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.
The post on Sunday 4/21/2024 told us hospital to pay $45000 in EEOC retaliation lawsuit settlement. Jacobson Memorial Hospital Care Center, a critical access hospital in Elgin, North Dakota, will pay $45,000 and provide other relief to settle the suit. Let’s look deeper.
The EEOC alleged that the hospital violated Title VII (the specific provision of which is noted in the post) when it fired a Black nursing aide in retaliation six days after she reported that a co-worker called her the “n-word” in May 2019. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
Under the three-Condo year consent decree, Jacobson will pay $45,000 in monetary damages to the nursing aide; adopt and distribute anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies; and provide the other non-monetary relief listed in the post. The EEOC noted that, “Title VII protects an employee’s right to speak out when they experience discrimination or harassment” and more as noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Remember that there need not be any underlying discrimination or harassment in order that a retaliation claim succeed; make sure not to give employees a basis to sue.
The post on Monday 4/22/2024 was news of another settlement: Landau Uniforms settled EEOC pregnancy discrimination suit for $80K. Landau Uniforms, Inc., a Mississippi-based company, manufactures and distributes medical scrubs and other health care-related clothing. The settlement involves both monetary and non-monetary relief.
In its lawsuit the EEOC alleged that Landau Uniforms violated federal law by subjecting Tara Smith, who worked at a Landau manufacturing and shipping facility, to unequal terms and conditions of employment because of her pregnancy. And there was more – see the post. The federal statute under which the suit was brought is noted in the post. The suit was filed after conciliation failed.
So what will Landua provide as part of the 12-month consent decree settlement? The $80,000 monetary relief, agreement not to discriminate against employees on the basis of sex or retaliation. And the other things listed in the post. What di the EEOC have to say about the settlement? “Employers cannot penalize female employees based on discriminatory stereotypes about pregnancy. The EEOC will continue to work to eradicate this type of discriminatory conduct.”
TAKEAWAY: Don’t treat pregnant employees differently than other employees unless there is a legal basis to do so – and check with an employment lawyer before assuming there is such a legal basis.
The post on Tuesday 4/23/2024 explained that woman sues condo association for negligence leading to damages exceeding $50K. In state court in Palm Beach, Florida, plaintiff Eliszae Sather filed suit against The Sterling Villages of Palm Beach Lakes Condominium Association, Inc. on April 3, 2024. She alleges negligence on the part of the association leading to damages exceeding $50,000. Sather claims that she visited the association’s premises as a business invitee on February 15, 2023 and that while there she allegedly encountered an unreasonably dangerous condition (described more in the post). Sather is seeking damages for her injuries (again, more detail is in the post). She alleges that the association failed in its duty to ensure public safety (see the post) and failing to inspect or adequately warn about potential dangers and not rendering aid (yep, details are in the post). Stay tuned …
TAKEAWAY: All community associations must fulfill their duty to maintain (and replace if necessary) the common elements – liability (even exceeding any insurance coverage limit) could attach if any failure leads to damages to person or property.
The post on Wednesday 4/24/2024 stayed with the apparent theme: casino to pay $100K to settle EEOC sexual harassment lawsuit. This one is closer to home. Golden Entertainment, Inc., which formerly owned and operated Rocky Gap Casino in Flintstone, Maryland, has agreed to pay $100,000 and provide the other non-monetary relief listed in the post to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit. The EEOC’s suit alleges that a male bartender at Rocky Gap Casino subjected a female bartender to sexual harassment including sexual comments and groping the female bartender’s buttocks. The female bartender complained to her supervisors about the harassment, but the casino continued to assign her to work with the harasser, and the harassment persisted. What the male bartender said to the female bartender is in the post. After more complaints, the casino reassigned the female bartender away from the male and to a less lucrative station, ultimately forcing her to leave the employer. The EEOC alleged that the conduct was a violation of Title VII and filed suit in 2020 after conciliation failed. So what has Golden Entertainment agreed to provide under the three-year consent decree In addition to the $100,000 in monetary relief for the female bartender? See the post.
The EEOC noted, “Hospitality employees and managers are often trained to be relaxed, friendly, and create a fun, casual environment. However, it must always be clear that this does not mean engaging in, tolerating, or failing to remedy sexual harassment.” The EEOC also commented on what an employee must do after a complaint or report is made – see the post.
TAKEAWAY: It is not hard to stay on the right side of legal if you properly train employees and then investigate (and take action on) reports or complaints of illegal acts. Get advice from an employment lawyer to be sure.
In the post on Thursday 4/25/2024, the breaking news was that the US Supreme Court establishes lower bar for discriminatory job transfer actions under Title VII. On April 17, 2024, the Court unanimously held that allegedly discriminatory job transfers are actionable under Title VII so long as the transfer caused “some harm” to the plaintiff. This decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri overturns precedent in several federal circuit courts (not the Third which governs actions in PA) which held that discriminatory job transfer actions are only actionable if the transfer causes the plaintiff “serious” or “material” harm.
We discussed this case in our post of Mon. 3/25/2024. But let’s get some background here too. In Muldrow, the plaintiff alleged that her employer, the St. Louis Police Department, transferred her to a new unit because of her sex. Her rank and pay remained the same in her new position, but the position was viewed as less prestigious and resulted in the loss of her entitlement to a service vehicle and led to an irregular work schedule.
What happened procedurally before the case got to the Supreme Court is described in the post (and sets out the issue). Before it reviewed the appellate court’s decision, the Supreme Court first held that plaintiffs need only “show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment” to establish a Title VII claim based on a purportedly discriminatory job transfer (which standard lowers the bar plaintiffs must meet to establish claims under Title VII in many federal circuits). The Court provided examples of transfers previously found lacking under the prior “material harm” standard which likely would have been decided differently under the new “some harm” standard. The examples are in the post.
After evaluating the facts of Muldrow under the new “some harm” standard, the Court vacated the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Why? Because the plaintiff’s transfer left her “worse off,” which is all that she needed to establish under the new “some harm” standard to survive summary judgment.
But that’s not the only significance of the case. The Court’s decision to vacate the appellate court’s judgment was unanimous, but Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh each authored separate concurring opinions. They each agreed with the ultimate determination but raised concerns regarding application of the new “some harm” standard. What each wrote about – and my they span a large continuum – is detailed in the post.
TAKEAWAY: It is now more difficult for employers to successfully dispose of Title VII suits based on job transfers. Further, the reasoning employed by the Supreme Court might apply to other types of employment decisions too, making defending those actions more difficult. Keep your employment lawyer on speed dial and push the button to call.
The post on Friday 4/26/2024 noted: “She exploited a community of fixed-income retirees” – HOA treasurer stole $230K from neighbors. Federal prosecutors said Sharon Lee Ann Gordon, the treasurer of the Lava Bluff HOA in Hurricane, Utah, (about 300 miles southwest of Salt Lake City), took advantage of the community for years. They allege that between 2016 and March 2022, Gordon, 66, drained $232,078 from other members’ accounts for her personal benefit. From what sources did she take the money? See the post. One way she embezzled the funds was by forging board members’ signatures and transferring the money to her account. But there were other ways too – see the post. When the HOA board detected Gordon’s scheme, a lien was placed on her home; That led to Gordon selling her home and paying the HOA $168,629 after she signed a note claiming she would repay the amount she stole.
Oh but that’s not all. Prosecutors said Gordon also falsely claimed on her April 2022 tax form that her income for 2021 was $13,502, but … (see the post). Gordon pleaded guilty to wire fraud and a false statement on a tax return and was sentenced to one year and one day of home detention. Probation? See the post. After sentencing, the judge ordered Gordon to pay another creditor – not surprising considering the facts – see the post; that is o top of the $63,448 she still owes to the HOA.
TAKEAWAY: Ensure that your condo or homeowners’ association has appropriate checks & balances in place – run them by your community association lawyer.
Finally, in the post yesterday 4/27/2024, we saw that a former County employee sues over alleged violation of FMLA (by judge!). A former administrative assistant to the probate judge sued the county for retaliation in violation of the FMLA, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Brittany Peay filed the suit against the County, County Associate Probate Judge Michelle Hackman, the assistant probate judge and County Probate Judge Jesse S. Cartrette.
Let’s look at the background as alleged in the suit. Peay requested a leave from work for one month due to her medical condition. She was questioned about the timing and was treated in a hostile manner. Further, Peay was later informed that she needed to use accrued sick leave before requesting FMLA leave (which she did). A portion of the lawsuit is pasted in the post verbatim and talks about how and why her employment was terminated. Peay alleges that she was terminated in retaliation for seeking FMLA, in violation of the County’s policies.” And how was Peay harmed? That too is in the post (as pasted from her suit).
The county filed a response to Peay’s suit. It says that she did not follow policy relative to her leave request (details are in the post). The county also denied that Peay “performed her job well” and demurred to other allegations. The county asked that the lawsuit be dismissed for “lack of jurisdiction.” The basis for that request is in the post. The County Administrator refused to comment on pending litigation. A trial date has not yet been set.
TAKEAWAY: Employers can certainly enforce legal policies but must ensure that same is not a shield used to visit illegal action on an employee. Where is that employment lawyer review of your action?
NOTE: remember that as of 4/17/2024 we ceased posting on X (formerly Twitter).
York, Pennsylvania 17403