Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and X [formerly Twitter]) from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
The post on Sunday 3/31/2024 told us DOJ secures settlement with manufacturing company to resolve alleged discrimination against National Guardsman. The Justice Department announced resolution of its lawsuit against U.S. Development Corporation, doing business as Akro-Plastics, on behalf of Ohio National Guardsman Staff Sergeant Nicholas Whitman. DOJ’s suit alleged that Akro-Plastics violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) when it (a) failed to promote Sergeant Whitman to an HR position based on his military service obligation and (b) constructively discharged him on his return from military service.
According to the complaint, Sergeant Whitman started working at Akro-Plastics in June 2022. He applied for an HR job in September 2022 and went through three interviews. But then his National Guard duties kicked in. See the post for the company’s knowledge and actions. Under the settlement agreement, Akro-Plastics will pay Sergeant Whitman monetary damages. The company also agreed to non-monetary damages as noted in the post.
At the outset the Department of Labor (DOL) referred this matter to DOJ following an investigation by DOL’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t forget about USERRA which provides protections for those in the military – get assistance from an employment lawyer if needed.
The post on Monday 4/1/2024 was no joke: Tesla settled with former employee over racial discrimination claims. This settlement is of a long-running discrimination case that drew attention to the electric vehicle maker’s treatment of people of color.
Owen Diaz, who was awarded nearly $3.2M by a federal jury in April 2023, reached a “final, binding settlement agreement that fully resolves all claims”, according to a document filed with the federal court. As is the norm, the filed document gave no details of the agreement but merely noted that both parties agree the matter has been resolved and the case against Tesla can be dismissed.
The April verdict was the second one in Diaz’s case seeking to hold Tesla liable for allowing him to be subjected to racial epithets and other abuses during his brief tenure at the Fremont, CA factory run by the automaker. But the jury aware in the latest trial was drastically different than in his first trial in 2021 – see the post for the awards. Because the trial judge reduced the award to $15m, Diaz sought a new trial. In November, Diaz filed a notice of appeal and Tesla filed a notice of cross-appeal.
So what was the case about anyway? It goes back to 2017. Diaz alleged that Tesla didn’t take action to stop a racist culture at the factory located about 40 miles (65km) south-east of San Francisco. Details of what Diaz endured in his short (but felt long) tenure at Tesla are in the post.
Coincidentally (?) the same Tesla plant is in the crosshairs of a separate racial discrimination case brought by CA regulators. Tesla has denied the allegations, responding as noted in the post. Unfortunately for Tesla, the EEOC filed a similar complaint against Tesla in September 2023. What is ironic is that Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and largest shareholder, moved the company’s headquarters from Silicon Valley to Austin, Texas, in 2021, partly because of tensions with various California agencies over practices at the Fremont factory.
TAKEAWAY: whether large or small, employers must comply with the law and not discriminate against employees on the basis of protected characteristics. Just don’t.
The post on Tuesday 4/2/2024 told us the EEOC rules on accommodating religious employees on Saturdays. NOTE: this was prior to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v DeJoy. The EEOC reported that it has considered problems arising from the insistence of some employers that employes work on Saturday in cases involving Jewish workers. Seventh Day Adventists are also affected. But the EEOC noted that only 14 cases of religious discrimination were received – in contrast to the numbers for other claims as noted in the post.
The report clarified that of the charges of religious discrimination, most questioned whether it is discrimination on religious grounds to discharge or refuse to hire a person whose religious observances require that he take time off during the employer’s regular work week. When the issue normally arises is detailed in the post.
The EEOC determined that an employer is required to accommodate the reasonable religious needs of employees or prospective employees where such accommodation can be made without serious inconvenience to the normal conduct of business. So what can an employer do when it comes to religious accommodation? The post gave some examples.
The EEOC also said that when an employer schedules a normal work week and foreseeable overtime requirements with no intention to discriminate, a job applicant or employee who accepted the job knowing or having no reason to believe that the schedule would conflict with his religious obligations is not entitled to demand any alteration in such requirements. Contrast that with the situation of an employee whose schedule did not conflict with religious observances and the schedule is changed – see the post as to the employer’s obligation to accommodate (again, prior to Groff v. DeJoy).
FINAL NOTE: If you didn’t catch it, this post was a reprint from May 1967.
TAKEAWAY: No matter how much has changed in the workplace in the past 45 years, what has not changed is the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion (and the need to accommodate for same).
The post on Wednesday 4/3/2024 noted that Allstate’s Florida company defends 54% condo rate hike, blames reinsurance, hurricane, rapid growth. What would your condo or homeowners’ association do if the insurance premium increased by 50% from the prior year?
When Allstate’s Florida unit, Castle Key Indemnity Co., entered the surging condo insurance market in 2020, it looked like a smart bet: within two years, it had added no fewer than 123,000 policies. But then came reinsurance price increases and $56 million in hurricane losses. That resulted in the things listed in the post over the next 36 months, along with six (count them, 6!) double-digit rate increases. The latest of the rate increases was for 53.5% and affected over 67,700 condo unit owners. And that’s not all – see the post for pending rate increases.
The premium increases have not necessarily been even throughout the state. Where they hit hardest is noted in the post – and should not be surprising. Sadly, some policyholders have seen premium increases as much as 94% since the 53.5% increase kicked in May 2023. The average annual condo premium cost and increase? See the post.
One condo owner took issue with the increase. What she said during a hearing on a rate increase request, is in the post. Brokers and condo association advocates in Florida echo the owner’s concerns and note that condos there have seen insurance premiums skyrocket while coverage limits have been drastically reduced (yep, burning the candle at both ends).
TAKEAWAY: Know what your association’s insurance cost is and what coverage is included; compare with other carriers and find what is needed for your association.
In the post on Thursday 4/4/2024, we saw owner admits violating HOA rule, refuses to comply. The dispute is over trees in a backyard but is sad. IN July 2023 Allan Lee was showering in his home when a tree crashed through the house. Allan was crushed and killed; his wife, Rachel, and their daughters escaped. Rachel said that the community has many tall trees. But there is a problem with the trees in her yard – see the post. To compensate, Rachel removed the rest of the trees in her backyard. What she did not do is request permission from the HOA to remove the trees. Rachel made that decision deliberately – her reasoning is in the post. Now the HOA still wants her to submit the form, but she refuses to do so. It is unclear what implications that refusal might have.
TAKEAWAY: What does your association do to ensure compliance with the Governing Documents? A good community association lawyer can help you.
The post on Friday 4/5/2024 told us Dillard’s to pay $70,000 in employee pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. Dillard’s is a national department store chain based in Little Rock. It is now also a defendant who has settled a case with the EEOC.
The suit alleged that in February 2020, a longtime African American sales associate at an Atlanta store told the new store manager about her existing pregnancy-related accommodation. But then days later, the new manager rescinded the accommodation and more – see the post. In March 2020, the employee complained that the actions were discriminatory based on her race and pregnancy. Did Dillard’s at least take appropriate action after the complaint? See the post. And there’s more. When the company began to recall employees from a pandemic-related furlough in April 2020, the employee was not asked to return to work. Dillard’s wasn’t done with this employee yet – see the post.
The EEOC alleged the conduct violated the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII. The partes entered a two-and-a-half-year consent decree resolving the suit. As noted, Dillard’s will pay $70,000 in monetary damages to the sales associate. But there’s more (there is almost always more!) as noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: In case we’ve not said it enough, don’t discriminate against employees on the basis of protected characteristics, including pregnancy; it will be costly.
Finally, in the post yesterday 4/6/2024, we saw that harassment and drugs plagued a Citigroup division for years. You will think you are at a stereotypical fraternity party when you read this.
Bankers from Citigroup Inc. were partying with clients one night in May 2018 at a downtown Manhattan hot spot called Catch. One, a recent college grad, had landed in the equities division for her two-year rotational program at the bank and had brought her roommate along to the party. As the evening progressed, one of the unit’s bosses came up behind the roommate and surprised her by grinding his crotch against her (according to two people who said they saw him do it). Months later, that rotator said, a male trader told her to wear shorter skirts and higher heels to work and made multiple inquiries into her love life.
Interviews with 22 people who worked in or closely with the equities division suggest the incidents were not an aberration, but rather part of the persistent harassment and discrimination at Citigroup’s equities unit in New York. The interviews echo allegations in a lawsuit filed in 2023 by a managing director who claims such conduct continued until as recently as 2022. Some of the things that supposedly happened (according to those interviewed) are in the post – including drug use. And when they complained to senior executives and HR, nothing happened – other than some employees left.
Citigroup made history three years ago – what it did is in the post. And yet the behavior in its stock-trading unit stands out even in an industry that has struggled for decades to rein in conduct that makes women feel unwelcome. What Citi’s spokesperson said about the conduct is quoted in the post (but seem to ring a bit hollow given the allegations …)..
The biggest investment banks typically have over 1,000 front-office employees in their equities trading divisions. How that compares to Citi’s total workforce is noted in the post., along with some background on Citi’s recent leadership changes during the period of time encompassing the misconduct allegations.
Let’s look at one more example. One female derivatives trader recalled sitting at a client dinner at Locanda Verde near the bank’s headquarters in 2010 when a colleague reached under the table and put his hand on her leg. Around that time, she said, a research analyst asked her why she didn’t wear sexier shoes. She told HR and senior managers; what one female executive told her is noted in the post. One colleague remembered the trader speaking about harassment at the time, and another recalled hearing about the exchange with the executive. Citi’s spokesperson said they have no complaints (or other people who were the subjects of the complaints were no longer with the firm); that is not surprising. As is common in this situation, two other women said they stayed quiet about being sexually harassed by colleagues out of fear of retaliation in an industry that prizes discretion and loyalty. Six people there besides the derivatives trader said that they complained about what they saw as workplace misconduct to senior colleagues or HR – but nothing was done. Three said they described separate incidents to Dan Keegan, who ran Citigroup’s trading business across North America. What they told Keegan, and the end result, is in the post.
Want more? Before a new class of young colleagues joined around 2018, bankers prepared for their arrival by circulating a dossier that included their photos. Employees judged their attractiveness and openly discussed favorites, according to one person who saw it and two others who heard of it at the time. This mirrors what in alleged in the November 2023 lawsuit from Ardith Lindsey, the managing director.
The post also describes more allegations in Lindsey’s suit, including an environment where men talked about which women they wanted to sleep with, treating them as “sexual objects.” In interviews with Bloomberg News after that suit was filed, five women who’ve worked in the division described similar experiences (noted in the post) as recently as 2019. One junior employee, for example, said Singh would drop his credit card in front of her to request she fetch him food.
And does Citi protect its “in crowd”? See the post for an incident that might make one think so. And then there are the drug use allegations … see the post for those salacious details.
Citi may finally be doing something about all of this. And current leadership is trying to overhaul Citi.
TAKEAWAY: If this were happening in your business, what would you do? After contacting your employment lawyer, that is. Hopefully you would put an immediate stop to it …
York, Pennsylvania 17403