A Tampa Sports Bar is Accused of Race and Sex Discrimination
This case involves a high-end sports bar and event center with about 50-100 employees—enough for their risk to skyrocket but not enough to justify the cost of an experienced HR leader. Here, a former employee brought a lawsuit based on alleged violations of state and federal law protecting her from race and sex discrimination.
Alleged Wrongdoing:
The bar hired June as a line cook on September 23, 2024, and she worked there for approximately two months. Over the course of her employment several employees asked her questions or made comments about her gender identity which June found to be harassing. This included asking June if she was “intersex” and “autosex” [sic]; commenting “oh, it’s a girl” when June straightened her hair; and one employee put in an order for a side of “chickman.” June also alleges that employees engaged in somewhat ambiguous racially harassing conduct including placing a note on her desk with the words “blackened cream sauce” and when she questioned the meaning of the note, a manager and owner both laughed at her and directed her to prepare a cream sauce. June reported this incident to the bar manager, a women whom June alleges did not like Black employees and who would only communicate with her Black subordinates through another manager who was also Black. Upon hearing June’s complaint, the manager allegedly reduced her pay and stated there was nothing she could do about the harassing conduct for a few days, which June found unteneble, ultimately resigning her employment, and alleging the circumstances surrounding her resignation amounted to constructive discharge. Notably, the plaintiff alleged that the harassing conduct was very open and took place in front of senior management and company ownership. She even alleged that one of the owners took part in the harassing conduct.
HR Compliance Analysis:
If the allegations above are true and the complained of conduct had no legitimate business purpose then it appears that the following is missing from this Sports Bar’s internal HR function:
Neither the owners nor the managers have had basic anti-discrimination training. This is evident from the allegations of openly discriminatory conduct taking place in front of management and owners.
The bar has no internal reporting procedure for complaints of harassment to ensure that complaints of harassment go to a person who can respond to the complaint appropriately. Needless to say, you don’t have to be an HR expert to know that implicitly telling a person who complains of harassment to grin and bear it for a few more days until you can get to it, is not the ideal response.
The managers don’t appear to have had training on retaliation, if June’s pay was indeed docked immediately after she made her complaint, the temporal proximity of this reduction is compelling evidence of retaliation.
Management has not learned the fine art of lending a sympathetic ear and ensuring that the employee feels heard, and that their complaint is being taken seriously, regardless of how management may perceive the complaint. Employees rarely sue people they like or people whom they feel have treated them fairly. Even if the employee has complained of unfair conduct, it’s HR’s job to help them reassess this perception if it isn’t grounded in facts.
Discover how we can assist your company with their HR Function by completing our Company Diagnostic Questionnaire
My Analysis:
While I am not licensed to practice law in Florida and I don’t know the ins and outs of their state anti-discrimination law, most states’ workplace anti-discrimination laws mirror the federal law and courts engage in the same analysis for the state law as they do for Title VII, which I have experience with. If I was defense counsel in this case, I would think there was a pretty high likelihood I could get the case dismissed either at the pleading stage (a motion to dismiss based on the pleading) or after discovery closes based on the absence of evidence to support violations of the anti-discrimination laws, particularly if the bar had a legitimate business reason for reducing June’s pay. The reason for this is simply that she has not pled enough conduct to really show that the circumstances surrounding her termination rose to constructive discharge, or hostile work environment which requires severe or pervasive discriminatory conduct. Therefore, absent a bombshell coming out in discovery, this is not a case that will make it to trial. On the other hand, the conduct does not look good, and certainly isn’t going to do anything to enhance the bar’s image, so I would have tried to make it go away while the case was in front of the EEOC and not a filing in a public docket for the entire world to see.
See this article on what to do if your company has been named in an EEOC complaint
Nonetheless, even if the case makes it to trial and sports bar wins, it has still lost. Defending the case up to summary judgment will likely cost the bar between $30,000 to $50,000 using reasonably priced competent counsel—that does not include any settlement the parties reach or an ultimate judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. This cost also does not include the inherent intangible costs that come with the uncertainty of litigation such as worry, management second guessing themselves, or workplace disruption caused by the litigation (e.g. witness preparation, depositions, responding to document requests, and so on).
This was a completely avoidable lawsuit, and the cost to avoid it was insignificant compared to what the cost will be to defend it.
Need assistance with your HR Function? Contact us today for a complimentary consultation about your unique challenges.
