Tag: Restaurant Industry

Posted on

Iron Hill Brewery to Pay $115,000 in Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

Race discrimination, retaliation, workplace violation lawyers of Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

Federal Agency Charged Restaurant Discriminated and Retaliated Against Black Employee

In a recent settlement, the current federal administration reaffirmed its commitment to protecting employees from workplace discrimination and retaliation. This time, Iron Hill Brewery of Buckhead, LLC and Iron Hill Brewery, LLC, a chain of breweries and restaurants across several states, found themselves in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spotlight.

According to the settlement, Iron Hill Brewery agreed to pay $115,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The suit alleged Iron Hill Brewery discriminated against an African American employee at its Buckhead location.

The employee, a sous chef-in-training, was allegedly dismissed due to his race and for reporting discrimination against women and Hispanic colleagues. An unmerited disciplinary action was swiftly followed by termination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such alleged conduct is prohibited. This significant law prevents employers from carrying out retaliation for engaging in protected activity and discrimination based on race.

Protected activity, as outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, encompasses various actions taken by employees to oppose discrimination or participate in proceedings related to discriminatory practices. In this particular case involving Iron Hill Brewery, the protected activity refers to the sous chef-in-training reporting instances of discrimination within the workplace. Specifically, the employee raised concerns about discriminatory behavior targeting women and Hispanic colleagues, which is considered a protected act under federal law. By voicing these grievances, the employee engaged in a legally protected activity aimed at confronting and challenging unfair treatment. Consequently, when the employee faced unwarranted disciplinary action and subsequent termination, it was alleged to be retaliatory—an illegal response to their protected activity of reporting discrimination.

In addition to the considerable financial settlement, the decree necessitates nationwide training for Iron Hill Brewery employees centered on Title VII’s prohibitions against race discrimination and retaliation. Iron Hill Brewery must also institute an anti-retaliation policy providing examples of unlawful retaliation in the workplace. These moves illustrate the seriousness of the situation and the serious implications of breaching Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC Atlanta District Office Regional Attorney, Marcus G. Keegan, opined, “This settlement sends a strong message that the EEOC will continue to vindicate the rights of individuals with the courage to come forward to report discrimination against themselves or others in the workplace.”

This case serves as a stark reminder of employees’ rights. If you believe that you or someone you know may be experiencing or witnessing race discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the workplace, don’t hesitate to seek legal advice. Reach out to a lawyer in your area who specializes in employment law. Remember, everyone deserves a respectful and fair working environment.

Posted on

Understanding Employee Rights: Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

McDonald's franchise pays $1,997,500 in sexual harassment lawsuit.

The battle against sexual harassment in workplaces is one we should all be fighting. This provides a healthy work environment and supports the smooth operation of businesses. To illustrate this, I want to delve into the specifics of a recent case, EEOC v. AMTCR, Inc., AMTCR Nevada, Inc., and AMTCR California, LLC.

In this case, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) accused these affiliated entities that own and operate 21 McDonald’s franchises of subjecting male and female employees to sexual harassment. The harassment resulted in the constructive discharge of some employees. The charging party was a teenager who was subjected to sexual comments and advances, along with unwanted touching. Despite the complaints the charging party and his mother lodged, management took no corrective action. Instead, a manager suggested that the charging party should take the conduct as a compliment.

“Young workers are particularly vulnerable to harassment in the workplace as they are more likely to be unaware of their rights and can be taken advantage by their employer,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office

Regrettably, this was not an isolated incident. Other male and female employees, some of them teenagers as well, were subjected to groping, sexually explicit comments, and sexual requests from coworkers and managers. A particularly disturbing event revealed that one male general manager conditioned hire on the acquiescence of male applicants to dates and sexual activity.

This case was resolved with a 3-year consent decree, providing $1,997,500 to 41 individuals and equitable relief. Nonetheless, it brings to light the drastic consequences of workplace sexual harassment and the subsequent legal actions that can ensue.

The law protects employees from sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the law, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer… to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…”

The EEOC v. AMTCR case demonstrates how crucial it is for employers to foster a safe and respectful work environment. This includes having strict measures in place to prevent, address, and punish any form of sexual harassment. After all, every employee has a right to a workplace free of harassment and discrimination.