Popeyes Chicken franchisee agrees to settle HIV discrimination claim with EEOC
A Shreveport, Louisiana-based Popeyes Chicken franchisee has agreed to pay $25,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging that it refused to hire an HIV-positive man because of his disability.
Under a consent decree with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the franchisee, Famous Chicken of Shreveport, which owns and operates restaurants in Texas and Louisiana, has also agreed to provide training on the Americans with Disabilities Act for all managers, area supervisors and human resources personnel, the National Law Journal reports.
The EEOC had sued the franchisee in 2011 on behalf of Noah Crawford, who had applied for a job at a Popeyes franchise in Longview, Texas, according to this press release. Crawford, who had years of experience working in fast-food restaurants, had written “medical” on his job application as his reason for leaving his most recent job. When he was interviewed, he was asked what the medical reason was. And when he responded “HIV,” he was told that he could not work for Popeyes, given his condition, the suit alleged.
Such conduct violates the ADA, which prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, the EEOC says. The ADA also prohibits employers from making pre-employment disability-related inquiries of job applicants.
Cases alleging HIV discrimination account for a small portion of the EEOC’s docket, the Law Journal says. Such litigation, which generally produces only modest settlements, is intended to send employers a message.
“The ADA is intended to deter employers from jumping to conclusions about an applicant’s ability to perform a job,” EEOC trial attorney Joel Clark said in a prepared statement. “In-house education on the ADA can be effective toward eliminating assumptions and fostering a more inclusive work force.”
Lawyers for the franchisee could not be reached for comment, the Law Journal says. But the company had argued in court papers that its actions were based on “legitimate, nondiscriminatory business purposes unrelated to any purported conduct or protected status.” It also argued that Crawford was not a qualified individual with a disability as defined by the ADA and that its actions were “not intentional, malicious, willful or reckless.”
