Ruby Tuesday, the EEOC, and Gender Discrimination

/0 Comments/in , /by

Restaurant chain sued for gender discrimination against male employees’

[wc_divider style=”dotted” line=”single” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=””]

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) settled a discrimination case with Ruby Tuesday, Inc. for denying male employees desirable temporary assignments at a Utah resort.

Ruby Tuesday posted internal job announcements advertising summer bartender and server positions with company-provided housing, among their locations within a 9-state region (Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and Utah). The postings stated that only females would be considered – allegedly because of concerns over housing employees of both genders together.

The company was charged with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.

Ruby Tuesday has agreed to a three-year consent decree in order to resolve the issue.

What is a Consent Decree?
A consent decree is defined as ‘an agreement or settlement to resolve a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt.’

Case Outcomes

Monetary fine: $100,000

Employer must:

  • Provide back pay to employees
  • Prevent gender-based employment discrimination in temporary and permanent job assignments at all facilities located within 9-state region.
  • Provide Title VII training to its employees, managers and supervisors
  • Distribute its EEO policy to all employees (present & future) for the duration of the Consent Decree
  • Maintain records of any complaints of gender-based discrimination
  • Report annually to the EEOC
[wc_box color=”danger” text_align=”left”]

Lessons Learned from EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

Federal law protects both men and women from gender discrimination. Companies must consider qualified applicants for employment based on their qualifications – not their gender. Denying a qualified applicant a job because of his/her sex is unjust and unlawful, no matter if the discrimination results from a ‘concern’ about housing employees of both genders.

[/wc_box] [wc_divider style=”solid” line=”single” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=””]

[wc_divider style=”solid” line=”single” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=””]

EEOC Fines Company for not Accommodating Religious Belief

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Mims Distributing Company, Inc. has been ordered to pay $50,000 in order to resolve a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Christopher Alston, a practicing Rastafarian, applied for a job as a delivery driver with Mims. Alston was told that he could have the job if he cut his hair. Alston informed Mims that as a Rastafarian he could not cut his hair. Ultimately Alston did not get the job and the EEOC alleges it was because he would not agree to their request.

Disregarding a person’s deeply held religious belief is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs as long as it would not pose an undue hardship to the company. The EEOC attempted to reach settlement through its conciliation process first, but when that failed they filed suit.

Mims has agreed to a two-year consent decree in order to resolve the issue. The consent decree requires Mims to create an official religious accommodation policy, to conduct annual training programs on the requirements of Title VII and its ban against religious discrimination, as well as post a copy of its anti-discrimination policy in its facility.

What is a Rastafarian?

Rastafarianism began in 1930s Jamaica. Marcus Garvey, a Jamaican who led a “Back to Africa” movement, predicted there would be a black messiah in Africa. When Ras Tafari, a prince, became Emperor of Ethiopia in 1930 (as Emperor he was called Halie Selassie) the people believed he was the black messiah Marcus Garvey prophesied about. Rastafarians believe that they are one of the twelve tribes of ancient Israel and that God took human form first as Christ the messiah then as Ras Tafari, the black messiah.

Where Do Dreadlocks Come into Play?

People who follow the Rastafarian religion wear dreadlocks because it is a part of the Nazarite Vow. They believe a man’s strength comes from the length of his hair. There is Biblical justification for the style (Leviticus 21:5 “They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard nor make any cuttings in their flesh”) and it is the way some ancient African priests and Israelites wore their hair.

What is a Consent Decree?

A consent decree is defined as ‘an agreement or settlement to resolve a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt.’

What is Undue Hardship?

An undue hardship is an action that places significant difficulty or expense on the employer.

Reasonable Accommodation

Reasonable accommodation as defined by the U.S. Department of Justice is “any modification or adjustment to a job or the work environment that will enable a qualified applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the application process or to perform essential job functions.”

Company Wellness Program Wins First Round

/0 Comments/in , /by

A U.S. District Judge in Minneapolis denied The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) request for an injunction against Honeywell, Inc. over their health screening policy that requires medical testing for employees and covered spouses by saying she “did not believe that Honeywell’s program would pose ‘irreparable harm’ to participants.”

Honeywell’s Wellness Program

Honeywell’s wellness program screens workers for blood pressure, cholesterol, blood-sugar levels, waist circumference and nicotine. Employees who fail to complete the testing are subject to monetary fines and lost contributions to health plans of up to $4,000.

Federal law bans employers from obtaining the personal health information of individual employees, but employers can use combined data to design programs to target specific health problems that can increase employer and employee health care costs.

The EEOC contends that the penalties make the testing involuntary and therefore violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

According to Honeywell, the policy promotes employee wellbeing and reduces healthcare premiums for healthy employees.

“We don’t believe it’s fair to the employees who do work to lead healthier lifestyles to subsidize the healthcare premiums for those who do not.”

The Decision

The District Judge stated, “What is better public policy and who is likely to succeed are not measures this court is prepared to decide…There are a number of fascinating issues for debate at a later time.”

The EEOC will continue to examine the charges the employees have filed against Honeywell.