Boss Watch: 8/8 – 8/15

Jacob Morrison

Illegal activities of Southern Bosses for the weeks between Friday, August 8, and Friday, August 15

Alabama Discriminators

Sarafina Network, LLC, a management company for gas station convenience stores based in Alabama, will pay $40,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, store managers, employees and customers routinely mocked a neuro-divergent cashier with eye problems, anxiety, and a seizure disorder. The lawsuit further charged that after receiving complaints about the harassment, the store manager responded by demanding that the employee provide a medical release related to a seizure episode. The employer subsequently refused to accept a medical release tendered by the employee and proceeded to terminate him. The business failed to maintain any anti-harassment or anti-discrimination policies or train employees about their obligations under federal anti-discrimination laws, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability-based harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

“Bullying, especially on the basis of an employee’s disability status, should never be tolerated in the workplace,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Marsha Rucker. “The EEOC is committed to upholding the ADA’s promise: ensuring that every American, regardless of any disability, is afforded the opportunity to share in the dignity of work in an environment free of discrimination and harassment.”

Federal Precedents

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Office of Federal Operations (EEOC/OFO) recently issued three noteworthy appellate decisions clarifying the federal government’s statutory obligations under federal anti-discrimination laws and federal court precedent to provide reasonable accommodations to religious federal employees and to pregnant federal employees. These decisions signify EEOC’s renewed and ongoing commitment to timely and even-handed application of anti-discrimination law to the federal workforce.

“The EEOC is accelerating progress to bring efficiency and effectiveness to the federal sector by promptly resolving hearings and appeals with straightforward and legally sound decisions grounded in precedent from the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts,” said EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas. “These federal sector appellate decisions highlight the EEOC’s ongoing work of rooting out discrimination in the federal workforce.”

The first two EEOC decisions provide a clear statement of the federal government’s obligation under Title VII to provide its employees with effective reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the government’s operations. In Augustine V. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Veterans Affairs was found liable for failing to accommodate a Muslim physician’s practice of attending weekly prayer service. In Andy B. v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Board was found liable for failing to accommodate a Christian police officer’s request for exemption from the government agency’s  COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

In particular, these decisions address how federal employers must analyze undue hardship in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Groff v. Dejoy. Under Groff, undue hardship is shown only when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. In the case, minor inconveniences or speculative concerns are not sufficient grounds to deny an accommodation to an employee or applicant. The EEOC’s decisions emphasize that when it comes to undue hardship, it is the employer’s ultimate responsibility—not the employee’s—to persuasively demonstrate that an accommodation would impose an undue hardship.

The third decision, Kasie L. v. United States Postal Service, demonstrates the EEOC’s commitment to protecting the dignity, health, and equal opportunity of pregnant women in the federal workforce. In Kasie L., the United States Postal Service (USPS) was found liable for discriminatorily requiring a new mother to use the employee bathroom for her lactation needs when other clean private spaces were readily available. This case arose prior to the passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which went into effect on June 27, 2023. The PWFA requires covered employers—including the federal government—to provide reasonable accommodations to workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, an employer did not necessarily have an affirmative duty to provide workplace accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions. In Kasie L., the EEOC concluded that the USPS’ decision to exclude its employee from available, clean and private spaces for lactation was tainted by discriminatory bias and therefore unlawful. Federal law states that employers must provide reasonable accommodations to eligible employees or consider reasonable alternatives if appropriate.

Georgia Discriminators

Zoe Center for Pediatric & Adolescent Health, LLC, a provider of pediatric and adolescent health services in Columbus, Georgia, agreed to pay $70,000 to settle a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC’s suit charged that in January 2022, an employee requested a reasonable accommodation of one day of leave, one week of remote work, and then a modified schedule of working remotely three days per week due to her disabilities. The employee could have performed her job responsibilities within the proposed modified work schedule. However, the day after requesting the reasonable accommodation, Zoe Pediatrics denied the employee’s request and terminated her employment.

The provider’s alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement via its conciliation process.

The two-year consent decree resolving the EEOC’s lawsuit requires Zoe Pediatrics to provide monetary relief to the employee; revise and redistribute their ADA policy; provide specialized ADA training to all employees; and post a notice in the workplace informing employees of the settlement and of their rights against discrimination. Furthermore, the company will provide the EEOC with periodic reports regarding requests for disability accommodations, as well as employee complaints of disability discrimination or retaliation.

Puerto Rico Polluters

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required two companies, Desarrolladora Yahir, Inc. and A & M Group, Inc., to comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) after they polluted waterways with sediment from construction work at a residential development project in Puntas Ward, Rincón. The administrative order requires the companies to stop discharging pollutants into nearby surface waters and to comply with construction permitting requirements and stormwater regulations.  

“When developers and contractors don’t comply with common-sense requirements to control erosion and run-off from sites, they can pollute nearby waters,” said EPA Regional Administrator Michael Martucci. “If companies follow the rules, development projects – an important part of economic progress – can proceed while we continue to safeguard our environment.” 

In the administrative compliance order, EPA determined that Desarrolladora Yahir, Inc. and A & M Group, Inc., violated the terms of a general construction permit designed to minimize the impacts that construction sites have on nearby waterways. EPA’s order mandates that both companies implement erosion and sediment controls to address uncontrolled stormwater runoff from reaching Piletas Creek and the Caribbean. The companies must also jointly submit progress reports describing the status and progress of actions taken to comply with the provisions outlined in the order.  

Stormwater runoff presents a serious threat to Caribbean coastal waters, including the Rincón Tres Palmas Marine Reserve. EPA works with construction site owners and operators to make sure they understand their obligations and have the proper stormwater controls in place so construction can continue in a way that protects the surrounding environment.

Union Busters

Brought to you by LaborLab: The nation’s leading watchdog standing with working families to stop employer coercion and intimidation. Visit www.laborlab.us for more info.

Here are the new filings from this week:

As a reminder, due to a lack of enforcement, some labor relations consultants may disregard the law and fail to report their activities to the U.S. Department of Labor. Therefore, it’s crucial for organizers and workers to report suspected “persuader” activity to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS).

It’s crucial for organizers and workers to report suspected “persuader” activity to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS). You can reach them via email at  OLMS-Public@dol.gov, by calling (202) 693-0123, or by contacting your nearest OLMS District Office.

For assistance, please contact LaborLab at contact@laborlab.us.