Skip to main content

Pepsi Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

SAN FRANCISCO — The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (NYSE: PBG) agreed to pay $120,000 and implement preventive measures to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Pepsi terminated Eldridge Davis, a driver at its Hayward, Calif., facility, for “job abandonment and violation of the company attendance policy,” even though Davis had followed proper procedure to inform his supervisor and the company that he could not finish his route due to his disability and needed to take medical leave.

Davis, age 48, had worked for Pepsi since October 1996 and was promoted to driver in December 1999.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. This settlement resolves EEOC v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., CV 09-4594 EMC, filed in 2009 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Under the terms of the consent decree settling the suit, Pepsi agreed to implement training on anti-discrimination laws, post a notice at the work site on the settlement and other injunctive relief, in addition to paying Davis $120,000.

“Medical leave is a widely recognized accommodation, and in Mr. Davis’s case, could easily have been granted, avoiding the loss of a valuable and experienced employee,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo. “Since recent amendments to the ADA have broadened the definition of disability, forward-thinking employers may want to re-evaluate their policies on workplace accommodations. Studies show that reasonable accommodations are frequently no- or low-cost, with the added benefit of improving productivity and morale, reducing turnover and building a diverse and loyal work force.”

According to the company’s web site, www.pbg.com, Somers, N.Y.-based The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. is the world's largest manufacturer, seller and distributor of Pepsi-Cola beverages, with operations in the United States, Mexico, Canada, Russia, Spain, Turkey and Greece and more than 70,000 employees worldwide. The company produces and sells more than 1.7 billion cases of beverages each year.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...