Across the U.S., several employment law cases had a tremendous impact on employers and employees. In some situations, the judgments were higher than anyone would have imagined, and in others, what seemed like a fail-proof case didn’t go as planned.
In 2024, the EEOC filed 110 lawsuits for workers across the country. Whether the outcomes were completely unexpected or followed exactly as people hoped, here are our picks from Shegerian Conniff for four of the most influential cases of 2024.
July 2024: The State of Texas vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
In this political climate, there are two clear sides to equality regarding LGBTQIA+. The State of Texas went to court to be allowed to ignore EEOC guidance on workplace discrimination and harassment regarding LGBTQIA+ individuals. The big disagreement regarded the inclusion of gender identity and sexual orientation in sex discrimination.
Under EEOC guidelines, forcing a worker to use a bathroom that matches their biological sex could be viewed as discriminatory. While the court didn’t side one way or the other, it’s clear that this is going to be a trending issue in terms of gender and sexual discrimination and harassment. If a state government doesn’t agree with federal laws, can that state claim the laws are unlawful? Do state laws or federal laws matter most?
A similar matter has been broached in McMahon v. World Vision, Inc. In this case, the plaintiff’s job offer from World Vision was rescinded after the company learned she was in a same-sex marriage. California’s Attorney General Bonta is one of 21 attorneys general who stands against efforts to reduce protections for LGBTQIA+ workers. There’s still work to be done, however, as more than half of the states in the U.S. didn’t sign the amicus brief to protect these rights.
May 2024: Su vs. Bevins & Son, Inc.
This one comes from the other side of the country in Vermont. A small construction company failed to pay some of its workers the correct amount of overtime. One employee complained and said he wanted the pay he was entitled to under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or he’d report them to the Vermont Department of Labor. The company fired him.
He filed his complaint, and the company was ordered to pay all employees the back pay they were owed. Plus, they had to pay $25,000 to the plaintiff for punitive damages. After a local news station aired a story about the case, the company began posting social media comments about the employee, sharing his name, and that led to a flood of people posting information about the plaintiff. Soon, a second former employee became the target of retaliation for the back wages he received.
The Department of Labor stepped in and filed a retaliation complaint. The defendant’s legal team claimed he was welcome to make statements on social media as his right to free speech and asked for the complaint to be dismissed.
The judgment was made that the employer’s posts were an “adverse employment action” that damaged the plaintiff’s reputation in terms of future employment. The posts the company made also encouraged others to Google the plaintiff and look at his background. That was another strike as “adverse employment action under the FLSA.”
Retaliation is not acceptable behavior under the FLSA. Even if you feel you’re justified and protected by free speech, if it harms a worker’s reputation and odds of landing another job, don’t speak up. If your employer has made remarks that damage your reputation, arrange a consultation with an employment attorney.
October 2024: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit vs. Four Workers
Here’s an employment complaint that’s closer to home. During the pandemic, the need to vaccinate people as quickly as possible was needed to stop the fast-spreading virus. Many employers mandated that workers get the vaccine. San Francisco’s BART was one of them.
Six BART employees refused to get vaccinated citing religious exemptions so the company terminated their jobs. They sued for religious discrimination. BART claimed hardship as a reason why they couldn’t let those six workers have their exemption. The jury didn’t believe that and awarded each worker just over $1 million. In all, BART had to pay $7.98 million in damages.
BART’s claim that it would cause undue hardship was hard to believe when they have more than 3,000 employees. While the first jury was deadlocked on that matter, the second jury didn’t believe it. That’s why the jury found for the plaintiffs. It’s one of many cases involving religious discrimination over the vaccine mandate, and it’s been an expensive lesson for the company to learn. It also set a precedent as the plaintiffs were not allowed to continue as a class action suit and had to file individually.
November 2024: EEOC vs. Skywest Airlines, Inc.
For 12 years, a Texan working in the airline’s parts division faced sexual discrimination in a hostile work environment. Her male coworkers made jokes about rape and engaged in jokes, gestures, and sexual comments that led to her complaining to her supervisor. Her supervisor told her if he did anything about her complaint, she’d become a bigger target. She took an unpaid leave of absence for her mental health. Upon her return, the harassment continued.
After submitting multiple complaints, she was placed on paid leave for the investigation. The outcome was that all employees would have to undergo sexual harassment training. Until every employee attended the training, she couldn’t return to work. She ended up shut out from returning, in what appeared to be an act of retaliation.
A jury found Skywest at fault for allowing the harassment to continue, but they didn’t agree with the retaliation charge. However, the judgment was a record-breaking $2.17 million.
If your coworker engages in behavior that makes you uncomfortable, you have every right to ask for it to stop. Companies must have guidelines in place to prevent harassment and retaliation and actions employees can take to make complaints without fear.
Always Seek Expert Advice
Clearly, it’s always better to fight for fair, equitable treatment in the workplace, receive everything that’s due if you’re laid off, and be treated fairly and in accordance with the law when interviewing for a new job. It’s equally important for employers to establish contracts that clarify all company policies, practices, and steps to follow if discrimination or harassment is taking place.
Shegerian Conniff helps with all aspects of employment law. Reach out to us with your problem and we’ll help you determine the next steps to take.
