Employer settles claims that it refused to promote Black employee, fired her after bias complaint
Dive Brief:
A Maryland retirement community will pay $85,000 to settle U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that it refused to promote a Black manager and subsequently fired her when she complained of discrimination, EEOC said in a press release Tuesday.
Per the 2024 complaint, the plaintiff sought promotion to a vice president or executive director position, but was told that she was ineligible because she lacked a bachelor's degree. She alleged Westminster Ingleside King Farm Presbyterian Retirement Communities nonetheless employed a White employee who lacked a bachelor's degree as its VP of HR and promoted another White employee with the same job title as the plaintiff to an executive director role.
The plaintiff later received a bachelor's degree, but EEOC claimed her supervisor ignored the plaintiff's promotion request. It also alleged she received a 'false' written warning from HR, after which the plaintiff expressed a desire to file a race discrimination charge. She was terminated shortly afterward. EEOC alleged violations of federal laws including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As part of its consent decree with EEOC, the employer did not admit wrongdoing.
Dive Insight:
The EEOC noted that retaliation — such as that alleged in the Westminster Ingleside lawsuit — is unlawful irrespective of the validity of an employee's claims.
Such complaints 'can be early warning signs for employers,' Debra Lawrence, regional attorney at EEOC, said in the press release. 'What employers should never do is treat complaints as the problem or take adverse action against the complainant.'
According to agency enforcement guidance, employers may not retaliate against employees for opposing unlawful equal employment opportunity practices. This opposition may include actions such as complaining or threatening to complain about alleged discrimination against oneself or others.
Retaliation has formed the basis of previous EEOC settlements with employers, including a 2024 agreement between the agency and an employer that it alleged retaliated against three employees — including an HR manager — for raising concerns about discriminatory workplace treatment.
Employers should swiftly and thoroughly investigate employee complaints — with the assistance of an external investigator if necessary, an employment law attorney wrote in an op-ed to HR Dive in March.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
9 hours ago
- New York Post
Murder conviction tossed all because killer's sleepy pal was kicked out of NYC courtroom: ruling
A state appeals court tossed out a Queens murder conviction because the killer's buddy was booted from the courtroom for falling asleep — even though the accused was clearly guilty. The state Appellate Division panel said in a bizarre ruling last week that convicted killer Donald White was denied a public trial because Judge Michael Aloise booted his friend from the courtroom before White was found guilty of murder, robbery and weapons possession in 2016. 3 A state appellate court threw out a Queens murder conviction because the killer's friend was booted for falling asleep. Christopher Sadowski Advertisement 'Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence,' according to the decision, which was filed Wednesday. 'Nevertheless, the defendant is entitled to a new trial because the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excluding a spectator from the courtroom, thereby violating the defendant's right to a public trial,' the judges said. The ruling means White, who is still being held in state prison, gets a new trial in the case. Advertisement Veteran civil rights attorney Ron Kuby, who was not involved in the case, chided Aloise's decision to toss White's pal, who was not identified, from the trial on the first day. 'Judges serve the public, not the other way around,' Kuby told The Post. 'A courtroom is not a judicial fiefdom. Every defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. 3 A state appellate court said Donald White was denied a 'public' trial because his friend was kicked out of court. REUTERS 'Judicial pettiness and peevishness are not reasons to remove spectators,' he added. 'Now a murder case must be retried and the victim's loved ones must go through agony again, all because a judge got pissed at a spectator for napping.' Advertisement White, 36, was charged with killing pot peddler Henry Jenkins in St. Albans in June 2010. At trial, his pal dozed off in court during the first day of testimony. Aloise's decision to kick him out came after the jury left the room, but the Appellate Division judges said he was too hasty, and didn't consider other options — like warning the man not to do it again. Even though the judge reversed his decision the next day, the appeals panel said White's friend may not have known that — and thereby didn't know he was welcome back in the courtroom. Advertisement 3 Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz is reviewing the decision to throw out Donald White's murder conviction. Stephen Yang 'The spectator was not present at the time and had no reason to believe that he could return to the courtroom was insufficient to remedy the court's error,' the ruling said. A spokesperson for the Queens District Attorney's Office said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling. Al Baker, a spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration, which oversees the Empire State court system, declined to comment on Aloise's decision or the appellate ruling. White's attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.
USA Today
9 hours ago
- USA Today
Jon Jones 'a little disappointed' with Dana White's concerns of UFC White House booking
Jon Jones was disappointed to hear Dana White show concern over booking him for the proposed UFC White House card. The UFC CEO made it known that he isn't sure he can trust the former heavyweight champion with headlining such a major event that could take place on the White House grounds on Independence Day in 2026. At the UFC 318 post-event news conference, White said he isn't sure Jones can be trusted not to get in trouble leading up to the event. "It's not even about him winning the belt," White told MMA Junkie and other reporters. "You know how I felt about him. You know I can't risk putting him in big positions in a big spot and have something go wrong – especially the White House card." Jones has given the promotion multiple headaches throughout his career. "Bones" refused to fight Chael Sonnen on short notice after Dan Henderson got injured, which prompted the cancellation of the entire UFC 151 card. Jones was stripped of the light heavyweight title ahead of UFC 187 after a hit-and-run accident. In the days ahead of UFC 200, Jones failed a pre-fight drug test, leading to his removal from the main event against Daniel Cormier on fight week. A year later, he made it to the cage to face Cormier, but later failed another drug test, causing his third-round stoppage to be overturned to a no contest. White announced Jones' intention to retire during a post-fight news conference in Baku, Azerbaijan. Jones would confirm the news shortly after, but more headlines soon followed. Jones was allegedly involved in another hit-and-run accident, one in which he was suspected of driving under the influence, and fled the scene after a car crash, leaving a woman behind in the passenger seat. He also allegedly threatened the life of a responding officer over the phone. The timing of everything has led many, including White, to publicly wonder if Jones' latest legal issue is why he decided to retire and relinquish the heavyweight title to interim champion Tom Aspinall. However, once president Donald Trump announced the idea of hosting a UFC event at the White House, Jones quickly changed his tune on fighting, stating his intention to return on that card. Initially, White seemed on board, stating his dream headliner for the event would be Jones vs. Aspinall. White's latest comments indicate hesitation to place Jones in such an important potential spot given his history, which prompted a reply on social media. "I heard the comments made at last night's press conference," Jones wrote on X (formerly Twitter). "While I was a little disappointed, I'm still in the UFC's drug testing pool, staying sharp, and continuing to train like a professional. I'll be ready for whatever comes next. "In a recent interview, I shared that the opportunity to fight at the White House gave me something deeper to fight for, a 'why' that goes beyond paychecks or belts. Fighting for my country gives me a greater purpose!" Jones continued, playing up how important it would be for him to further his legacy, despite seeming content with retirement before the idea of a White House event. "The silver lining in all this is knowing the fans see my heart," Jones wrote. "They see, I am ready and willing to take on anyone, to represent my country on a historic stage. For me, it's never been just about the opponent. I'm chasing legacy, something timeless, something bigger than the moment. "So for now, I'll keep grinding, stay patient, and stay faithful. I'm ready to fight on July 4th. #IndependenceDay"
Forbes
11 hours ago
- Forbes
Proper Adoption Of AI Requires A Fundamental Change In Culture
AI arguably represents the most fundamental technological change since the arrival of early ... More mainframe computers. For months now, there has been almost constant coverage of AI and the potentially transformative role it could play in fields as wide-ranging as professional services and healthcare. But in recent weeks that attention seems to have intensified, as even the political classes wake up to the possible impact. On consecutive days last week, for example, the Financial Times carried opinion articles suggesting that, first, politicians must overcome their insecurity over technology matters and make a significant contribution to the debate over future developments, and, second, that they needed to be aware of the ramifications if anything like the predicted numbers of white-collar job losses come to fruition. Now, it is, of course, possible that this is all over-dramatic and that the AI revolution will, like the industrial revolution before it, create all kinds of jobs that we are now only just beginning to imagine. It could even be that the power of AI is being overstated. The cultural commentator Ted Gioia, for one, seems to think so. In a just-published column, he suggests that 'growing AI resistance is forcing companies to reconsider their bot mania.' Moreover, he cites a Gartner report that predicts that 40% of AI agent programs will be cancelled before 2027. Wishful thinking (Gioia is a longstanding critic of what he sees as AI's detrimental effect on culture) or not, it seems that the adoption of the technology could be a less than smooth process. Earlier this year, a study by the networking and security company Cisco found 'a paradox among CEOs.' While 4 in 5 recognized AI's potential benefits and almost all planned to integrate AI into their operations, many feared gaps in their knowledge would hinder decisions in the boardroom (74%) and stifle growth (58%) – risking missed opportunities and falling behind competitors. Another study, by the professional services firm EY, suggested that companies were racing ahead to implement AI while not putting in place sufficient safeguards against the risks involved. What the survey identifies as a gap between senior executives' concerns about adherence to responsible AI principles and those of consumers in general is potentially serious because it will only feed into the sorts of worries outlined by the opinion formers in the FT and elsewhere. Much of this debate centres on whether AI is seen as very much a cost-saving exercise through replacing people with machines or whether — as many proponents increasingly emphasize — it is a complement that enables humans to do better work and so become more productive. With rising levels of unemployment among young graduates causing increasing alarm, there are fears that the former scenario is in the ascendancy. Experts in the field, such as Erica Orange of the futurist consulting firm The Future Hunters and Pascal Bornet, a member of the Forbes Technology Council, are attempting to redress the balance with books like AI and the New Human Frontier and Irreplaceable. But, as David De Cremer, author of The AI-Savvy Leader, points out, many AI projects continue to be what he calls 'tech-driving-tech transformations' with people valuing AI's computational prowess over human understanding. It is possible that these caveats are contributing to some over-valuations of businesses centered on AI and that we may be in the midst of something like the dotcom bubble of earlier this century. But Steve Garnett, a former senior executive with Oracle, Siebel Systems and Salesforce who is now an active investor in technology businesses, believes that, rather than being overhyped, the AI revolution is 'if anything underhyped.' Indeed, he is so convinced that this is something different that he has stopped investing in traditional software businesses and is instead focusing on AI. While acknowledging that there is 'some frothiness in there' and that companies just saying they are adopting AI does not really make them AI-focused, he insists that what came to wider prominence with the launch of ChatGPT by OpenAI in November 2022 represents a significant departure from what has come before. 'We have had four decades of incremental technology,' he said in an interview earlier this month, pointing to customer relationship management, enterprise resource planning and various human resources applications. While introducing fundamental changes to how organizations operated, he argued that they were not sufficiently wide in scope for the board and senior executives other than those closely involved in IT to become involved. On the other hand, the technology seemingly becoming more sophisticated by the week was 'a digital labour revolution,' he said. As such, the board and the senior executive team could not afford not to be involved. As the person responsible for motivating the human workforce, the HR director would obviously need to have a view on how AI agents would be integrated, while the chief executive and the chief financial officer would be concerned with costs and assessing the risks that that EY report indicated were receiving insufficient attention at present. At the very least, both the executive team and the board need training in how this technology works and what it has the potential to do. But — mindful of what has happened in the past to companies that failed to respond to change quickly enough — Garnett is urging them to see the need to redesign their processes and indeed in some cases their products and services if they are not to be left behind. With so many factors — including cyber-security concerns, use of data and how to prevent AI agents going rogue — to be considered, it looks like nothing short of a fundamental cultural change will be required.
