Employment Law Information

Archive for the ‘Discrimination’ Category

Outback Steakhouse To Pay $19 Million For Sex Bias Against Women In ‘Glass Ceiling’ Suit By EEOC

Consent Decree Includes Online Application System, Creation of Executive HR Position

PRESS RELEASE
12-29-09

DENVER – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Outback Steakhouse has agreed to pay $19 million and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a major class lawsuit alleging sex discrimination against thousands of women at hundreds of its corporately-owned restaurants nationwide.

According to the EEOC, Outback discriminated against its female employees with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, and denied women equal opportunities for advancement. The EEOC alleged in the lawsuit that female employees hit a glass ceiling at Outback and could not get promoted to the higher-level profit-sharing management positions in the restaurants. Moreover, the EEOC also alleged that women were denied favorable job assignments, particularly kitchen management experience, which was required for employees to be considered for the top management job in the restaurants.

“There are still too many glass ceilings left to shatter in workplaces throughout corporate America,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC will continue to bring class lawsuits like this one against employers who engage in gender discrimination on a systemic scale. Hopefully this major settlement will remind employers about the perils of perpetuating promotion practices that keep women from advancing at work.”

The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed by the EEOC in September 2006 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc., and OS Restaurant Partners, Inc. d/b/a Outback Restaurants, No. 06-cv-01935).In addition to the monetary relief, the settlement, contained in a four-year consent decree signed by Federal Court Judge Christine M. Arguello, requires that Outback:

•Institute an online application system for employees interested in managerial and other supervisory positions;
•Employ a human resource executive in the newly created position of Vice President of People;
•Employ an outside consultant for at least two years who will determine compliance with the terms of the decree and analyze data from the online application system to determine whether women are being provide equal opportunities for promotion; and
•Report every six months to the EEOC on carrying out the terms of the decree;
EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the agency’s Phoenix District, which has jurisdiction for Colorado, said, “We are pleased with the initiatives that Outback has agreed to in this settlement and look forward to seeing its efforts to promote women into management positions realized. Ensuring that all of the talent in a workforce is fully utilized simply makes good business sense.”

Rita Byrnes Kittle, senior trial attorney in the agency’s Denver Field Office, who jointly led the litigation effort added, “The EEOC brokered this far reaching and comprehensive settlement in the public interest to foster a discrimination-free workplace at Outback. We are particularly pleased about Outback’s commitment to a new process for employees to apply for promotion online and for hiring managers to make their selections from the online applications. We think this new process will help give women a fair opportunity to advance in the company.”

The $19 million in monetary relief contained in the settlement will be administered through a claims process in which an administrator will send letters to all female workers employed at corporately-owned Outback restaurants from 2002 to the present who have at least three years of tenure.

EEOC Denver Trial Attorney Stephanie Struble, who jointly led the litigation effort, said, “We encourage women who believe they were discriminated against by Outback to come forward and complete the claims form to obtain monetary relief. We also encourage all current female employees at Outback to take advantage of the new application process and let Outback know that they are interested in promotion.”

According to company information on its web site, “Outback Steakhouse was founded in Tampa, Florida in 1988. There are over 950 Outback Steakhouse restaurants throughout the world.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Saks Fifth Avenue Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

New Orleans Store Fired Employee Because of Ulcerative Colitis, Federal Agency Says

PRESS RELEASE
1-7-10

HOUSTON — Saks Fifth Avenue, the high-end retailer based in New York City, has agreed to pay $170,000 to settle a disability discrimination suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The settlement resolves the charge of a former Saks makeup artist, Marlene Babin, who claimed that Saks fired her from its New Orleans store because of her disability, ulcerative colitis.

According to the EEOC’s suit (No. 08-4464 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana), Babin began working for Saks in 2000. She was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease, in 1999. From February of 2004 through December of 2004, Babin underwent five major surgeries in connection with her colitis. During this time, she spent a total of three months in the hospital and had to take four extended medical leaves of absence from work.

In January of 2005, while Babin was recovering from her fifth surgery, Saks informed her that she had to return to work in February or be fired, claiming that she had exhausted her available leave. In fact, Babin had more than 900 hours of available paid leave balances, the EEOC said. Although Babin had been scheduled by her surgeon to return to work in March, she obtained a release to return earlier, to avoid being fired.

Just before her return, however, she fell and broke her wrist. On the next work day, Saks told Babin that she was terminated, effective immediately, because she had allegedly exhausted her available leave, and because she could not be accommodated to work with her broken wrist, even though Babin had been working with the broken wrist for six days. However, two other employees in the New Orleans store had in recent years worked with a broken wrist or hand, and were not fired. Saks told Babin to reapply once her wrist had healed.

On the day after her cast was removed, Babin applied for an open makeup artist position at the store’s La Mer counter. Six weeks later, Babin interviewed for the La Mer position. That same day, Saks sent Babin a letter stating that it did not have any positions appropriate for her background, even though Babin had more than 20 years of experience as a makeup artist, the EEOC said. Saks left the position vacant for about two months, later hiring a non-disabled person with no full-time experience as a makeup artist.

Saks later admitted that Babin had in fact been “very qualified” for the La Mer position. The EEOC contended that Saks fired Babin because of her colitis, and that the issue of her broken wrist was merely a cover for its discriminatory motives.

Disability discrimination violates the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. Babin was also represented by private attorney Jeffrey T. Greenberg.

After extensive sworn deposition testimony was taken from witnesses in the case, Saks filed a motion with the court, asking that the suit be dismissed for lack of evidence. Federal Judge Martin L.C. Feldman, presiding for U.S. District Court in New Orleans, issued a 30-page decision in which he denied Saks’s motion to dismiss the case and set forth reasons why a jury could find in Babin’s favor. The decision set the stage for a jury trial, which will not be necessary now because of the settlement.

Besides the monetary award, the company agreed to a number of measures, such as imple­menting a written policy on disability discrimination and having supervisory and human resources staff undergo training on disability discrimination on an annual basis during the two-year period of the consent decree.

Babin commented on the settlement, “I was devastated when Saks fired me and then refused to hire me back. I loved my job and took a lot of pride and joy from working with people. The court’s decision in refusing to throw my case out means a great deal to me. I am grateful that I had the oppor­tunity to have my story heard. I feel that by this settlement, justice was served.”

Jim Sacher, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Houston, who is in charge of all EEOC litigation in Louisiana, said, “This is a strong and appropriate settlement. The allegations here were very serious and were supported by a wealth of solid evidence. Ms. Babin was an excellent employee who did not deserve to be fired because of her disability. We are pleased that Saks has agreed to compen­sate Ms. Babin and to take additional steps which will benefit employees and applicants in the future. The EEOC will continue to scrutinize situations like this very closely, and to file suit where necessary to enforce the ADA.”

According to company information, Saks has 53 stores nationwide and employs approximately 15,000 people. In 2009, Saks reported a net worth of more than $900 million.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Wal-Mart Sued for Disability Discrimination

EEOC Says Retail Giant Violated ADA by Refusing to Accommodate Deaf Worker

PRESS RELEASE
1-27-10

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a disability discrimination lawsuit against global retail giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a deaf employee at Wal-Mart Store #2258 in Alexandria, Va.

According to the EEOC litigation, Wal-Mart violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing provide an accommodation to former employee Stephanie Holmes, from around November 2002 until December 2006. Holmes, who is deaf and communicates primarily using American Sign Language (ASL), worked as a stocker. The EEOC charged that in order to perform her job, Holmes needed an ASL interpreter and/or comprehensive written notes at various times throughout her employment to effectively communicate with her managers, co-workers and, occasionally, with customers. However, Wal-Mart refused to provide the accommodation, despite Holmes’ verbal and written requests in accordance with the ADA.

The EEOC further alleges that because of Wal-Mart’s failure to provide Holmes with a reasonable accommodation, she was denied equal access to the benefits and privileges of employment that other Wal-Mart employees enjoyed. For example, the suit alleges that Holmes was routinely denied access to information provided to other employees by Wal-Mart because she could not hear and/or understand the information, including information disseminated at staff meetings.

The ADA makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to provide a reasonable accommodation unless doing so would pose an undue hardship on the employer. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No.1:10-cv-00075), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court. The suit seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for Holmes, as well as injunctive and other non-monetary relief.

“Employers must recognize that they have an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Lynette A. Barnes of the agency’s Charlotte District, which includes Virginia. “It’s unfortunate that twenty years after the enactment of the ADA, some employers still haven’t gotten the message that disability discrimination is unlawful and will not be tolerated. This suit should remind employers that the EEOC will not waiver in enforcing the ADA.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov