The EEOC recently reached a $20 million settlement in a race discrimination case with pharmacy giant Walgreen Co. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleges that Walgreen denied promotions to black managers and pharmacists because of their race. Instead, according to the suit, Walgreen steered African-American employees into jobs at underperforming stores in predominantly black neighborhoods.
While the initial complaints concerned 20 employees in St. Louis, Tampa, Detroit and Kansas City, the court soon made this a class-action suit with over 10,000 plaintiffs. EEOC sources say that Walgreen engaged in similar practices nationwide against African-American employees.
The suit was combined with a 2003 suit alleging similar violations, to form a class action suit with 10,000 or more plaintiffs.
After settling the Walgreen suit for $20 million, EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp had conciliatory words for the retail giant. “We commend Walgreen for working cooperatively with us to reach an amicable settlement of this case without protracted litigation.” Earp said, “We believe this is a satisfactory resolution for all parties.”
Walgreen denies the allegations made in both suits.
Walgreens’ CEO, Jeffrey A. Rein, said, “We are pleased to reach a resolution that is consistent with our past and future diversity and equal opportunity objectives. Our company was built on principles of fairness and equality, and we do not tolerate discrimination in any aspect of employment including store assignment, compensation and promotion opportunities. In fact, we’re a drugstore industry leader when it comes to the employment and promotion of African American managers and pharmacists.”
The Walgreen attorneys added, “Walgreens is a rapidly growing company with lots of opportunity for its employees. We look forward to working with Walgreens to promote fair and equal employment opportunities for all employees.”
The suit against Walgreen sought back pay for the employees plus compensation for “emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation.” It also seeks an injunction barring Walgreen from engaging in further discrimination.
This is just one in a series of settlements for race discrimination this year.
Earlier this year, Quietflex Manufacturing Company, L.P. recently paid $2.8 million for discriminating against Hispanic employees. The lawsuit alleges that 78 Latino employees were discriminated against in the company’s transfer policies, and in pay.
Quietflex produces flexible air conditioning ducts and components. The company has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing in the case.
According to the suit, the company denied Hispanic employees higher-paying jobs in departments with better working conditions. After a work stoppage to protest the discrimination, the EEOC alleges that Quietflex illegally retaliated against the employees by terminating them. All the employees were rehired shortly afterward.
In January, Target Corp. paid $775,000 for racial harassment to settle a suit. The suit alleged that Target Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by creating a racially hostile work environment at the Springfield, Pennsylvania Target store.
In the suit, the EEOC said that Michael Hill was an apprentice in training to become a store manager. He was subjected to racial harassment by a white store manager. When Hill complained, he was retaliated against, leaving him no choice but to resign.
Target operates more than 1,500 stores in 47 states, including 175 SuperTarget stores. As part of the settlement, Target agreed to train employees at the Springfield store.
“We are pleased that the parties could reach an amicable resolution of this matter,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair. “We expect the proposed training and emphasis on anti-discrimination policies to create a more employee-friendly work environment at Target’s facility.”
Title VII makes it illegal to deny a person any employment opportunity because of that person’s race or color, sex, religion or national origin. A work environment free from illegal harassment and different treatment based on race are included in the range of such employment opportunities. In addition, Title VII recognizes that persons made to work in an intolerable environment may be constructively discharged, or compelled to resign their employment. Finally, it is illegal to retaliate against someone because he has made a complaint of illegal discrimination.
Kansas employers, word from your Department of Labor is that unemployment is down, and going down further. Great news, right? Well, it might not be such good news if you are an employer out there in search of new talent for your business, because that means you could have trouble tracking down the right candidates from the narrow pool of possible applicants out there.
That is why the Kansas governor is instituting a program called the On-Track Initiative, whose purpose is to help all of you Kansas employers in this predicament with your ability to recruit and keep the best possible workers for your company.
The program’s long name is Training, Recruitment and Careers in Kansas. However you spell it, it is meant to act like a link between Kansas employers and the possible workers out there in the job market. The initiative is open to all Kansas employers out there, so it doesn’t matter how big or how small you are, you can get help from the Kansas government with your recruiting issues. Industries such as aviation, health care, energy, communications, animal health, bioscience, and even the military are expected to benefit from the program.
On-Track will also even try to help the state’s public and private school districts out there with their efforts to get math, science and special education teachers, especially in the rural areas of the state or areas hard hit by poverty. The program will provide training and certification for the right individuals.
The governor is making to sure to put adequate funding for the program in her upcoming budget, say my sources, and will also focus on how to improve the state’s image in the country in order to attract both more workers to the state, as well as more businesses and employers.
If you thought the Iowa contractor distinctions were complicated when it comes to reporting new hires, check out the requirements set out by the new hire labor law in the state of Kansas. The state of Kansas goes into detail about exactly what constitutes an employer-employee relationship.
The basic definition in the state new hire labor law is that this relationship exists when you hire somebody to perform a certain defined job and can control how, when, and where that person carries out that job. It is this control over the employee that truly defines you as the employer, as well as your right to fire a work at will, or to let them go without cause.
Other ways the state of Kansas defined employer and employee are whether or not the employee is making their services available to the total general public or not, as well as whether or not you are providing the building, tools, and other things the employee needs in order to perform their job.
It’s also important to determine if the relationship was a one time thing, or if the employee is working for you continuously from the date of their hire. How do you pay your employee—by their time, by their effort, or in a piece rate? Is the job they are performing for you an integral part of what your business about?
This last question is key, as well as whether or not the job is being performed at your company’s place of business. Let’s say the job is not an integral part of your business—say, the worker is putting in new carpet in your pet store—then that person would be more of an independent contracted laborer than an actual employee. And under Kansas labor law on reporting new hires, the law holds different distinctions for independent contractors compared to full fledged employees.