Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 0
Even though a female restaurant manager was crude and mean to all employees, her behavior may still be considered sexual harassment of male subordinates, because she allegedly engaged in additional physical and verbal harassment of male employees only.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is allowed to go forward with a sexual harassment claim it brought on behalf of a former male Denny’s employee, even though evidence shows that the alleged harasser -- a female manager -- was rude and mean to both men and women.
The restaurant argued that because the manager was mean and rude to all employees, she could not have singled out the plaintiff because of his gender, a requirement for a sexual harassment claim. However, the court agreed with the EEOC that there was a legitimate question about whether the manager treated male employees worse than females. The plaintiff alleged that the manager made sexual comments and jokes to him and touched him in a sexual manner against his will -- actions she did not take toward female employees.
The restaurant also argued that the employee should be barred from bringing his claim, because he had not followed the company’s written procedures for reporting sexual harassment. The court held this was an issue for the jury to decide.
This case describes the standard for demonstrating sexual harassment and explains the difference between a supervisor who treats all employees equally badly and one who singles out one gender for worse treatment. Sexual harassment occurs only when the behavior is “because of sex,” and thus bad behavior that targets men and women equally is not actionable under Title VII.
-- Paul Freehling, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see EEOC v. R.F. Restaurants Inc. 2006 WL 3747353 (S.D. Fla. December 14, 2006)].
Employee claiming a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) violation cannot count workers at her company’s nearby parent corporation to reach the 50-employee threshold for coverage under the law, because the two locations were not a single, integrated employer.
An employee at an office-supplies wholesaler took one-and-a-half days off work to care for her mentally ill daughter and was fired as a result. She had previously missed work on two other occasions for the same reason. The employee brought suit under the FMLA, arguing she was entitled to the time off to care for her seriously ill daughter.
The employer objected, explaining that the employee was not entitled to protection by the FMLA because the company did not have 50 employees within a 75-mile radius of the work site. In response, the plaintiff claimed that she could count the employees who worked for her employer’s parent company at a work site only a few miles away. The parent company was a retailer of auto parts.
The court disagreed with the plaintiff, explaining that the two companies did not constitute an integrated employer. Specifically, they did not have common management or any interrelation of their operations. Each company had its own HR department, headquarters and record-keeping processes and maintained completely separate work sites. Although the subsidiary used the parent’s employment policies, documents and payroll services, the court found that these were simple economic decisions designed to promote efficiency and the subsidiary still maintained complete control over its hiring, scheduling and compensation.
The only factor in favor of finding integration was the fact that the parent wholly owned the subsidiary, and this alone was not enough to find that the two entities should be treated as a single employer. For this reason, the employee could not take advantage of the benefits of the FMLA, and thus her termination was lawful.
-- Paul Freehling, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Engelhardt v. S.P. Richards Co., -- F.3d. --, 2006 WL 3759330 (1st Cir. December 22, 2006)].
Terminated executive waived his right to sue his company for its failure to rehire him by signing a release at the time of his termination.
When the Kellogg Co. underwent a reduction in force, it terminated a number of employees, offering them an enhanced severance package if they would sign a waiver promising not to sue the company for age discrimination. One of the terminated employees signed the release but then actually continued working for a year on a temporary assignment; he claimed that Kellogg promised to look for a new permanent position for him at the company. When a permanent position failed to materialize, the employee sued for age discrimination, alleging that younger employees had been hired instead of him.
The company argued that the severance agreement and release barred the lawsuit. The employee countered that he only had released claims that occurred before he signed the agreement and that the failure to rehire him happened later. The court sided with the company. It found that the failure to rehire was closely linked to the employee’s earlier termination and not an independent employment decision. By waiving his right to argue that the original termination was based on age discrimination, the executive also waived his right to argue that the company’s failure to find him a new job was discriminatory.
This case describes one outcome when a worker sues his company after signing a promise not to sue. The court pointed out that in some cases, a release will not bar a lawsuit that is based on an action that arises after the release is signed and truly constitutes a separate event.
-- Paul Freehling, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Kellogg Co. v. Sabhlok, -- F.3d --, 2006 WL 3770778 (6th Cir. December 22, 2006)].
Employee who was injured after ignoring work safety rules was properly barred from receiving workers’ compensation benefits.
A teenaged fast-food restaurant worker who was seriously burned after a pressure cooker exploded had his workers’ compensation benefits terminated after evidence showed that the accident was caused by his own reckless disregard for his employer’s safety rules.
The worker had received a copy of the restaurant’s handbook, which stated that violation of work safety rules was grounds for termination. On several occasions prior to the accident, he was warned not to put water into the pressurized deep fryer to clean it, and a notice on top of the fryer stated the same thing. He was warned again on the day of the accident when a coworker saw him putting water in the fryer, but the plaintiff ignored the warnings and was burned when the fryer exploded. After an investigation into the incident, the restaurant fired the worker for violating safety rules and asked that his workers’ compensation benefits for total temporary disability be terminated, because he had abandoned his job.
The court agreed that the benefits should be cut off. Generally, employees who lose their jobs because of workplace misconduct are not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, because they are deemed to have abandoned their jobs. However, if an employee is terminated because of workplace injury, then workers’ compensation benefits cannot be cut off. In this case, the employee was terminated for misconduct, not because of the injury, which happened to occur at the same time as, and as a result of, his breach of safety rules.
The court stressed that in other situations, an employee may still be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits after a workplace injury, even one that was his fault. Generally, the workers’ compensation commission cannot decide who is at fault when compensating for a workplace injury. But in this case, the violation of safety rules was blatant and uncontroverted. There was no evidence that the worker was merely negligent when he was hurt. Therefore, the employer was justified in firing him, and the workers’ compensation board was justified in ending his benefits.
-- Paul Freehling, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see State ex. rel. Gross v. Industrial Commission, 858 N.E.2d 335 (Ohio 2006)].
