Employment Discrimination Archives - Page 5 of 7

Two Recent Historical Events May Have Impact In Suit Against Catholic School for Sex Discrimination

Flint Dollar taught music at Mount de Sales Academy in Macon, Georgia for four years. According to Dollar, who is gay, he was clear with school administration about his sexual orientation when he was hired by the school. As described in this npr article, it was after Dollar announced on his Facebook page his plans to marry his longtime partner that his contract with the Catholic school was not renewed.

“I was told that…. the bishop of the Diocese of Savannah called and expressed his concern that if I was to return it would be against the teachings of the Catholic Church,” stated Dollar in the article.

Although federal discrimination laws do not explicitly prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination due to an individual’s sex. Courts are beginning to clarify that these prohibitions against sex discrimination do include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In an effort to address the issue of discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation, attorneys for Federal employee Peter TerVeer have successfully argued thus far that the Plaintiff was penalized for his romantic interest in men, whereas similarly situated female employees were not penalized for the same reason.

In recent weeks, President Barack Obama has made great strides for federal employees in the LGBT community, providing them a protection that has never been guaranteed. While President Obama has specifically provided this protection to federal employees and contractors, such legislation could be used to deter future discrimination against the LGBT community across the nation.

In the recent Supreme Court opinion Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et al., it was determined that as a religious founded company, Hobby Lobby is exempt from the requirement to extend birth control coverage to its employees. Attorneys for Hobby Lobby argued that birth control methods such as the ‘morning after’ pill constitute as abortion and the requirement to provide such is unconstitutional under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

As a Catholic school, attorneys for Mount de Sales Academy can ultimately argue that under Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et al., the decision to terminate an employee’s employment based on something that goes against an entities religious beliefs or affiliation, such as sexual orientation, is constitutional.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced employment discrimination due to sexual orientation or identity, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Strip Club Sued for Racial Discrimination

In an action filed in the United States District Court last week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit against a Clearwater strip club for racial discrimination against a bartender.

As alleged in the complaint, Quatavia Harden was terminated at the request of club owner Michael Tomkovich. According to the complaint, Tomkovich instructed then supervisor Patrick Franke to fire Harden because he did not want black people to be the face of his club. Franke voiced his concerns with this request to both Tomkovich and a supervising regional manager. Both Harden and Franke were terminated from the strip club.

As detailed in this article, evidence in support of the discriminatory actions by club management is a text message from the regional manager instructing Franke to fire Harden.

“In this case, it just appears that he was intent on not having African-Americans be the face of his business,” stated senior trial attorney for the EEOC Aarrin Golson. “We feel this way about any establishment that takes the stance that it’s not going to have African-Americans be part of the organization. It’s a big issue especially in light of (this week) being the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. It’s kind of ridiculous that 50 years later, we’re still battling these issues.”

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced discrimination due to race, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help.Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

WalGreens Reaches $180,000 Settlement for Diabetic Worker’s Termination

Josefina Hernandez worked as a cashier for Walgreens for almost 18 years. In 2008, her employment with the drugstore was terminated due to what Walgreens interpreted as theft.

While she was at work, the 57 year old diabetic suffered an attack from low blood sugar. In an to attempt to stabilize her low blood sugar, Hernandez grabbed a $1.39 bag of chips and ate them. Hernandez paid for the chips after she recovered from the attack. The longtime cashier was terminated for violating Walgreen’s antitheft policy.

After a failed attempt at reconciliation, the EEOC filed suit against Walgreens on behalf of Ms. Hernandez.

According to this article, U.S. District Judge William Orrick rejected Walgreens attempt to dismiss the suit. Instead of facing a jury that would decide whether or not the former cashier was fired due to her disability, the drugstore offered settlement in the action. In addition to the reached settlement, Walgreens has agreed to train staff on accommodating employees that have disabilities.

If you or someone you know thinks they have been discriminated against due to a disability, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Disabled Employee Sues Wal-Mart for Discrimination

William Clark, an intellectually challenged individual, was employed at Wal-Mart for eighteen years. As part of his accommodation as a disabled employee, Clark was given daily written assignments throughout his employment with the retailer. With this accommodation, Clark was able to successfully perform his job duties, meeting company expectations on a consistent basis.

For reasons that are not known at this time, Wal-Mart rescinded the accommodation given to Clark. As a result, Clark was disciplined for poor job performance and eventually his employment with the store was terminated.

As detailed in this article, the EEOC has filed suit against Wal-Mart for disability discrimination. EEOC regional attorney John Hendrickson stated, “The EEOC’s position in this case is that Wal-Mart just took away – with no good reason – an effective workplace accommodation of an intellectually disabled employee. That reversal fatally compromised the employee’s ability to continue doing a job he had done so well for many, many years, and ended up with him being fired.”

“We intend to show that the company’s action was a particularly senseless violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act – and especially hurtful injustice – that Mr. Clark is entitled to whole relief and to punitive damages, and that the public interest requires strong injunctive measures to correct Wal-Mart’s practices,” Hendrickson stated.

If you or someone you know thinks they have been discriminated against due to a disability, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Pregnant Worker Sues Massage Envy for Wrongful Termination

In April, 2013, Morgan McCloskey was hired to work as a front desk attendant at a Massage Envy franchise. Before her first day of work, McCloskey took a home pregnancy test and the result was positive. As detailed in this article, a complaint filed by the EEOC alleges that on her first day of work, McCloskey told a supervisor of her possible pregnancy.

After a doctor confirmed her pregnancy a few days later, McCloskey was called into a meeting with two managers and her employment with the well known spa was terminated.

After attempts to reach a settlement with the franchise failed, the EEOC is seeking injunctive relief to bar future discrimination by the franchise. In addition, the EEOC is asking for back pay and damages.

Attorney for the EEOC, Lynette Barnes, “No working woman should have to fear losing her job simply because she decides to have a child.” Further stating, “Employers must remember that terminating an employee because she is pregnant violates federal law.”

Speaking for Massage Envy, attorney Nichole Murphey, “Massage Envy has never terminated anyone’s employment due to pregnancy. My client has routinely employed and currently continues to employ pregnant women.”

If you or someone you know thinks they have been terminated for unlawful reasons, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.