EEOC vs. Pepsi Beverages – Employment Law Cases

Workplace discrimination

Racial discrimination is never satisfactory behavior on any scale, but especially on the job. This is only one area of NJ employment law that Ty Hyderally deals with on a regular basis. He chose the vast field of employment law partly because he was intrigued by the many facets. He has worked for many years to ensure that employers and employees are aware of both their rights and responsibilities as they pertain to employment law NY.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently filed suit on the company Pepsi Beverages due to an alleged infraction that occurred in some of the ways their employment policies were carried out.

As part of their hiring procedures, Pepsi required a background check. Applicants who had previously been arrested but their prosecution was pending were disqualified for permanent employment even though they had not been convicted of any type of crime or offense. This policy adversely affected over 300 African American applicants.  Policies created by Pepsi also denied the opportunity of employment to many who had been convicted or even arrested of some types of minor offenses. But under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if this is not relevant to the position it can be illegal. It is considered illegal because it can reduce the employability of some applicants based on race or ethnicity.

Perhaps the intent of the policy was not to violate any employment laws with regard to discrimination but inadvertently many African Americans were denied employment unfairly. While the EEOC was conducting their investigation, Pepsi rewrote and adopted new guidelines pertaining to criminal background checks. The bottling company will begin to offer employment to those who were victims of their previous policies; as long as they do qualify for the positions and jobs for which they had applied. The company will also follow up in this case by submitting regular reports to the EEOC regarding their practices in hiring. And the company will make sure that all managers attend Title VII training and in-service.

The case that EEOC filed against Pepsi did not have to go all the way to trial. Pepsi Beverages was able to reach a settlement agreement with the EEOC. Not only will they make the stated modification to their hiring procedures and training process, they will also pay $3.13 million.  The position that Pepsi’s hiring procedures got them into is an example of how a policy can inadvertently affect certain classes of people. Policies that are not intended to be discriminatory can still be in violation of some of the anti-discrimination laws. This type of disparate impact can end up with the company liable for discriminatory actions even though the intent was not there. It serves as a reminder to businesses and companies to reexamine policies and procedures to ensure that they are not discriminatory in any fashion directly or indirectly. Companies can rely on expert lawyers such as Tayeb Hyderally to help ensure policies are correctly written and carried out to avoid cases such as these.

Hithon vs. Tyson Foods – Employment Law Cases

Tayeb Hyderally chose to work in the field of employment law because of the wide variety of situations. As an expert lawyer he has seen just about everything, but it is cases like Ash vs. Tyson Foods that raises eyebrows. Employment law NY is a vast field and encompasses lots of different scenarios. The intent of various employment laws is of course to protect from any type of discrimination in the workplace. Ty Hyderallyhas spent a large part of his professional career in advising both employee and employer of their rights and responsibilities pertaining to employment law.

US Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit

The case with Tyson Foods is interesting because of the final result. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision that it made when the case was originally tried. This is very rare – and almost unheard of.  John Hithon and Anthony Ash both alleged racial discrimination on the basis that they were dismissed for a promotion in favor of other white workers. They also alleged that it had become a hostile work environment because one of the managers repeatedly called employees who were adult black males, “boy.” The suit was filed based on the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case made it all the way to trial jury where the plaintiffs were awarded more than $1.4 million in punitive and compensatory damages.

Naturally, the Tyson Foods appealed the case and it moved on to the 3 judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit. They upheld part of the case but totally determined that the use of the word “boy” was not discriminatory. Ash dropped his portion of the case at this time but Hithon continued to pursue. In 2010 the Eleventh Circuit deemed that the use of the word, “boy” was purely conversational and not racial in its contextual use. However, there was some evidence that was being overlooked.

A brief was filed with the Eleventh Circuit by U.W. Clemon who was Alabama’s first black federal judge, since retired. He along with 10 other civil rights leaders from Alabama filed the brief asking the court to reconsider the ruling. The civil rights leaders gave explanation to the use of the term “boy” as it is customarily applied in the South. It is a derogatory statement in most southern states which is a carryover from slave days and is a racial slur based on the culture of the area. The court reversed its decision and awarded Mr. Hithon $365,000 but did not grant the one million dollar award for punitive damages. This was because they did not feel the supervisor was in a high enough corporate position for it to be attributed to the company who has a strong policy against workplace discrimination.

The reversal of this type of decision is a rare occurrence. Situations such as these are why it is important to know your individual rights and responsibilities under employment law. Ty Hyderally is an expert in NJ employment law and frequently is asked to provide counsel and advice on matters of discrimination in the workplace.