of resignation stating that her relationship with Thompson was negative and that her differences with Thompson were irreconcilable. Howell then sued, claiming discrimination on several grounds, including age and sex, and retaliation. Howell claimed that Thompson harassed her by, among other things, requiring her to provide doctor’s notes when sick, forcing her to seek approval for deviation from her normal schedule, rating her performance unacceptable, threatening corrective action to address work and attendance issues, requesting work outside her normal duties, and using “informants” to spy on her.
Howell relied on four pieces of evidence to prove Thompson created a hostile work environment based on age or sex: two phone interviews conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a document (unsigned and unauthenticated) supposedly written by a supervisor at APSD, a handwritten sheet of notes and her negative performance appraisal. Howell also submitted an affidavit alleging discriminatory comments made by Thompson.
APSD moved for summary judgment on all of Howell’s claims, but Howell only responded to the age and sex claims. Ruling in favor of APSD, the trial court found that the case really involved a “personality conflict” and issues with performance, and commented that the evidence relied on by Howell “was either unreliable and inadmissible, or simply not probative of illegal discrimination.” The 10th Circuit affirmed.
As to the sex and discrimination claims, the 10th Circuit rejected much of the offered evidence as inadmissible and observed that other evidence, such as Howell’s resignation letter, suggested that the real problem between Howell and Thompson “was either a supervisory issue or a personality conflict.” The Court also noted that “[t]here is no evidence that APSD did not honestly believe the results of the investigation or that it failed to act in good faith upon its belief.” This case is a helpful reminder of the importance of conducting an unbiased, thorough and well-documented investigation into allegations of employee misconduct before imposing disciplinary action.
Howell v. New Mexico Department of Aging & Long Term Services, 10th Cir., No. 10-2020 (Oct. 12, 2010).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)