Employment Attorney Services' Blog

US Insurance Company to Settle Disability Discrimination after Cancelling a Job Offer

The United Insurance Company of America is facing a two–year consent decree and is required to pay monetary relief to resolve its disability discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC in Aug. 2011 at the office of the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina after a due process.

In the said lawsuit, the EEOC claims that the insurance company cancelled its job offer to an applicant who was formerly a drug addict after learning about the applicant’s disability.

Craig Burns is a recovering drug addict and since 2004 has been enrolled in a methadone treatment program. In January 2010, the United Insurance offered Burns a job position in its office in Raleigh in the condition that Burns has to pass a drug test. However, Burns’ drug test results still showed a presence of methadone in his system. Burns submitted a letter of explanation to the United Insurance noting that he was participating in a supervised methadone treatment and is currently taking lawfully prescribed. The United Insurance just notified Burns that they are cancelling their job offer to Burns due to his non–eligibility.

Such conduct is considered as a violation to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Said act prohibits disability discrimination against employees and applicants.

In addition to the monetary relief amounting to $37,000, the United Insurance is required to conduct trainings regarding disability discrimination and to conduct an individualized assessment to determine if an employee or applicant is disabled under the provisions set by the ADA. Furthermore, like any other company who underwent settlements with the EEOC, the United Insurance Company is required to post a copy of its anti-discrimination policy at its head office in St. Louis, Missouri as a protocol.

People with disabilities should not be treated with discrimination, most particularly when it comes to hiring. Apart from the ADA, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) also prohibits either private and government employers or agencies from discriminating employees based on their disabilities.

The different provisions regarding the disability law aim to protect applicant and employees with the defect against employer harassment. An employment law attorney could explain in detail each and every provisions set therein.

AirTran Airways Pilot Granted with $1 Million Wage and Hour Claim

A terminated pilot from AirTrans Airways was finally granted with more than $1 million interest for wage and hour claims as well as compensatory damages after the said airline subsidiary company terminated him for blowing the whistle. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration have required the AirTrans to reinstate the former employee to become a pilt again.

Allegedly, the pilot was removed from his flight status on August 23, 2007 for a pending investigation after he reported numerous mechanical concerns. On the internal investigation, which was conducted by the AirTrans on September 6 2007, the airline company said that the pilot was not able to satisfactorily answer a question regarding the Pilot’s Mechanical Malfunction Report (PIREPS). A week later, AirTran terminated the aforementioned employee

However, through the investigation done by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the pilot’s termination, the agency found out that the pilot did not refuse to answer any of the questions during the airline company’s internal investigation. Moreover, the pilot’s answers to the inquiries were right and appropriate. Such actions were considered as retaliatory.

Through comment, the agency’s Assistant Secretary, Dr. David Michaels said that retaliation of a pilot reporting mechanical malfunction is unusual for a company who values the safety of both employees and customers. He further added that Whistle Blowing Laws as well as the Department of Labor are created to the protect workers’ freedom of right to voice out safety concerns.

The agency found a reasonable cause to believe that the pilot’s wrongful termination was an act of retaliation in violation of the whistle blowing law of the Wendell II H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century or the AIR21.

Employees ought to remember that if the act of retaliation involves termination, the employee could likely file a wrongful termination lawsuit under the whistle blowing laws. However, terminated employees may not fully understand their rights under the said law; therefore, workers would need the help of experts like the Los Angeles wrongful termination lawyers to help determine if they may file any wage and hour claim.

Matrix LLC. of Philadelphia Finally Settles Race Discrimination and Retaliation Charges

 

The racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Matrix LLC., of Philadelphia was finally settled.

The Matrix LLC., one of Philadelphia’s largest cleaning companies, agreed to pay the monetary relief of $450,000 to a class of its 15 former employees. In addition to their monetary fine, the company will also undergo the three year consent decree resolving their court case.

The employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC against the Matrix LLC, the issue of racial discrimination and retaliation stemmed when a Matrix high-ranking employee allegedly gave an order to one of their supervisors, Barbara Palemi, not to hire any more African-American cleaners. Palemi broke the official’s order and still continued to hire black cleaners amidst orders. Matrix fired her in retaliation for going against the company’s racial discrimination. 

Such discrimination qualified under the violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Said provision prohibits discrimination based on race and making it illegal for an employer to retaliate against any employee for going against the company’s instruction to make a hiring decision on a racial basis.

The said cleaning company is restricted from getting involved in any other racial discrimination and retaliation issues. They are also required to conduct trainings for their supervisors and managers about the prohibitions of racial discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Furthermore, they must also submit a report to the EEOC regarding the discrimination complaints that the company will receive and post a notice of remedial. The consent decree must be duly approved by the US District Court for the District of Pennsylvania.

Same with other companies that have become a subject for litigations, the Matrix immediately cooperated with the EEOC to resolve the discrimination issue arising from their workplace. 

Knowing that the EEOC is always there to protect the employees and implement a fair labor act, everyone is guaranteed with a sure sense of security. However, there are some instances that abusive employers seem to be unreasonable enough not to perform righteousness, in this type of situation, you may ask for assistance from a Los Angeles labor attorney to resolve your concern.

Arizona Bank Sued for Age and Gender Discrimination

Obviously, companies still remain unthreatened after the EEOC’s thorough surveillance against existing companies that do not abide with the equal employment laws.

According to the latest news gathered from the official website of EEOC, the agency is suing the Bank of Albuquerque in Phoenix, Arizona for age and gender discrimination.

Bank of Albuquerque is a BOK financial corporation duly organized and existing under the federal government of Arizona, USA.

Recently, the EEOC found out that the said bank illegally discharged two managers, Elizabeth Morantes and Yolanda Fernandez for being above 40 years of age. Apart from the two managers, another employee was also disciplined by the bank’s management for her sex and age.

The EEOC initially tried to reach a voluntary pre–litigation settlement before filing the age and gender discrimination lawsuit at the US Court District for New Mexico in Albuquerque.

The lawsuit is claiming for a monetary relief for the three victims of employment discrimination and order prohibits the bank from being involved in any further discrimination in the workplace. The agency affirms that the two managers discharged were long time employees of the bank while the other one was unreasonably disciplined on a gender basis.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC claims that the bank violated the law imposed by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits age and gender discrimination. The same also provides protection to all employees.

Long time employees deserve to be honored and commended for all the efforts they have exerted in helping a company succeed through the years. Age and gender should not become an issue in the workplace, as nobody deserves to be discriminated.

Being treated unfairly or discriminated in the workplace on the basis of age and gender can be a disturbing experience to any employee. However, employees may seek justice from discrimination attorneys for the discrimination they suffered. In that way, their anguish and emotional stress may somehow be reduced.

FEHA Claim Filed by a Teacher Against a Former Employer Dismissed

A FEHA claim that was filed by a preschool teacher against Henry V. Red Hill Evangelical Luthera Church of Tustin, a school church in California, was recently dismissed by the federal trial court.

In her lawsuit, the teacher claimed that she was wrongfully terminated for her marital status. When the teacher applied for the position at the said school church, she was married and later on filed for divorce. She then met what would be her new boyfriend. They have been living together and soon had a child out of wedlock.

The said teacher has been employed at the school church since August 2002 until May, 2009 as a pre-school teacher and soon became the pre-school director. In reciprocation with her sworn position, every year, she is to sign a document setting forward the professional expectations for teachers. Under the school church directive, teachers are expected to serve as a “Christian role model” for the students as well as with the parents. As a part of the school church’s curriculum, the teacher taught religion and other related issues to the preschool students. She is further required to attend chapel with her class once a week.

Initially, the school church administration wasn’t aware about the teacher’s marital status. But when the parents discovered her living situation, the parents expressed their disapproval to the principal of the school church. The administration immediately responded to the complaints of the parents by terminating the said teacher.

The teacher filed a FEHA claim but unfortunately, her complaint wasn’t heard due to the fact that the church is a religious institution and that the teacher was fired because of violation of the church’s directive.

To further clarify the reason behind the dismissal of the teacher’s FEHA claim, based on the provision of California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), non-profit religious organizations are not included from their definition of an employer.

The teacher affirmed that the school church is not an exemption to the rule; however, the court stands still on its decision by stressing that the school church did not have any independent legal status aside from the church.

Furthermore, the trial court analyzed that the church’s decision of firing the teacher was based on religious matter and not upon her marital status. Therefore, no public policy has been violated. 

The teacher actually has a strong point here in filing for FEHA claim for her wrongful termination if she was filing the same against an existing employer under the FEHA. Sad to say, the school church where she has been employed was not operating and abiding under the laws of FEHA.

American Apparel to Settle the Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Them

A clothing manufacturer in the United States that houses thousands of employees is about to pay $60,000 and provide other reliefs in order to settle the discrimination lawsuit filed against them by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 

The lawsuit that was filed before the US District Court for the Central District of California which held the American Apparel Inc. liable for violating the federal law. The lawsuit claims that the said clothing manufacturer fired a garment worker while on leave due to his disability. The clothing maker clearly failed to accommodate disability in their workplace. In other words, they violated the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)

After learning about the lawsuit filed against them, the American Apparel immediately coordinated with the EEOC to settle the case. The company has adopted a comprehensive ADA policy, a wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability in the workplace. The American Apparel has agreed to provide training to its managers and supervisors about the ADA. They further agreed to educate employees about their rights in accordance with the ADA as well as how to seek accommodation under it. The American Apparel will designate a specific ADA coordinator to inspect if the policy is being implemented at the company. Apart from that, they are required to pay the terminated employee with $40,000.

Furthermore, the clothing manufacturer will spend one third (1/3) of the $60,000 settlement amount to sponsor in connection with the non – profit organization, a couple of seminars on the rights of workers and responsibilities of employers under the ADA.

Under the Title I of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation to employees or qualified applicants with disabilities.

Due to the company’s failure to accommodate disabilities, they will be facing some sort of penalties. Apparently, aside from the amount due to them, they are further required to attend and conduct seminars regarding the accommodation of disabilities. At least now, they have learned their lesson that their committed violation is not that simple. 

The EEOC is enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. They are encouraging employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities since they believe that these people would at times surpass average workers. They are not hindered by their limitations but rather inspired to achieve more. The accommodations cost is often minimal and yet its benefits to both the workforce and employers.

Former Employee Accused NBA of Disregarding Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

A former NBA security official, Warren Glover is suing the NBA League for firing him. This is after his admonition to his superiors about the sexual harassment arousing in their office.

After his 10 years of service with the NBA, Glover was fired despite of his satisfactory performance.

Glover filed the lawsuit before the office of the New York State Supreme Court. In his lawsuit, Glover was accusing senior NBA security officials of building a hostile workplace.. He claims that he was unfairly treated and denied for promotions for disclosing a very confidential matter regarding sexual harassment that occurs among the NBA female employees.

Glover said that there are many instances that the senior security officials sexually harassed female employees.

Glover also claims in his lawsuit that he at least once warned the NBA President League Operations – Joel Litvin about the sexual harassment and that he also expressed his fear of retaliation.

Apparently, the proper authorities concerned do not care about these irregularities.

The league’s spokesperson – Mike Bass told in a report from NY Times that Glover’s allegations for sexual harassment are without merit and that they are preparing to defend against Glover.

Work place sexual harassment is a growing problem of the federal government. This is probably because of the employer’s failure or neglect to determine such incidents. Each year, more than 15,000 sexual harassment cases are filed before the Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Chuck E. Cheese Sued for Child Labor Law Violation

It was confirmed by the U.S Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division that Chuck E. Cheese’s was charged with a total of more than $28,000 fine for allowing underage employees to operate dangerous equipment.

During a routine investigation conducted by the Department of Labor of San Francisco earlier this year, they found out that minor workers were illegally operating Chuck E. Cheese’s trash compactors and dough mixer.

Under the Fair Labor Standard Act, minor workers should not be allowed to perform hazardous work duties like operating high-risk machines.

The chain paid the civil penalties charged against the company and agreed to adhere to the federal law. And to avoid such violation from happening again, they instructed their minor employees not to operate the machines. They also applied stickers to the equipment noting that minors are prohibited from using the machines.

Chuck E. Cheese’s spokeswoman has said that the chain had acknowledged its mistakes and stated in behalf of its parent company that the managers at the involved parlors weren’t aware that warning stickers are required to be placed on high-risk machines.

The chain managers may were just really unaware of their child labor law violation. Investigations proved that as soon as the chain was informed that minor employees are not allowed to operate machines, they started to implement a strict policy abiding by the child labor law. 

Chuck E. Cheese’s is a chain of family entertainment centers. It’s the main brand of CEC Entertainment, Inc. with its head office at Irving, Texas. It’s a pizza parlor complemented by arcade games, amusement rides, shows and other diversions. As of present, the chain had 507 corporately owned restaurants and 47 franchise restaurants in 48 states and 7 foreign countries.

Fatal Workplace Personal Injury Cases Reduced in UK

Over the past decades, numbers of fatal personal injury cases in UK has been significantly reduced.

Based on the statistics released by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), a decrease in workplace personal injury incidents can be seen.

From the annual average of 205 fatal workplace personal injury cases in 2005 to 2010, it lowered to 171 casualties in 2011.  It is 17percent lower than the past five years.

Industries with the most cases of fatal injuries over the previous years which show a decrease in fatalities in the current year are as follows:

Agriculture Industry – this industry includes fishing and forestry. The nature of agricultural machinery often causes fatal personal injuries in the workplace. Figures show that 34 fatal injuries were recorded in 2010, which is a little bit lower than the previous years. However, it’s still alarming. A corresponding rate of 9.6 out of 100,000 workers in the last five years dropped into 8.0 this year.

Construction Industry – this industry still remains to be a high risk industry. However, a significant reduction of two thirds (2/3) of fatal personal injuries related to workplace was seen for over a couple of decades. According to the figures released by HSE for the last five years, from the accounted 61 fatalities in the workplace has been reduced to 50 in 2011. In an average rate of 2.0 out of 100,000 workers in the last five years, almost the same was reduced as it decreased to 2.4 this year.

Manufacturing Industry – in this industry, the most common cause of injuries are the machineries. In 2006, there has been a reduction of fatal injuries of workers from 30 to 27. There has been no far difference but at least it lessened.

Services Providers Industry – changes in the rate of fatal cases were not seen in this industry. It exhibits a constant rate of 0.2 deaths per 100,000 workers. 

The personal injury rates presented in the HSE’s official website were actually published on June, 2011. Therefore, it may differ from the figures published on November since the latter was formulated on a new basis. The new data for fatal injury statistics will be published on June, 2012 according to them.

Fatal personal injuries in the workplace can be avoided if only proper health and safety precautions are implemented. The decrease of fatalities in the British community definitely means that they are implementing a strict health and safety standards in their workplace in all industries. British have done a very good job in reducing fatalities that occur in their workplaces.

University of New Mexico faces Racial Discrimination Claims

Several employees of the University of New Mexico filed employment discrimination claims against the University on the basis of race.

Allegedly, a black faculty and other staff members of the university suffer from a hostile workplace based on their race. They are of African and American race.


Particularly, the complaint which was also filed with the state’s Department of Education claims that such employees have been excluded from promotion and the black faculty is almost left out from all major positions. Furthermore, they also assert that blacks face a difference in salaries compared with their other fellow worker.

The complaint also claims that over the past decade, almost a hundred percent of doctors who left the university’s medical school and hospital have the same reason for leaving – they all experienced harsh employment discrimination in the workplace.

The group of claimants which was headed by Bishop David Cooper affirms that despite the fact that there were dozens of complaints regarding racial discrimination from their African and American employees in the previous years, the university administrators didn’t even consider making a change.

The group is hoping for a change in the university’s policy and practice in concern with the employment discrimination they are suffering.

On the other hand, the university President, David J. Schmidly and the Head of Health Sciences Center, Paul Roth had spoken out. In their joint statement, they denied the racial discrimination claims. According to them, there is no any form of discrimination against anyone that occurs in the university since they implement very clear policies which outlaw discrimination in the workplace.

The medical school’s spokesman, Billy Sparks also commented on the issue. He said that the allegations about the doctors leaving the medical school and hospital had been raised several years ago. He added that the same has been investigated too and was found to be baseless.

However, in an April report compiled in response to Mr. Schmidly’s request, it showed that the black community in New Mexico has become isolated and required the school for a transformational change.

What the claimants is trying to imply here is the mere fact that despite the growing numbers of complaints about the racial discrimination in the university, nobody seems to pay attention to the issue.

Under the law, paying the employee less or giving them fewer benefits based on race is strictly prohibited.