Every day across the south workers are killed on the job, stolen from, discriminated against, or sexually harassed. Sometimes the employers are caught. These are last week’s stories, this is Boss Watch.
Texas Thieves
The U.S. Department of Labor has recovered thousands in back wages and assessed penalties after a federal investigation revealed child labor, minimum wage, and overtime violations by the operators of three La Panaderia Bakery & Café locations in San Antonio.
The department’s Wage and Hour Division investigated the pay practices of Tequila Almond Croissant LLC, Pan Dulce LLC, and SA Bakery Co. LLC. All three do business as La Panaderia Bakery & Café in San Antonio with locations at 301 E. Houston Street; 17030 Fiesta Texas Drive; and 8305 Broadway.
Division investigators found the employers violated child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, they employed a 13-year-old minor who was under the legal age for employment and permitted a 15-year-old minor to work overnight, which is prohibited for 14- and 15-year-olds. The division assessed a $25,706 civil money penalty for the child labor violations.
The division’s investigation also revealed minimum wage violations due to the employers’ failure to pay one worker for two overnight shifts at the La Cantera café location on Fiesta Texas Drive. The employers also failed to combine hours for employees who worked at multiple café locations and paid the employees straight-time rates instead of the required time-and-one-half overtime rates.
Texas Discriminators
Central Austin Motorcars, LLC, Hi Tech Motorcars, LLC, and Stadium Motorcars, LLC will pay $925,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, five managers at South Austin Nissan, a car dealership in Austin, subjected four female sales employees to a sexually hostile work environment including frequent sexual comments, unwanted touching, and a physical assault in the workplace. The filing claimed managers also instructed female sales associates to “show more, sell more,” encouraging them to use sexuality to sell cars. One female sales associate was forced to resign her employment in February 2023 due to the harassment. The EEOC’s suit also alleged the dealerships engaged in unlawful retaliation stemming from the transfer and subsequent termination of a male sales manager upon learning he reported the sexual harassment.
The type of conduct alleged in the EEOC’s complaint violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and further prohibits retaliation against employees who report or oppose sex harassment. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
On June 3, the federal court denied the dealerships’ motions for summary judgment challenging some of the EEOC’s claims, finding sufficient evidence supporting those claims to warrant a trial by jury. The court also granted the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the dealerships, while different companies, operated as one statutory employer, or an “integrated enterprise,” for purposes of any Title VII liability in the case.
The EEOC and the dealerships subsequently agreed to settle the case before trial, which had been scheduled to commence on July 6, and on July 23, the federal court approved the three-year consent decree voluntarily resolving the litigation. In addition to paying monetary relief to the five affected workers, the decree requires the dealerships to adopt policies and procedures designed to prevent any future sexual harassment and retaliation; provide extensive training on conducting harassment, discrimination and retaliation investigations to employees who are assigned that function; provide non-discrimination training to employees; report future complaints of sex harassment, sex discrimination or retaliation to the EEOC; and be subject to other compliance-monitoring measures.
More Texas Discriminators
Dallas Barber and Stylist College, Inc., which operates multiple barber and hair styling locations and instructional campuses in the Dallas metropolitan area, will pay significant monetary damages and provide other relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.
The EEOC’s suit charged that Dallas Barber rejected an applicant because of her pregnancy. The agency claimed that after the applicant satisfied the company’s skills test for the hair braider position she sought, the company’s owner learned that she was pregnant and rejected her. The owner allegedly told the applicant that the company already had one pregnant employee, did not want another, and did not want to deal with her “condition,” referring to her pregnancy.
The alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits discrimination because of sex, including sex discrimination based on pregnancy. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
Georgia Discriminators
Moon N Sea GA, LLC formerly known as KGI Trading GA, Inc., and related business partners, operating in three states as KGI Trading, agreed to pay $265,000 and furnish other relief to settle a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sex discrimination lawsuit, the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, since July 2022 a class of at least 19 women applied for warehouse associate positions in KGI Trading’s Buford, Georgia facility, but were passed over because they were female. During the application process, female applicants were told the company preferred hiring men for the warehouse positions because men could lift more weight than women. Despite being fully qualified, female applicants were denied the positions in favor of less qualified male applicants, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Moon N Sea GA, LLC, et. al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05455-TRJ-CMS) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
In addition to the $265,000 in monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit requires KGI Trading to provide its employees with specialized training on Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination; report compliance to the EEOC; and post a notice in the workplace informing employees of the settlement and their rights under federal anti-discrimination law.