Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: this week included an unusually high number of posts about EEOC suits because the EEOC is stepping up its enforcement and it’s good to learn what NOT to do by reviewing some of the suits.
The post on Sunday 10/20/2024 noted the EEOC sues Advance Auto Parts for maintaining hostile work environments for gay and Black workers. Yes that Advance Auto Parts, the national automotive parts retail chain. According to the EEOC’s suit, employees at Advance Auto Parts refused to follow instructions from an assistant manager because she is gay, calling her derogatory names targeting her sexual orientation. And then there were issues faced by Black employees as noted in the post. Advance Auto Parts then failed to take prompt corrective action to stop the harassment, alleged the EEOC. The suit alleges that those actions violated Title VII. The EEOC filed suit in federal court in Florida after conciliation efforts failed. The EEOC’s statements about the case is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Treat all employees the same; don’t act (or let others act) based on a protected characteristic (including race or sex).
The post on Monday 10/21/2024 was about How Courts have analyzed discrimination claims after the US Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri: What employers need to know. By now you should know that in April, the Supreme Court issued this decision that lowered the standard federal courts are to apply in discriminatory transfer claims under Title VII. What plaintiffs must now show under Muldrow is in the post. So the question is what the difference is between the new and old standard. In his concurring opinion in Muldrow, Justice Alito stated, “I have no idea what this means, and I can just imagine how this guidance will be greeted by lower court judges.” So the post looked at what has happened in the months since the decision was issued.
First, Muldrow may not be limited to Title VII transfers. That was the issue in the underlying case (as noted in the post), but arguably the decision could be extended to other fact patterns. Since Muldrow was issued, some federal trial and appellate courts have applied Muldrow’s standard to all employment actions (not only transfers), and to other discrimination statutes such as the ADA and others noted in the post.
But on the other hand, Muldrow has made (almost) no difference. Justices Alito and Thomas were skeptical that lower courts would apply the new “some harm” standard any differently than the prior “material harm” standard, and it appears they may be right so far. Even though some federal judges have applied Muldrow for situations beyond transfers and Title VII, the impact has been minimal (extending to some areas like those noted in the post). But many have continued to find that reprimands, exclusions from social events and trips, and changes in a work schedule or work location still do not, by themselves, constitute adverse employment action sufficient to meet the (new) legal standard.
So, months after Muldrow, where are we? It appears we are not too far from where we were prior to the decision. Federal judges seem to be deciding cases the same way that they did before. We will keep you advised of any new developments.
TAKEAWAY: Employers need to know what standard will be applied to adverse employment actions; best practices are to have legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons behind all (arguably) adverse employment actions.
The post on Tuesday 10/22/2024 cried Help! My neighbor’s holiday decorations are out of control – how to handle community association issues. Yep, it’s that time of year again – Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa and more. Your neighbor’s holiday decorations may be festive and fun, but they’re awfully big and way too loud. Can anything be done? Perhaps – the post contains some steps to try.
First, confirm the Rules and Regulations. Those decorations that are too much for you might not violate any association rules or even any statutes. As to the latter, what you can do is noted in the post. And as for the condo or homeowner’s association, check its rules and regulations (and Bylaws and Declaration (CC&Rs).
Next, confirm that you aren’t the problem. Before you call the pot black (i.e., complain about your neighbor’s decorations), make sure your own holiday decorations aren’t problematic. Some things you should do are listed in the post. And if your decorations have problems, make corrections before you take action regarding your neighbor’s decorations. Also think about whether what you want to complaint about is reasonable. Some things you might want to think about are detailed in the post.
Once you’ve done that, think about a conversation instead of a complaint. More detail on that and the possible steps to take if that is unsuccessful are all in the post
Hopefully you won’t need to get to that last step, but it is there.
TAKEAWAY: Life in a community association is life in a bubble of sorts: restrictions and rules that everyone must follow whether or not they agree with them. Know what the restrictions are before you complain or enforce. A community association lawyer can help.
The post on Wednesday 10/23/2024 told us the EEOC sues Mile-Hi Companies for unlawfully discriminating against job applicants. Mile Hi distributes food and paper products; it allegedly violated federal law when it issued and followed discriminatory hiring directives. The EEOC alleges that the actions taken affected Black, female, and Afghan job applicants. The discriminatory directives included a handwritten note from the CEO not to hire beyond a certain number of Black applicants because they are “lazy.” His instructions relative to women and Afghan applicants are described in the post. And when the HR manager opposed those discriminatory directives and told executives that they violated the law, Mile Hi retaliated against her. What it did is in the post.
The EEOC alleged that the conduct violated Title VII. Suit was filed in federal court in Colorado after conciliation failed. The statements by EEOC regional counsel and a field office director are in the post. Inks to EEOC resources on race and color, sex-based, and national origin discrimination are also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: We keep saying it: don’t discriminate against employees or applicant on the basis of a protected characteristic.
In the post on Thursday 10/24/2024 we read that the EEOC sues Insurance Auto Auctions for racial harassment. The company auctions vehicle and allegedly violated federal law. The suit alleges that a yard attendant endured constant racial slurs by co-workers, including the “n-word,” up to 15 times a day for over a year. The general manager was quite aware of what was going on; what he did is in the post. But it didn’t stop there; a manager was given a green light as noted in the post. The Black employee thought there was no choice but to quit to escape the hostile work environment.
The EEOC alleges that the conduct violated Title VII and filed suit in federal court in California after conciliation failed. Once again, the EEOC’s statements are in the post.
The EEOC has huge recoveries for Title VII violations involving race harassment. The actual amount is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Let’s repeat ourselves: don’t take adverse action against any employee (or applicant) based on anything other than poor performance. Employment law counsel can help.
The post on Friday 10/25/2024 explained that homeowner facs foreclosure over nearly $1M owed. We asked if this could happen only in FL or anywhere else.
A homeowner in the Seven Bridges community is facing foreclosure over nearly $1M in debt. A lawsuit was just filed in state court asking for either the money or the house. The complaint alleges that Alejandro Tejeda and Martha Tajeda purchased the home in December 2016 for $1,249,772, taking out a mortgage for most of the purchase price. They stopped making mortgage payments in September 2023. What else had already happened by that time is noted in the post. The complaint alleges that the Tajedas now owe $968,894.90 to the mortgage lender. And how much is owed and to what creditor(s)? See the post. The Tejadas may also owe money to the Seven Bridges Homeowner Association too.
Where tax notices go toe Tejadas (their residential address) is noted in the post. That address is a one bedroom apartment with under 1000 square feet of space, whereas the home in Seven Bridges that is being foreclosed on is four bedrooms and five baths in almost 5400 square feet.
TAKEAWAY: It doesn’t matter the size or location of the house – the owners must still pay the mortgage and assessments and other amounts due to any homeowners’ association. Contact a community association lawyer relative to arrears.
Finally, in the post yesterday 10/26/2024, we noted that an EEOC settlement underscores heightened undue hardship religious accommodation standard. Earlier this week we posted about an easier standard for one type of discrimination; now we talked about a standard that’s harder to meet, that for denial of a religious accommodation.
Suncakes NC, LLC, and Suncakes, LLC (companies in NC and TX – hereafter “Suncakes”) do business as IHOP. They will pay $40,000 as part of the settlement of a religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit recently filed by the EEOC. Let’s dig deeper.
This suit was filed in federal court in North Carolina and serves as a good reminder to employers about their duty to accommodate an employee’s religious practices unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. The EEOC alleged that a company line cook, Mr. Morton, was a Christian and sincerely believed that Sunday was the Sabbath and a Holy Day on which he was to honor God by attending church services and doing the other things noted in the post. At or shortly after Mr. Morton’s employment began, he told the general manager about his religious beliefs and requested by way of accommodation that he not work on Sundays. Suncakes initially approved the accommodation, but then things changed. Mr. Morton was scheduled to work on several Sundays due to staff shortages. After a change in managers, it got worse. What happened at that point is described in the post. Mr. Morton refused to continue work on Sundays (based on his religious beliefs) and the general manager terminated him.
The EEOC alleges that the termination violated Title VII. Settlement negotiations resulted in a consent decree being entered by the Court requiring Suncakes to pay Mr. Morton $40,000 and for a host of non-monetary relief detailed in the post. The settlement includes a revised religious protection policy that will cover Suncakes’ 17 locations.
Again, this case underscores the new standard an employer must meet to deny a religious accommodation. The 2023 US Supreme Court decision that brought us the new standard is discussed in the post. The new standard differs drastically from the previous de minimis standard.
So what should employers do given the new standard and obvious EEOC enforcement? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: When an employee requests an accommodation on the basis of sincerely-held religious beliefs, take it seriously and follow the applicable accommodation process. And consider getting an employment lawyer involved to ensure you meet your obligations.
York, Pennsylvania 17403