The state Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) has fined Tan Republic’s operator $200,900 in civil penalties for hundreds of violations—including repeated failures to provide required rest periods and lunch breaks for employees. According to a BOLI press release: “During the course of a 31-day period between October 1, 2016 and October 31, 2016, BOLI wage and hour compliance specialists determined that Tan Republic failed to provide 365 meal periods to 40 employees and 941 rest breaks to 44 employees as required by law.”
In short, Tan Republic deprived its employees of a year’s worth of breaks in one month alone. The tanning company also failed to post minimum wage requirements on location and failed to provide notification of sick-time requirements.
Under Oregon law, employers must offer one 30-minute unpaid meal break to any employee working a shift of six hours or longer. Businesses must also provide two paid 10-minute breaks for staff working an eight-hour shift—and three of those breaks for any shift that goes over 10 hours.
The embattled tanning company is also facing a BOLI complaint from an ex-employee, Sarah Levin, who lost her job after seeking sick leave from Tan Republic.
“We have an active civil rights case against Tan Republic in which we’re seeking $20,000 in emotional distress damages on behalf of a worker allegedly retaliated against in violation of Oregon’s sick-time law,” said BOLI spokesperson Charlie Burr. Civil penalties against the company go to BOLI, but these damages, Burr says, will go directly to the employee.
“This is the first retaliation and sick-time case that’s gone to a contested case hearing,” he adds.
The Mercury obtained Levin’s BOLI complaint, which alleges discrimination based on religion and unjust retribution for use of sick leave.
“I was denied religious leave for Jewish holidays,” writes Levin. “I requested time off for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur with proper notice but was denied leave. I was also threatened with termination by District Manager Patrick McNeil if I did not come in.”
Levin also alleges that she was forced to work while sick on October 7, 2016 “due to Respondent’s [Lioness Holdings, LLC] practice of not allowing sick days without repercussions and there being no coverage. I notified management that I was ill but was not allowed to go home.”
The next day, Saturday, October 8, Levin called in sick, since her illness had become worse. The store district manager asked her for a doctor’s note by the end of the day. “I informed him that I could not as it was Saturday. I had no record of prior abuse of sick leave,” Levin writes. She was then placed on unpaid suspension for 30 days.
“I felt the suspension was retaliatory for my need for sick leave,” Levin wrote to management at the time. She resigned on October 10, 2016.
“I felt I had no choice but to resign due to an illegal/retaliatory unpaid suspension and the hostile treatment I received,” she said.
A hearing for this civil complaint is set for May 1, according to Burr.