Compliance September 14, 2006

EEOC Says Cashier Denied Reasonable Religious Accomodations

September 14, 2006 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a suit against Illinois-based supermarket chain Aldi Inc. for denying a request by a worker that she not work on Sundays because of religious reasons.
Reported by

When Aldi’s Unitown store began to offer Sunday hours in December 2005, Kimberly Bloom, a cashier at the store since 1998, asked that she not have to work on that day because she observed the Sabbath as a Protestant, according to the Associated Press. The store said she could not take off the entire day – only enough time to attend church. The EEOC said in its suit that this accomodation was not reasonable.

Bloom was then fired in February when she began not showing up for work on Sundays.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

The EEOC’s religious discrimination suit asks a federal court in Pittsburgh to stop Aldi from refusing the religious requests of its employees, the AP reports. For Bloom, the agency is asking she be awarded back pay and front pay or reinstatement, and is also asking for damages.

Compliance September 13, 2006

Company Not Liable for Off-Duty Worker Conduct

September 13, 2006 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - An employer cannot be held liable for a worker's off-duty conduct because the company is not exercising control over the person when he is off the clock, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled.
Reported by

The ruling, by Justice Paul Green, came in a case involving an employee of Loram Maintenance of Way, a  Minnesota firm that refurbishes railroad tracks.

According to the ruling,  El Paso police officer David Ianni had sued Loram over allegations it should be deemed responsible for the off-duty actions of employee Roger Tingle. The company knew about Tingle’s methamphetamine use and propensity for violence, including an incident where he was accused of threatening his wife’s friend with a knife, according to the decision.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

One day, after talking with his co-workers about attacking his wife, Tingle allegedly forced her into a car and began to drive off, prompting his wife to jump out and scream for help. Ianni responded and was shot and seriously injured by Tingle.

Ianni sued Loram for not properly supervising Tingle and won $1.1 million in damages from a lower court – a decision that was affirmed on appeal. The company then asked the  Lone Star State’s high court to hear the case.

Green pointed out that the shooting did not take place until at least an hour after Tingle was already off duty, so there was no evidence that Loram was controlling him. The high court decided that knowledge of Tingle’s impaired state was not enough to create a duty in Loram to protect members of the public.

The case is Loram Maintenance of Way v. Ianni, Supreme Court of Texas, No. 04-0666 (6/30/06), and the ruling is here .

«