Randall Love PA

A settlement agreement bars litigation of federal wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act only if the settlement was approved by a court or the Department of Labor. But what if the agreement contains a full release and settles other claims in addition to the wage and hour claims? The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that aside from the wage and hour claims, the settlement agreement is governed by Florida contract law and thus precludes a lawsuit on the other, released claims.

Title VII protects employees who have complained about unlawful harassment and discrimination from retaliation. The protection extends to employees who have both filed formal complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as those who have informally voiced complaints to their superiors or who use their employer’s internal grievance procedures. The protection is afforded when the employee has a good faith, reasonable belief that the challenged practices violate Title VII. The protections, however, do not provide an employee with an unbridled right to complain in a disruptive or disruptive manner.

The EEOC issued a message from Acting Chair Lucas yesterday. Of particular note, the EEOC has confirmed that the EEOC will abide by President Trump’s recently issued executive order titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” which directed the EEOC to deprioritize “disparate impact” enforcement – that is, investigations and lawsuits that challenge neutral practices that have unequal outcomes based on race, s*x, or other protected characteristics – and also revoked prior Presidential approvals of certain disparate-impact regulations.

A disparate impact discrimination case involves a claim that a facially neutral employment or other policy disproportionately affects a protected group, even if there is no intent to discriminate. Unlike disparate treatment cases, which require proof of intentional discrimination, disparate impact cases focus on the effects of a policy or practice. In Florida, as in federal law, plaintiffs must demonstrate that a specific employment practice or policy has caused a significant adverse impact on a protected group. This requires statistical evidence showing a disparity between the affected group and others, as well as proof of causation linking the policy to the disparity. Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the practice is justified by business necessity or job-relatedness.

GardaWorld, a company that provides cash logistics services to banks and financial institutions, has agreed to pay $37,500 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The lawsuit alleged the employer failed to provide an American Sign Language interpreter for a deaf employee. In addition to the monetary relief, the employer agreed to provide deaf applicants and employees who are deaf or hard of hearing, including orientations, trainings, meetings with supervisors, performance reviews, disciplinary meetings, annual meetings, and company meetings. The lawsuit alleged the employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The employer denied the material allegations of the lawsuit.

The EEOC announced that Savage River Lodge will pay $150,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The employer offers cabins for rent and operates a restaurant for lodge guests in Maryland. The lawsuit alleges a pregnant woman working as a guest services representative requested a reasonable accommodation needed due to her pregnancy and then fired her several days after she disclosed that she had suffered a miscarriage. The lawsuit alleged the employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to the money settlement, the employer agreed the employee was eligible for rehire and provide specialized training for its supervisors.

AMZ Manufacturing Company, an electroplating, painting and assembly business will pay $1120,000 and provide other relief to resolve a s*xual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. According to the lawsuit, multiple male employees and supervisors subjected two female employees to a hostile work environment through s*xually charged and demeaning s*x based comments, unwelcome s*xual advances, and inappropriate touching. The lawsuit alleges the employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In addition to the settlement amount, the employer agreed to implement a revised s*xual harassment policy, appoint a third-party ombudsman to receive and review complaints of harassment, and provide periodic reports to the EEOC.