Ruby Tuesday, the EEOC, and Gender Discrimination
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.
Monetary fine: $100,000
- 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
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=””]
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!