University of Arkansas School of Law Professor Susan Schneider has authored a post on the Agricultural Law Blog agreeing with a Federation of Southern Cooperatives post refuting claims by a New York Times reporter of fraud linked to the recovery of settlement proceeds (the Pigford settlement) in litigation alleging U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) loan program discrimination against African-American, Hispanic, Native American, and women farmers. Schneider states that on reading the April 25, 2013, New York Times article, titled “U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination,” “I was alarmed to see errors, omissions, and misleading references . . . [and] I am very disappointed that the author appeared more interested in producing a salacious story than in treating the issue with the respect and depth that it deserved.” She includes a number of details overlooked in the newspaper article and concludes, “casting the story in the cynical tone of political…
Tag Archives discrimination
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a consent decree with a federal court in Texas to resolve claims that a Burger King franchise operator discriminated against a former cashier on the basis of religion. EEOC v. Fries Rest. Mgmt., LLC, No. 12 3169 (N.D. Tex., filed January 16, 2013). Without admitting liability, the operator has agreed to settle the claims by paying $25,000 to the former employee, who was allegedly fired for wearing a skirt on the job as required by her Pentecostal Christian religion, in two checks: one for $5,000 attributable to wages, and one for $20,000 attributable to claims of mental anguish and suffering. The Burger King franchisee will also post on employee bulletin boards “its policy against religious discrimination and duty to accommodate” and “conduct an annual training session [in 2013 and 2014] for all district managers and general managers for Defendant’s Texas Burger King Restaurants,…
A federal court in California has approved the settlement of class claims that will require Burger King Corp. to remove barriers to wheelchair and scooter access at more than 75 of the restaurants it leases to franchisees in the state and pay $19 million to the settlement class. Vallabhapuapu v. Burger King Corp., No. 11-00667 (N.D. Cal., decided October 29, 2012). This is the second settlement of Americans with Disabilities Act claims against the company; the first involved 10 certified classes and 10 alleged noncompliant restaurants in California. Each individual who files a claim by November 15, 2012, will take a pro rata share of the settlement for up to six visits to a Burger King restaurant “where he or she encountered a barrier to access.” As of mid-October, 620 claims had been filed with an average recovery expected to be nearly $5,000 per store visit, based on an adjusted…
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a Title VII civil rights action against a Burger King restaurant claiming that it failed to accommodate the religious beliefs of a Pentecostal Christian woman who sought to wear skirts or dresses to work instead of uniform pants. EEOC v. Fries Rest. Mgmt., LLC, No. 12-3169 (N.D. Tex., filed August 22, 2012). The employee was hired as a cashier and had allegedly been informed when she interviewed for the position that she could wear a skirt to work, an accommodation she required because she “adheres to an interpretation of the scripture that requires women to wear only skirts or dresses.” When she arrived at work for orientation in a skirt, she was told she could not wear it and would have to leave the store. According to the complaint, “The result of the foregoing practice has been to deprive Ashanti McShan of equal…
Responding to a question certified by a federal district court, a divided Montana Supreme Court has said that obesity which is not the symptom of a physiological condition may be a “physical or mental impairment” as the terms are used in the Montana Human Rights Act. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, No. OP 11-0463 (Mont., decided July 6, 2012). The issue arose after an extremely obese applicant for a conductor-trainee position was told he would not be considered for the position unless he lost 10 percent of his body weight or completed certain medical examinations, including a $1,800 sleep study, at his own expense. The applicant successfully pursued an administrative remedy through the state department of labor and industry alleging that the railway defendant had illegally discriminated against him because of perceived disability. He was awarded damages for lost wages and benefits, prejudgment interest and emotional distress. On appeal, the…
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the Roskam Baking Co. did not infringe a trademark by using the term “Texas Toast” in selling its packaged croutons. T. Marzetti Co. v. Roskam Baking Co., No. 10-3784 (6th Cir., decided May 25, 2012). Marzetti apparently began using the Texas Toast mark for its frozen garlic bread in 1995 and then adopted the term for use with a crouton product sold in 2007. The company attempted to register the mark in 2009, but the applications were initially denied “because of the potential likelihood of confusion with the mark Texas toast for bakery goods.” Thereafter, they were approved for publication as, “at a minimum, suggestive.” The defendant filed an opposition to the trademarks in 2010, and Marzetti, learning about the company’s Texas Toast croutons, filed this trademark infringement action. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court that the mark is not…
A federal court in Pennsylvania has denied the motion for summary judgment filed by a Burger King franchisee sued for violating the civil rights of an African-American truck driver who alleged that restaurant employees spit in his sandwich before serving it. Goodwin v. Fast Food Enters. #3, LLP, No. 10-23 (W.D. Pa., decided May 16, 2012). This motion was based on the assertion that the plaintiff would be unable to establish that the defendant is liable for the “allegedly discriminatory actions of the employees” and a request to strike the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. In a previous motion, also decided against the franchisee, the court determined that “there were triable issues of material fact concerning whether Goodwin’s sandwich had been spat into and whether the incident, if it occurred, was racially motivated.” According to the court, the doctrine of respondeat superior, may not, as argued by the defendant, apply in…
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the owner and operator of a long-term residential treatment facility for chemically dependent women and their children has agreed to pay $125,000 to the estate of an employee allegedly terminated from her position because she was severely obese. EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc., No. 10-03322 (E.D. La., consent decree entered April 10, 2012). Additional information about the court decision denying the employer’s motions for summary judgment and recognizing obesity as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) appears in Issue 421 of this Update. EEOC also indicated that under the consent decree, the employer will “provide annual training on federal disability law to all human resources personnel and corporate directors of RHD [Resources for Human Development] nationwide.” The agreement further requires the company to report to EEOC “for three years on all complaints of disability discrimination and…
Citizens Medical Center, located in Victoria, Texas, has reportedly instituted a prohibition on hiring any employee with a body mass index (BMI) higher than 35, or 210 pounds for an individual 5 feet, 5 inches tall or 245 pounds for someone 5-foot-10. Apparently, the hiring policy is not based on the expense of health care for the obese or purported increased absenteeism, but linked to physical appearance. The center’s chief executive officer reportedly said in an interview, “The majority of our patients are over 65, and they have expectations that cannot be ignored in terms of personal appearance.” Because weight is not a protected category in Texas, some believe the policy is not illegal, but others claim the weight-based discrimination violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. In either event, while smokers have been subject to similar policies for some time, weight restrictions are apparently virtually unknown in the medical field. The…
Denying an employer’s motions for summary judgment in an employment discrimination suit, a federal court in Louisiana has determined that severe obesity, regardless of its basis, qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc., No. 10-03322 (E.D. La., decided December 7, 2011). The court did not decide whether the employer had terminated the obese employee’s employment because she was regarded as disabled, finding that the matter presented a genuine issue of fact to be decided by a jury. The employee, now deceased, weighed more than 400 pounds when she was hired by the defendant, which owned and operated a long-term residential treatment facility for chemically dependent women and their children. Some eight years later, the employee was terminated from her position; at the time, she weighed 527 pounds. She filed a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging…
