Faking Disability? And, Lawsuit Caused by Abusive Boss

You decide if this police chief was faking his disability:

Former police chief for city was no longer disabled, and thus, he was not entitled to continue receiving not-on-duty disability pension; while former chief could not work as ordinary police officer because of injury to left knee, his disability did not prevent him from functioning as supervising law enforcement officer in administrative position within police department, and videotape of former chief performing as rodeo clown showed him running, jumping, climbing fences, dancing, running from bulls, leaping on top of and off barrel, climbing into barrel, carrying barrel, and being rammed by bull while crouched inside barrel.
Rhoads v. Board of Trustees of City of Calumet City Policemen’s Pension Fund, 810 N.E.2d 573 (2004)

Nordstrom Agrees To Pay $292,000 to Settle Harassment Lawsuit Caused by Abusive Boss

Employees complained that an Alterations Department Manager made harassing remarks to Hispanic and black employees.  Despite the employees’ complaints, the harassment did not stop.  Nordstrom recites that it investigated the matter, but found “no evidence of harassment.”  One employee, Gloria Pimental a formal complaint with the EEOC in 2006.  A a year later, in 2007, the EEOC filed a case against Nordstrom.

As a result of this settlement Nordstrom will make payments to 10 different employees and agreed that its managers will undergo harassment training twice per year, instead of every two years.

Curt’s Take: I think I know why Nordstrom said it couldn’t find evidence of harassment and discrimination… it’s because it was looking for proof that the Alternations Dept Manager called the Hispanic and Black employees racial names.  It truth, I’m near certain that she was a bullying jerk to everyone in the department.  She was a boss who made her employees feel harassed, stressed, and scared for their jobs.

When Nordstrom looked into it, however, they just saw a mean jerk.  Nordstrom didn’t see a person who used racial epithets or told racials jokes.  What the company was missing, however, is that the target of some of the bully-manager’s ire DID belong to protected classes.  Those people stepped forward and said “Hey EEOC!  Over here! We’re Hispanic and black and we’re being harassed by our boss.”  Then the EEOC stepped in.  Nordstrom could have avoided this huge verdict by making sure its managers don’t harass and abuse employees who genuinely try hard and are want to do a good job.

To learn more about all the techniques that can save you from a Bully Boss or Hostile Work Environment, click HERE.

Employees File Complaints, Employers Pay

Janitor’s EEOC Complaint Ends With Order to Pay $350,000
A nursing home company, Skilled Healthcare Group, must pay a class of Hispanic employees it discriminated against $450,000 “and provide significant remedial relief [because they] were subject to harassment, different terms and conditions of employment, promotion, compensation, and treatment.”  The EEOC ordered the company to pay Hispanic employees because the employees had been forbidden from speaking Spanish at work, BUT, other ethnic groups were allowed to speak their own native (non-English) language while working for Silled Healthcare.  Because the compnay treated employees differently with respect to their national origin, the EEOC had filed suit against the company in Federal Court in California, alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The suit stemmed from a complaint filed by a single employee, a janitor named Jose Zazueta.  Skilled Healthcare fired Mr. Zazueta for violating the company’s English-only policy.  At the same time, however, the company did not terminate or discipline other employees who spoke Tagalog at work.  Here’s a quote from the EEOC’s own press release about the details:

The EEOC identified a total of 53 current and former Hispanic employees at facilities in California and Texas who were subjected to disparate treatment and harassment based on their national origin and shared Spanish language. The EEOC alleged that some workers were prohibited from speaking Spanish to Spanish-speaking residents of the facility, or disciplined for speaking Spanish in the parking lot while on breaks. Additionally, the EEOC alleged that defendants gave Hispanic employees less desirable work than non-Hispanic counterparts, paid them less, and promoted them less often.  http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-14-09.html

English-Only rules can be legal IF the employer demonstrates that the rule is necessary, and the employer also enforces the rule the same way with all employees.  Employers who fail to evenly enforce English-Only rules commit discrimination, whether the employer intends to discriminate or not.

Two Women Complain To EEOC and Employer is Ordered to Pay $267,000

Tineke Meyer and Karina Mercado worked for Sunfire Glass in Arizona.  The company’s owner, Paul McBride, touched them inappropriately, talked to the women about their bodies, used vulgar language with them, and made obscene gestures toward them.  Both women complained repeatedly, but nothing changed.  Eventually both Meyer and Mercado quit their jobs and Sunfire Glass, feeling that they were forced out by the hostile work envioronment.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit in September on behalf of employees (EEOC v. Sunfire Glass, Inc., Civ. 08-1784 PHX-LOA).  It alleged that Sunfire owner Paul McBride touched them inappropriately, made obscene gestures, talked about their bodies and used vulgar language.  The women repeatedly complained, but no action was taken, the EEOC said. Both resigned and filed complaints with the EEOC.

The EEOC filed charges against Sunfire and it’s owner Paul McBride in September of 2008.  On April 13, 2009, the court awarded Meyer $160,278, and awarded Mercado $106,781.  The amounts awarded to each woman included back pay, interest, and compensatory and punitive damages, plus interest until the amounts are paid.  The punitive damage amount awarded to each plaintiff was $50,000.

Sonic Drive-In Franchise Sued For Disability Discrimination

On April 13, 2009 the EEOC filed discrimination charges against a Louisiana based Sonic Drive-In franchise because the restaurant refused to hire a qualified applicant due to the applicant’s disability.  Sonic discriminated against the applicant when it refused to hire her as a car hop or cook because of her speech impediment.  The suit seeks to force Sonic to pay the applicant back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and interest.  The EEOC also stated that “ADA charge filings with the EEOC nationwide increased 10% in Fiscal Year 2008 to 19,543, the highest level of disability discrimination charges since FY 1995.”  For the full story click here: http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-13-09.html