Texas Roadhouse and the EEOC The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces laws regarding employment discrimination. This enforcement was necessary in the case of Texas Roadhouse and their employment practices and discrimination against employees both current and potential. These types of lawsuits bring national attention to employment issues promoting the change of discriminatory practices in the workplace through awareness and mandates. Different news sources take different stances on these issues and this commission has received both praise and criticism regarding their enforcement of the case regarding Texas Roadhouse.
Texas Roadhouse Compliance Issue
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Federal laws that protect against employment discrimination. On September 2011, the EEOC filed suit against Texas Roadhouse claiming their hiring practices denied employees and applicant’s jobs or promotions because of their age. In the EEOC original submission of their 2011 claim that only 1.9%
…show more content…
After the EEOC press release announcing the $12 million settlement (March 31, 2017) the main stream news outlets generally repeated the information that was provided by the release with just a couple of differences. In an April 3, 2017 Insider Louisville reported on the EEOC press release and the basic settlement but included the critique heard all through the case that “Critics have expressed fears that the case will give EEOC more power to bring cases without complaints Most news on the settlement focused on the monetary aspect of the $12 million payout for age discrimination without much additional commentary while the EEOC press release was very specific on the terms required of the Texas Roadhouse Chain to protect workers from age
Williamson later filed a complaint with IAD that Bozeman had retaliated against her for her complaint against McLeod. She advised she was shunned, taunted and given a less desirable assignment that caused her to lose overtime possibilities. IAD eventually found her sexual harassment to be not sustained and McLeod only received a written reprimand and Bozeman faced no disciplinary action. Williamson filed an EEOC complaint and this led to suit against the City of Houston. A jury ruled in Williamson’s favor and she was awarded lost compensation and punitive damages.
Williamson v. City of Houston, 148 F. 3d 462, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (1998) Facts: Linda Williamson worked as a police officer in a specialized division in the Houston Police Department. Williamson alleged a coworker, Doug McLeod, engaged in harassing behavior that created a hostile work environment for eighteen months. McLeod continued the harassing behavior after she told him it was offensive and to stop. Williamson reported McLeod’s harassment to their supervisor, Sergeant Bozeman.
Matheson Trucking, Inc. vs. Matheson Flight Extenders warehouse workers The discrimination case that I am discussing is the recent victory of five former and two current warehouse workers of Denver Colorado’s Matheson Flight Extenders, a branch of the Sacramento, California based-Matheson Trucking Company. This suit, stemming from incidents beginning in 2010, involved managers committing the atrocity of race discrimination, defamation of character, and demoralization. My thoughts are intense anger at the treatment of these workers. What training or ethics class, or intro to being a decent human being did these managers miss?
The legal issue in this case was to determine if the City of Newark transferring employees to other fire houses solely based on race, was constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Equal Protection Clause in the constitution protects civil rights and states that the laws of a state must treat everyone in similar conditions and circumstances equally, with out the consideration of race. Similarly the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prevents an employer from discriminating against
Why do you believe these actions were discriminatory? The first case file with EECO by Tanya Conde girl friend of Samuel Varriano Maintenance #3 who was fired from Pitt University .The defendent 's in case Robert Godzik, William Franicola supervisor and Pitt University was dismissed . Now Robert Godzik and Pitt University have confidence themselves this isn 't a hostile work environment .With
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the NLRB decide? This case is based on 26 former employees of MasTec Advanced Technologies, Inc. (MasTec), who sued the company alleging that their employment were terminated after an appearance on a TV news show, complaining about unfair new pay formula and the instructions to lie to the customers in order to meet with the telephone lines installations rates. As is mentioned in the textbook in the MasTec Advanced Technologies' case, the new pay formula indicate that the technicians would be paid $2 less for basic and additional outlet installations, but would earn $3.35 for each receiver they connected to phone line.
According to the new law, employers will be prohibited from paying their employees of opposite sex a lower pay rate when the job duties are “substantially similar.” Previously, laws were in place protecting
In the case of Moore v. Texas, “the Supreme Court will face the question of whether it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to use outdated medical standards in assessing intellectual disabilities to determine whether an individual may be executed.” This really stood out to me, to think that he committed the act of a murder in 1980, when he took the life of a grocery store clerk and they are questioning if he should face the consequences that he was given. In my opinion if you chose to take the life of any individual you must pay for your actions, I feel that many people use “intellectual disability” as a way to avoid being put to death. I do agree many people have mental sickness such as “schizophrenia, bipolar disorders etc” but if you
According to an article on Law.com, The Lockheed Martin Corporation was ordered “To pay $51.5 million, including $ 50 million in punitive damages, in an age discrimination suit”. (Toutant, 2017) The plaintiff in the case, a former engineer at Lockheed Martin accused the company of laying of older workers to hire younger workers for the same positions. Robert Braden, plaintiff, also alleged the company never provided a reason or manner in which they decided who they would lay off. While the article is does not specifically mention the facts that were presented in court, one must conclude based on the outcome of the case, that there was sufficient evidence by the plaintiffs or lack of explanation by the defense which led the jury to decide in the favor of the jury.
Sears, Roebuck & Co was a case brought before a district court, in 1979, in which EEOC claimed Sears discriminated against women on two levels. Women were not being hired on the same basis as males and they were also not being promoted to commission sales on the same basis. EEOC to prove its case used statistical data to show that there were a disproportionate number of women in commission sale roles. This was problematic since EEOC solely relied on this statistical data; they were unable to get women to testify that they have been discriminated against. Women did not testify in court because they were afraid of going against a powerful company such as Sears.
All EEOC employees were safely evacuated . The EEOC intensified its outreach and createrd fact sheets on immigrant employees rights, (www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publication/immigrants-facts.cfm) and on discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, orcountry of origin. (www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/fs-religon/ethnic.cfm). In July EEOC will post a report American Experiences" versus " American Expectations". This will summarizer data on the composition of the American workforce by race, gender, and ethnicity across various jobs.
This is inclusive of discrimination based on sex, race, disabilities, or anything else. Texas Administrative Laws The state of Texas’s administration laws are composed by the Texas Administrative Code (TAC.) The TAC is sixteen titles that are related to a variety of topics, that each have various agencies enforcing the policies and procedures. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) is responsible for access, cost, quality, success rates, admissions, and any other detail relating to higher
To continue, another specificity of Title VII lies in the fact that Title VII established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the EEOC) with an authority to encourage equal employment opportunity, provide technical assistance, educate employers, and investigate and report on its activities to the U.S. Congress and the people of the United States. Following the precepts of Title VII, it is possible to infer that the EEOC is a law enforcement agency for Title VII and other discrimination legislation of the United
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 2009 is named after a woman who discovered that the men at her workplace received higher pay for doing the exactly same job she was doing. Lilly Ledbetter then took her pay discrimination complaint all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007 that claims like hers had to be filed within 180 days of an employer’s decision to pay a worker less, even if the worker didn’t learn about the unfair pay until much later, as was the case for Mrs. Ledbetter. (Slack, 2012). When Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act 2009 he not only overturned the 2007 decision of the Supreme Court but he also made it easier for workers to challenge unequal pay. “United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d)” advises “the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 overturned the Supreme Court 's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), which severely restricted the time period for filing complaints of employment discrimination concerning compensation.”
Discrimination Laws for the State of Texas Texas Labor Code Anti-Discrimination Provisions Texas has its own laws for employment discrimination but employers who abide by the federal statute will be safe under the Texas state law as well. The reason for this is that the Texas Labor Code Anti-Discrimination Provisions are parallel with the Federal Discrimination guidelines. However, there is a trend throughout cities and counties with America that allow these local municipalities to have their own ordinances. In Texas, local government can and sometimes do establish their own anti-discrimination rules. In the city of Austin, several city ordinances make it unlawful to deny access to public accommodation or discriminate in employment on the basis