DOL Achieves Paltry Result for Wrongful Termination Victim

Last week the U.S. Department of Labor issued a press release, touting its settlement with a corporate-owned location of Whataburger Restaurant LLC. The agency alleged that the company failed to provide reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Investigators also determined that, when the employee left the premises to express milk, the employer terminated the employee.

To resolve the violations, the San Antonio-based franchisor signed an Enhanced Compliance Agreement stating it will provide FLSA training to all managers in the future. In addition, the company has agreed to pay the employee $1,800.00 to resolve the claims.

Generally, the DOL only investigates companies for violations of pay laws, like the Fair Labor Standards Act. It leaves it to the EEOC to investigate and prosecute companies for claims of sex or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In order to achieve full justice, an employee may need to purse remedies under both sets of laws. But the agencies cannot.

It is not clear from the press release whether this employee was also able to pursue pregnancy discrimination claims under Title VII for the alleged misconduct. However, in my experience, the agencies rarely work together to achieve full justice in these types of situations. And that’s a shame because the remedy available under the DOL’s FLSA statute is much weaker than what could be achieved under Title VII.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Your Right to Break Time

The FLSA, as amended by the Affordable Care Act in 2010, provides a specific provision for nursing mothers, known as the "Break Time for Nursing Mothers" rule. This rule states that your employer must provide "reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for one year after the child's birth each time such employee has a need to express the milk." Moreover, employers must also provide a suitable place, other than a bathroom, that is private and free from intrusion for this purpose. Unfortunately, however, the damages available to employers under this statute can be quite limited, especially if the employee is not a high wage earner.

Title VII and Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) - What They Mean for You

Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 1978, the PDA amended Title VII, explicitly prohibiting sex discrimination due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. This law ensures that pregnant women and those affected by related conditions must receive the same treatment as other employees who have similar work abilities or limitations.

How Title VII and PDA Protect Nursing Mothers

While neither Title VII nor the PDA specifically mention lactation or breastfeeding, these laws have been interpreted by courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to offer protections for nursing mothers. The EEOC, which enforces Title VII, has asserted that lactation is a medical condition related to pregnancy and therefore protected. Consequently, if your employer discriminates against you because you are breastfeeding or expressing milk, you may have grounds for a discrimination claim. Unfair treatment due to breastfeeding can also be regarded as sex discrimination under Title VII and the PDA. Employer refusal to allow sufficient time or a safe place for new moms to pump is an all-to-common problem.

Why Advertise A Bad Result?

The real question is why DOL felt like this result was something that should be advertised via a press release. Most private attorneys would consider $1,800 to be a terrible result for the client. It is really abysmal. Employers are not encouraged to take employment laws seriously if all the power and resources of the federal government can bring no more than a slap on the wrist.

If the DOL is going to be in the business of simply issuing miniscule fines to companies that break civil rights laws, perhaps they should just close up shop and go home. Or at the very least, don’t brag about it.

Know Your Rights

As a working mother, it's crucial to know your rights and ensure you're treated fairly in your workplace. These laws are in place to protect you and enable you to balance your work responsibilities with your role as a new mother.

If you feel that your rights under Title VII, the PDA, or the FLSA are not being respected, seek legal counsel to explore your options. Maintaining a healthy balance between your work and personal life is not just a personal issue, it's a legal right, and there are resources available to you to ensure that balance is achieved.

Employers Not Allowed to Hide Discrimination Through Use of a Staffing Company

Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc., the operator of the New York E-ZPass toll collection system, and Broadleaf Results, Inc., an employment agency, have reached a settlement agreement of $120,000 and other relief in a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The case not only highlights the issue of disability discrimination but also raises important questions about joint employment and the responsibilities of client employers and staffing agencies under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The settlement aims to rectify the alleged violations and includes both monetary and non-monetary provisions to prevent future discrimination.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit, filed by the EEOC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EEOC v. Broadleaf Results, Inc. and Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-4557-PKC-LB), revolves around an employee who was terminated after requesting an accommodation for her hearing-related condition. The employee was placed by Broadleaf to work as a customer service representative at Conduent's E-ZPass Customer Service Center in Staten Island, N.Y. When she experienced difficulties hearing customer calls, she promptly informed both Broadleaf and Conduent supervisors and requested a reasonable accommodation. Additionally, she sought a meeting with management to discuss the status of her accommodation request. Unfortunately, a Broadleaf manager responded by stating, "If you cannot hear, then you can't do the job," resulting in immediate termination. Conduent, as the client employer, failed to take appropriate corrective action to address the discriminatory decision made by Broadleaf, despite being aware of the situation.

Joint Employment and ADA Violations

This case not only sheds light on disability discrimination but also raises the issue of joint employment. In an economy where staffing agencies are increasingly utilized by companies to source workers for essential business functions, it becomes crucial for both client employers and staffing agencies to establish processes that allow workers with disabilities to request accommodations to perform their job's essential functions. The ADA mandates that employers engage with applicants and employees to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities and prohibits adverse actions against qualified employees based on their disability. Client employers cannot simply hide behind staffing agencies as the employer-of-record to evade their obligations under the ADA.

The EEOC's Legal Action: The EEOC filed the lawsuit after attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the conciliation process. EEOC Trial Attorneys Edumin Corrales and Anastasia Doherty led the litigation, with supervision from EEOC Assistant Regional Attorney Kimberly A. Cruz. By taking legal action, the EEOC aims to ensure that individuals with disabilities are protected from discrimination and that employers fulfill their responsibilities under the ADA.

Settlement Details

The settlement agreement consists of two consent decrees, providing a total payment of $120,000, including compensation for lost wages and other damages suffered by the employee. In addition to the monetary relief, the agreement includes significant non-monetary provisions designed to prevent further discrimination. These provisions encompass injunctive measures that prohibit both Broadleaf and Conduent from discriminating against employees and contingent workers based on disability. Moreover, the settlement requires updates to each company's internal policies to ensure compliance with federal anti-disability discrimination laws. Additionally, mandatory training for management employees about disability accommodation and discrimination laws is part of the settlement to foster awareness and prevent future violations.

Summing it Up

The settlement reached between Conduent and Broadleaf not only resolves the specific disability discrimination case but also highlights the importance of addressing joint employment issues in employment cases. Employers are not allowed to hide discriminatory actions through their use of a staffing company.

Read the EEOC’s Press Release

New York Votes to Prohibit Discrimination Based on Weight or Height

The New York City Council recently enacted legislation prohibiting employment discrimination premised on an individual's weight or height, signifying a critical advancement in the sphere of employment law. The law contains a provision granting an exception to employers for whom an employee's height or weight is intrinsically tied to the execution of vital job functions, as well as to operators or providers of public accommodations.

This legislation positions New York City alongside a select number of other cities that have already instituted prohibitions against weight-based discrimination, including Urbana, Illinois; Madison, Wisconsin; Binghamton, New York; San Francisco; Santa Cruz, California; and Washington, D.C. Moreover, the states of Michigan and Washington have passed similar laws, according to a study by Vanderbilt University.

This development signals a potential new direction in the ongoing battle against workplace discrimination, with an increasing focus on size discrimination. Recent data illuminates the pervasiveness of size discrimination, with a ResumeBuilder survey indicating that over a quarter of respondents reported experiencing weight discrimination in the workplace. This percentage increases dramatically to 53% and 71% when focusing on self-identified overweight and obese respondents, respectively.

Supplementing these findings, recent May data from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) suggest that these experiences are not anomalous. According to SHRM, half of people managers reported a preference for interactions with "healthy weight" employees, while 11% acknowledged that obese individuals in their organizations are not treated equitably.

The impact of such bias extends beyond fostering a respectful and inclusive workplace environment; it may also significantly influence employee retention. A substantial 75% of workers who reported experiencing such discrimination indicated that it fostered a desire to leave their current employment.

The new law takes into account necessary allowances for height and weight considerations integral to the performance of essential job functions. It also does not prohibit employers from providing incentives that promote weight management within the framework of a voluntary wellness program. This balanced approach seeks to promote fairness while acknowledging the realities of certain job requirements.