Fair to assume that a number of employers sat up and took notice of these whopping big EEOC settlements finalized in U.S. District Court here in Oregon. The Oregonian news report suggests that Video Only was ordered by Judge King to pay a total of $630,000 on the two claims and the EEOC’s enforcement action. Not clear whether this was a private settlement, a consent decree or an actual decision.

According to the report, two employees–one Hispanic and the other African American, with a Jewish family–endured repeated racial, ethnic and religious slurs. Store management participated in the repeated misconduct. To add insult to injury, the news article reports that after receiving their complaints, Video Only hired an investigator to attempt to discredit the two men.

Here’s how the EEOC described the situation: “Our investigation discovered harassment that engaged in the worst stereotypes and slurs about blacks, Latinos and Jews, and that upper management actively participated in this behavior,” said Mike Baldonado, the EEOC’s acting district director. “The settlement should send a strong message that harassment based on race, national origin and religion has no place in the workplace.”

The news report also explains that the $500,000 of the $630,000 will be awarded to the two victims, and the balance will be paid to two co-workers who apparently suffered retaliation for supporting the complaints.

The size of the settlement should send a message to Oregon employers that management-led discrimination is going to result in a rather expensive slap down. That’s a good thing.

For my part, I can imagine that the men who took this on had a terribly difficult course at work and then–after blowing the whistle–likely had things get worse before they got better.

I’ve learned from clients over the years that blowing the whistle on employment discrimination is tough, especially when it is wide-spread and when it involves race, religion or sexual harassment. To my way of thinking, these four employees who said no deserve our thanks. By facing the monster, they made the workplace better for the rest of us. The other thing is that they’ve taught their children that sometimes we have to do hard things. Heroic.

David Sugerman

So this is last week’s news, but it’s important. As was widely reported, the Senate killed amendments to the Equal Pay Act. I’m only getting to it now because I was away last week.

Here’s some background on the Lebetter case, the horrible U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made this an issue. The gist is that women who get paid less than men must file their discrimination claims within 180 days of the first pay-setting act, or their rights to pursue claims are lost.

Interesting study in Senate conduct. For example, Senator McCain opposed the bill because it would, “open us to lawsuits.”  Sorry, but I have to call you on that one, Senator.  The law requires equal pay for equal work. Lawsuits happen only when employers fail to comply with anti-discrimination laws.  Or to simplify: pay equally, and you get no lawsuit.  So what you really meant was, “This change would mean that all employers who discriminate in their pay practices would have to face the consequences of illegal discrimination.”

Kudos to Oregon Senator Gordon Smith who correctly saw this as a non-partisan issue and broke with his party to vote in favor of the change. I periodically disagree with Senator Smith, but here I think he did the right thing. I would be remiss in failing to recognize his courage in doing so. I suppose some might suggest that Senator Smith voted in favor of the changes only because he faces a tough re-election in a blue state. I don’t particularly care how he got there. He did the right thing here.

My guess is that the opponents, which is to say most of the rest of the Senate Republicans, are playing with fire. The outcome is that women who are paid less than men for the same work have a very short time window for filing claims. Either the Republicans are encouraging people to file claims early on, or they are assuming that women don’t care. Bad message either way.

David Sugerman

This news account of a teenager’s serious injury at a North Portland Junkyard suggests that one or more participants didn’t get their stories straight. Were the teens working for the company, or were they merely operating the yard’s front-end loader and other heavy equipment without being paid on the payroll?

It doesn’t really matter. The account and various quotes provide another reminder that teenagers often fail to appreciate risk. That’s part of the reason why we have child labor laws. Children often can’t understand or fully appreciate the risk of injury from work.
Front-end loaders, car shredders and other large machines do amazing work. But safety isn’t something trusted to a teenager’s common sense. Seems like the owners of the yard have some explaining to do. It looks like these kids were engaged in child labor on the payroll, or they were working under the table. Neither possibility reflects well on the owner and manager of the yard.

Let’s at least hope that the injured teen heals fully and recovers his health.

David Sugerman