Illinois Sexual Harassment Attorney Blog

Hilltown Packing Company settles sexual harassment lawsuit for $48,000. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Filomena Ruelas and other women who worked for the company. According to published reports, Ruelas and others were sexually harassed by their supervisor and then the company engaged in retaliation when they opposed the sexual harassment.

The company which packages Broccoli denied any wrongdoing but the settlement amount should serve as evidence as to what really happened. Supervisors are in a position of authority over employees and they must act in a responsible manner. I am glad that the EEOC stepped in and held the company responsible.

“Women in the agricultural industry are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment, especially immigrant women who may not be proficient in English and are unaware of their employment rights,” said EEOC Attorney William R. Tamayo.

Terminix International and Service Master are being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for sexual harassment. In addition to the claims of sexual harassment the EEOC is also alleging the companies subjected their employees to a hostile work environment. In the lawsuit it is alleged that Terminix and ServiceMaster permitted a class of female employees to be repeatedly sexually harassed by a supervisor. The sexual harassment included repeated sexual comments by a supervisor directed at a class of female employees. Lawsuits like this tend to settle for big amounts because of the number of people involved.

According to published accounts a supervisor suggested to the female employees that they come to work not wearing a top. The same supervisor told the women to wear nothing but Vaseline. When you make comments like that, it is hard to plan a good defense. This supervisor also made repeated comments to female employees telling them that they could be strippers and could give him lap dances.

“Employers who subject individuals to harassment based on sex are violating federal law,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC.

Area Temps will pay $650,000 to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The discrimination lawsuit is based on age discrimination, gender discrimination, racial discrimination and national origin discrimination. It is rare to find a lawsuit that is sucessful and allegeding all four categories.

According to published accounts of the lawsuit Area Temps unlawfully complied with discriminatory requests made by its clients based on race, sex, national origin and age, and unlawfully fired two of its employees in retaliation for their opposition to Area Temps’ discriminatory practices. The company also fired one employee for participation in the EEOC’s investigation. The company that made the request of Area Temp for the discriminatory practices should also be held accountable.

“The EEOC is pleased that Area Temps joined with the agency to negotiate a fair settlement resolving this matter,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence.

The Musselman Company will pay $300,000 to a class of female workers to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed the by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of the women. In court papers the EEOC alleged a class of female farmworkers was subjected to sexual harassment by male coworkers at its processing plant. The sexual harassment included lewd comments and unwanted sexual advances.

The male coworkers also used a forklift to chase women as they walked down the hall. The company wrongfully disciplined or reassigned employees in retaliation for their complaints about the abusive treatment. The EEOC was able to hold the company responsible and make them pay a significant amount of money.

"The EEOC has seen a troubling number of sexual harassment charges filed by farmworkers across the country,” said Debra Lawrence, the regional attorney of the EEOC"

The Louisville Marriott Downtown Hotel pays $40,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Published reports indicate the company failed to provide an accommdation to four Somali women of the Moslem faith by not allowing them to work while wearing their hijab which is their custom.

Laurie Young, regional attorney for the EEOC said, “Discrimination because of a person’s religion is illegal and will not be tolerated. While that should be clear by now to all employers, some of them sadly continue to ignore the law."

Ashland, Inc. pays $38,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The lawsuit was filed after the EEOC attempted to settle the lawsuit with the company. According to published reports, Michael Roach, who worked as a manager for Ashland, was subjected to
discrimination based on his age. The discrimination comprised of comments about his age and continued when Roach complained about the comments and nothing was done.

Ashland fired Roach because of his age in October 2006 and the EEOC filed the lawsuit shortly after that. You can see how long a lawsuit takes before it finally gets settled. This is a good reason to always try to explore settlement early.

“Age-based harassment, just like other forms of discriminatory workplace harassment, is against the law and should not be tolerated by employers,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. “Older workers should be valued for their experience, not viewed as a liability.”

Mike Enyart & Sons, a construction company is sued for racial discrimination and illegally firing an employee who complained about the conduct. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed the lawsuit on behalf of Mareo Allen an African-American. According to accounts that were published, Allen was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race, when he worked for the company on a sewer line installation project. While working on that project co-workers and a foreman repeatedly used racially offensive slurs and epithets to Allen and other black persons, including n----r, black boy and colored boy.

The company failed to stop the discrimination and prevent the hostile work environment. In a crazy statement the company told Allen he could only stay employed if he agreed not to pursue his discrimination claims. When Allen refused to withdraw the discrimination claims, the company terminated him in retaliation for his opposition to the racial harassment.

“It is appalling that the company not only condoned the vile and offensive racial epithets made to Mr. Allen, but actually warned him that he had to drop his complaints about the racial harassment in order to keep his job,” said EEOC Attorney Debra Lawrence

Oracle Transcription Company pays $30,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Mary Bobik. According to published documents, Oracle denied Bobik a position as a full-time medical transcription editor even though she was well qualified. Oracle’s supervisor told Bobik that they didn’t want to stress her out with the responsibilities of a full-time position, even though she had worked at Oracle Transcription for 20 years and was regularly assigned to work more than 60 hours a week as a part-time editor.

In a case like this it is easy to prove a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") because Bobik had nearly 20 years as a medical transcriptionist and as an editor. Additionally she was physically capable and willing to perform the duties. Instead of giving her the job another person with less qualifications was given it. This is a violation of the ADA and I am glad to see Bobik get compensation from the company.

A federal district court ordered an employer to stop questioning Hispanic farm workers who filed charges of sexual harassment and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") concerning their immigration status, employment history and, in one woman’s case, her sexual history. The employer is this case was trying to kick up as much dirt as possible to distract from what was really taking place.

The Judge reasoned that the public interest would be far better served if meritorious discrimination claims were filed by immigrants regardless of their status. Another words, if people have to fear being deported or getting into immigration trouble they are less likely to come forward and complain about sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination.

Sears will pay $30,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit. The discrimination lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a 61-year old applicant who was turned down for employment. According to the lawsuit, Sears refused to hire the man into an entry-level loss prevention/asset protection position despite his qualifications and 27 years of investigative experience. This type of conduct is illegal and violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").

This type of case is a good example of how large corporations don't believe they are accountable. This man had a ton of experience and was well qualified yet the company decided to not hire him and instead hired a less experienced and less qualified individual. Hopefully after paying this settlement and getting the unwanted attention, Sears will act different in the future.

“We are pleased that Sears worked cooperatively with the EEOC in bringing a resolution to this case,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Judith G. Taylor of the EEOC.

An Elks Lodge in Jerseyville Illinois will pay $107,500 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit which was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of three female bartendors. According to the lawsuit the club’s trustees sexually harassed the three female bartenders. Details of the claims include that three trustees made repeated unwelcome sexual advances and sexually explicit comments to three bartenders but when the women complained, they were threatened, their hours were cut and they were assigned the least desirable shifts. This type of treatment is also referred to as retaliation.

One woman was fired, and the other two felt forced to quit. When an employee feels that because of discrimination directed toward them they must quit their job, the legal term utilized to describe it is constructive discharge. As part of the settlement, the Elks Lodge also agreed to conduct sexual harassment training for Elks managers and employees and to report complaints of sex harassment made by Elks employees to the EEOC regional attorney for a period of three years

Adecco settled a retaliation lawsuit that was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for $62,500. According to published accounts, Adecco disciplined and fired Jeffrey A. Byard, a former office supervisor because he spoke out in support of his supervisor when she complained of sexual harassment by her boss. In sexual harassment and other discrimination cases, they people who are part of the investigation also have protections.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to retaliate against an employee because he testified, assisted, or participated in a proceeding protected that law. I see many cases where the company retaliates against people who are involved in an internal investigation and it ends up costing the company more to settle those cases than the original case. This company needs better internal processes in place with regard to conducting a proper investigation. I bet after paying this amount of money they will put better processes in place.

“Claims of retaliation are taken very seriously by the EEOC,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, EEOC Attorney. “Employers cannot take action against employees because of their participation in employment discrimination claims, either as a witness or because the employee gave a statement, as Mr. Byard did."

Home builder John Wieland Homes pays $378,500 and must hire at least 10 blacks and women in management positions over the next six years to settle a racial discrimination and gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The lawsuit was filed on behalf of one white woman and five black sales agents. The lawsuit was the culmination of various lawsuits and investigations into the employment practices at this place of business. It is good to final see a resolution to all of the employment law issues.

According to published reports Wieland discriminated against black sales agents by purposely sending them to specific housing subdivisions based on the race of the surrounding community. The black sales agents ended up mainly in black subdivisions which did not have the same dollars in sales as the white subdivisions. Because of this black sales agents earned less than their white counterparts. People have to be given a level playing field in order to properly compete with their counterparts.

Robert Dawkins, attorney for the EEOC, said in a statement. "This resolution provides relief to the last remaining victims of that alleged practice.”

Health Delivery Inc. will pay $45,000 to settle an Americans With Disability Act ("ADA") lawsuit with the Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). In the lawsuit the EEOC alleged Health Delivery, Inc. unlawfully refused to return to work an employee with a record of depression even though she had completed a course of treatment and had been approved to return to work by her doctor. This was in violation of the ADA and is a form of discrimination.

The lawsuit claims Linda Perry was a capable nurse for more than five years with Health Delivery, but the company refused to return her to work after a leave of absence because of her history of major depression. This type of treatment of a good employee not only violates the law but is just bad business. Hopefully the company will undergo some serious discrimination training and treat future employees better. This year is the 45th anniverisary of the EEOC and they continue to do a great job.

“We are pleased with the relief provided by the consent decree,” said Dale Price, EEOC attorney. “It provides meaningful relief to Ms. Perry and protections for the employees of Health Delivery."

Billboard company Trinity Products, Inc. pays $55,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a female assistant. According to the published documents in the lawsuit a high-level manager sexually harassed the assistant with offensive language and gestures. Additionally the manager asked the assistant for sexual favors.

The female rejected the advances and because of that the manager tried to replace her. She also complained about the conduct of her manager and that resulted in her discharge. Such conduct is called retaliation. It is unlawful to fire someone because they are complaining about sexual harassment. This is a classic case of the company trying to sweep a person complaining under the rug. Hoepfully the company will spend some time training its' managers and other high ranking employees on discrimination law and give them a primer on sexual harassment.

“Federal law mandates a workplace free from sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting such misconduct,” said Barbara A. Seely, attorney of the EEOC.

Terminix International pays $80,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a pregnant female employee. Terminix fired the employee after forcing her to take medical leave. Once the female became pregnant she informed management about a medical restriction against handling pesticides. The company did honor the restriction for her but for only six weeks, and then they fired her.

The company claimed they had to fire her because they did not have enough work for her to perform with the restrictions. However after firing her Terminix hired two male employees to perform reinspections that the female technician could have performed. Another words, there was work she could have performed and instead of letting her work, they chose to fire her. The EEOC could have also filed gender discrimination charges against the company because the fired a female and hired two males to take her job.

“Pregnancy discrimination charges have nearly doubled since 1992,” said Faye Williams, attorney for the EEOC. “Many employers operate on the mistaken belief that they may treat pregnant employees differently by forcing them to take medical leave and then terminating them. This settlement should place employers on notice that pregnant employees may not be singled out for termination or forced medical leave.”

The only thing worst than being subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation for either reporting the sexual harassment or rejected the advances is to not be able to prove your case and therefore be left holding the bag. It is very important to have either a witness or a tangile piece of evidence that will support your allegation. I won't spend much time on the witness because if you have one, that person can speak to what happened. One thing I would say about witnesses in general are that sometimes they are reluctant to come forward because they fear for their job. The point is, sometimes you think you have witnesses but when it comes right down to it, you won't.

The next best evidence are the words from the harasser. The best way to get his words are if he leaves a voice message or is he sends you a text or email. Remember in Illinois you can't record someone without their permission. On the other hand if the person leaves a voice message, he is consenting by leaving the message so saving his message is legal and you can utilize this at trial. If your harasser sends you a text message save it and get in touch with an attorney early on so he can show you how to properly save the text message for use later on. Your case will first be filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and 90% of all cases settle so there is a good chance you will never have a trial.

Continue reading "Proving Your Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

Chilbo Myunok USA LLC, a Korea-based food company which owns a Los Angeles restaurant and a chain of fast-food stores in Korea, pays $170,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a class of waitresses. According to published reports the waitresses were sexually harassed at the Chilbo Myunok restaurant and four of them were forced to quit to escape the harassment--this is commonly referred to as a constructive discharge. When the harassment gets too severe and a person can no longer work because of the harassment they are forced to quit and this is a separate discriminatory act that is compensatable.

Details of the lawsuit include the victims facing continuous verbal and physical sexual harassment from the restaurant's manager. The manager, who has since been fired, repeatedly subjected the women to sexual touching with a sexual device and to unwanted hugging and kissing. The EEOC many times will take up cases where there are more than one victim and they can get more bang for the buck. If there were only one waitress the chances are the EEOC would issue a right to sue letter and the waitress would be left to hire a private attorney to continue the lawsuit. In Illinois I prefer to file directly with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") which automatically cross-files with the EEOC. I believe the IDHR does a faster and more thorough job than the EEOC of investigating individual charges.

"By working with EEOC this way, Chilbo Myunok has clearly shown its commitment to making needed changes to policies and practices to ensure equal employment opportunities for all of Chilbo Myunok's employees," said EEOC's Perry.

Silgan Containers Manufacturing Corporation pays $45,000 to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of an African-American man who suffered discriminatory treatment that resulted in his termination. According to published documents Silgan intentionally delayed the hiring of Romardro Henderson and then firied him because of his race.

When Henderson was finally hired, his immediate supervisor subjected Henderson to disparate and discriminatory treatment such as holding him to a higher standard on his work than non-black employees. Silgan fired Henderson for racial reasons after less than one month on the job. The supervisor who subjected Henderson to the treatment is no longer working for the company. This case illustrates how one person can engage in discrimination and hold the company responsible. The company must do a better job training its' employees and management.

“This case demonstrates that racial discrimination in the American workplace is a serious and ongoing concern,” said John Rowe, EEOC district director in Chicago.

EPI Avanced a company that makes plastic injection moldings pays $190,000 to settle a sexual harassment case which was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of several female workers. According to published reports, a male supervisor and a male co-worker made sexually explicit comments and propositions toward the females workers and it even escalated into physical contact. In some instances women were grabbed and touched.

The allegations of sexual harassment were brought to the attention of management, but management failed to stop the sexual harassment. I bet after paying $190,000 management will take allegations and complaints of sexual harassment more serious in the future. It amazes me that a company could take such a neutral stance toward sexual harassment and didn't spend more time investigating the problem and fixing it. I am glad these females pursued their claim and made the company pay. Good job for hanging in there and fighting for their rights.

McGriff Industries, Inc. pays $100,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Todd Roseborough, Sr., Paul Hogan and Aaron Greenwood all African-American employees. According to details in the lawsuit employees and managers used racially derogatory comments, slurs, and insults directed at African-Americans employees. The racial misconduct escalated to threats and intimidation, including a derogatory threat to cut one of the black employees.

Both white and black employees were offended by the racial harassment but were retaliated against when they complained. In once instance an employee was terminated when he complained about the discrimination that was taking place. This type of behavior by a large company is outrageous. These individuals hung in there and fought for their rights and in the end they prevailed. Hopefully, the company will not wish to dole out this kind of money in the future and will better train employees on the proper work behavior.

“This case is important because no employee should be subject to racism in the workplace and every employee can be offended by a racially hostile work environment,” said EEOC Birmingham District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas.

PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. pays $145,000 to settle an Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") lawsuit which was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Nancy Buchner. Buchner had over 30 years as a pet groomer and was hired by PETCO, however the company failed to accommodate Buchner because she is deaf. Buchner claims management failed to schedule customers for her and other employees told potential customers that Buchner no longer worked for PETCO thereby making it impossible for her to make a living.

PETCO proceeded to unfairly penalize her during annual performance reviews for ineffective communication skills due to her inability to speak. Buchner quit the company after this type of behavior continued. When an employee is forced to quit because of discrimination it is called a constructive discharge. It is hard to imagion a company treating a good employee in this manner, perhaps that is why they paid so much money to settle this case. I hope PETCO instills a better training program for its employees and put in place better managers.

Olophius E. Perry EEOC attorney, said, “With the 20th anniversary of the ADA on the horizon, it is important to remember that employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations to ensure they have equal employment opportunities. Most often, as was the case here, the cost of accommodations is minimal.”

Continue reading "PETCO Treats Employee Like A Dog And Now Pays $145,000 To Settle Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Adecco Staffing will pay $12,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit which was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a group of female workers. According to published accounts, a supervisor frequently made lewd and sexually offensive remarks to the female workers. He also allegedly rubbed himself against them, hugged them and slapped them on the buttocks.

The workers complained to Adecco officials but nothing was done to stop the sexual harassment. In fact, the company not only failed to intervene on their behalf but continued to assign female employees to work under the alleged harasser. Adecco then retaliated against one of the workers by firing her, while another was forced to quit because of the “ongoing and intolerable harassment. When a worker is forced to quit because of sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination it is known as a constructive discharge.

Continue reading "Adecco Staffing Pays $12,000 To Settle Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit" »

The Community College of Baltimore County pays $50,000 to settle an age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Sheri Chosak. Chosak was a 60-year old employee who was trying to get hired as a part-time English as a Second Language (ESOL) academic advisor but claims she was denied the job because of her age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") prohibits employers from refusing to hire or promote individuals who are 40 or older because of age.

This type of case illustrates why employees have to work hard to protect their rights and if they believe they are the victim of discrimination, they must fight. It seems in this tough economy many employers are taking the attitude that they can do anything regarding employment decisions and not be held accountable. Good for this woman and her ability to stand her ground and fight for her rights.

“Employers who refuse to hire qualified applicants based on age not only forgo the opportunity to hire talented workers, they also risk having to defend themselves against an EEOC lawsuit,” said EEOC Attorney Debra Lawrence

EPI Advanced, LLD and Engineered Products Industries, LLC will pay $190,000 to settle a sexual harassment and constructive discharge lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Cathy Johnson. According to details of the allegations, both companies allowed Dean Miller and other male co-workers to sexually harass Johnson and seven other women. The women claimed that they were forced to put up with all types of sexually explicit comments and propositions.

Some of the woman claimed they were grabbed and touched by Miller. Several women quit because of the sexual harassment, which is referred to as constructive discharge. One woman quit her job after Miller phoned her at work threatening to sexually assault her in the employee parking lot. Although several complaints were made by victims to management, the company failed to properly investigate complaints and stop the misconduct. It is amazing that a company could let this type of behavior continue and do nothing to stop it. I bet the company is taking a different approach now.

Celia Liner, EEOC attorney, said, “The environment at EPI was simply intolerable. Women should be able to report to work and do their jobs without being subjected to harassment."

Midstate construction company will pay $50,000 to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of four Latino workers. According to the lawsuit, Midstate subjected the workers to verbal harassment by a former supervisor because of their national origin.

In a case like this, witness statements can be very helpful in forcing a company to settle. Once a company sees that there are many people who witnesses the discrimination, the company is more likely to want to settle and not risk a large judgement at trial.

EEOC attorney Michael Baldonado added, “All employers should be vigilant that they are in compliance with our federal laws that protect all employees, regardless of where they come from.”

Lodging Enterprises LLC of Arizona, which does business as Oak Tree Inn in Yuma, will pay $75,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to the lawuist Oak Tree Inn threatened employees with reprisals of reducing their hours or otherwise forced them to engage in a particular religious prayer ceremony in spite of their personal different religious views. The defendant, through its general manager, Carlos Paredes, derided certain religious beliefs of some of the employees, the EEOC said. He also attempted to impose his personal religious beliefs on employees. The unlawful discrimination created a hostile work environment and denied employees reasonable accommodation for their religious beliefs.

The lawsuit involved twelve employees and they will all share in the settlement amount. Theresa Hurtado was one of the employees and she was one of the driving forces behind filing the discrimination complaint with the EEOC. There seems to be more employers engaging in crazy conduct in the workplace. I believe some of this may have to do with the bad economy and a feeling that employees will put up with any behavior to keep their jobs. Good for these twelve employees.

EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill said, “Employees have a right to their own religious beliefs or no religious beliefs. Employees should never be subjected unwillingly to a supervisor’s religious views."

Two Sonic Drive-In franchises pay $55,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the . Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of teenage female workers. According to the filed documents in the lawsuit Sonic routinely subjected teenaged female employees to abuse by a manager and others, including threatening one young worker with a knife. The EEOC also contended that this manager permitted and encouraged other male employees and managers to join in the harassing conduct.

The details in the lawsuit include Aracely DeLeon, a 16-year-old employee, who was forced to quit due to sexual harassment by the manager, and another young employee, Elizabeth Maxwell, then age 17, was also subjected to sexually harassing conduct by the manager. This kind of behavior against teenages is outrageous. The EEOC did a great job and held the company's feet to the fire.

“This lawsuit was filed in order to protect some of our nation’s most vulnerable and impressionable workers – teenagers who, often, are newcomers to the workplace,” said Jim Sacher, the EEOC’s regional attorney

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against the Four Points by Sheraton in Phoenix, of discriminating against an employee by subjecting him to a hostile work environment because of his Iraqi national origin. According to details of the lawsuit the man was subjected to continued and escalating workplace harassment and he was forced to resign as a result of the discriminatory conduct.

The employee Basil Massih was subjected to harassment which included mimicking Massih’s accent, ethnic slurs such as “camel jockey,” mocking Arab ululations, and taunting and jeering at Massih relating to news stories about Iraq and the capture of terrorists. The lawsuit alleges that Massih complained to a number of managers about the national origin harassment, but that management failed to take corrective action, and that the continued harassment resulted in intolerable working conditions for Massih.

“Employers have an affirmative duty to protect employees from discrimination and harass­ment,” said Mary Jo O’Neill EEOC attorney.“

The Minnesota Department of Corrections ("MDOC") will pay $724,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit which was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of 35 retirees of the MDOC. The EEOC alleged the MDOC violated federal law over an early retirement plan scheme that entitled employees retiring at age 55 to employer contributions for health and dental insurance until they were 65 but offered no such contributions to those who retired after age 55.

It still blows my mind that companies and organizations are not able to read and comprehend the fedearl discrimination laws. You have to wonder what types of people are put in positions of authority where they make such foolish decisions. This lawsuit is going to cost the taxpayers over a million dollars when the legal fees and time spent are taken into consideration. The EEOC is very vigilent in protecting the rights of individuals from discrimination.

MRA Systems Inc., a subsidiary of General Electric pays $130,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of 61 year old Louis Behrendt. According to the lawsuit MRA Systems gave Behrendt a lower performance rating, despite his successful job performance, because of his age. Additionally, the company failed to assign Behrendt to a position as a Production Control Leader 5 and instead awarded the position, which had greater salary potential, to a younger, less-qualified employee.

This type of behavior is against the law and usually can be proven with performance evaluations and other documents in personal files. In addition to not promoting him the company subjected him to unfair and heightened job scrutiny, gave him poor performance ratings and refused to promote him based on his age and in retaliation for his internal complaints about discrimination. Many times retaliation complaints are also filed with charges of discrimination.

"Age-based stereotypes about the abilities of older workers can result in older employees receiving lower performance ratings, lower compensation, and fewer promotional opportunities than younger co-workers," said EEOC Attorney Debra Lawrence

Continue reading "MRS Systems Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit For $130,000" »

Starbucks pays $80,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Com­mis­sion ("EEOC") on behalf of Chuck Hannay who has multiple sclerosis. According to the lawsuit Starbucks failed to hire Hannay because of his multiple sclerosis which is a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA").

According to documents filed in court Hannay applied for one of six open barista positions but was never contacted for an interview. Individuals with less experience and availability were hired instead of Hannay. The only reason for the difference was the disability that Hannay had. It is hard to believe that large organizations don't have better systems in place to protect the rights of employees and potential employees.

“People with disabilities should have equal opportunities for employment,” said Regional Attorney Faye A. Williams of the EEOC.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against Balance Staffing as a result of their hiring of Jocelyn Snower, who is blind. Once owner Robert Feinstein realized she was blind he revoked the job offer even though she had started to work for him. This was a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA").

In a case like this it is so obvious that the company was discriminating against the blind person. The EEOC is very vigilant about protecting the rights of disabled individuals. Revoking that job offer was very expensive for the company and the woman probably would have done a great job.

John Rowe, EEOC district director in Chicago, said, “Balance Staffing’s decision to fire Ms. Snower not only reflected poor business judgment, since she is an experienced recruiter, but it was expensive misjudgment -- to the tune of $100,000.”

Biewer sawmill will pay $55,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit that took place as a result of inappropriate behavior at its Wisconsin sawmill. According to the lawsuit Biewer failed to prevent a sexually hostile work environment and sexual harassment. The sexual harassment occured to two female employees who will split the money. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")on behalf of the two women.

The lawsuit alleged a Biewer supervisor repeatedly exposed himself to female employees over several years. The company didn't fire the supervisor until prosecutors charged him with lewd and lascivious behavior. It is really crazy that the company would allow a man like this to continue working even after he behaved in this fashion. It took criminal charges to finally make the company see the light. It was good the female employees hung in there and fought for their rights.

Aveva Drug Delivery Systems settles an Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") lawsuit for $58,000. The discrimination lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a 50-year-old woman with renal disease. According to the lawsuit the woman was discriminated by Aveva because Aveva fired the woman based on her disability.

The woman was receiving dialysis treatments for her end-stage renal disease and had a catheter in her arm that was used for the dialysis treatment. She injured her arm at work and required medical treatment forcing a leave of absence. Aveva fired the employee shortly after she returned from an approved leave of absence related to her disability. This type of action by an employer is not acceptable and will result in a discrimination lawsuit.

“We are pleased that EEOC was able to obtain appropriate relief for the discrimination victim in this case,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Michael O’Brien.

TIN, Inc., settles age discrimination lawsuit for $250,000. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of three employees over the age of 40. According to details in the lawsuit, the company took employment actions in favor of younger workers and adverse to the three workers who were over 40. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") protects people 40 years of age or older from employment discrimin­ation based on age and from retaliation for complaining about it.

This type of behavior against older workers is not tolerated and will result in a discrimination lawsuit. Most of the workforce is over 40-years of age and usually older workers make more money because they have more experience. Some business owners believe they can cut costs by firing the older workers and replacing them with younger, less expensive workers. Employers beware if this is your strategy.

“Workers over 40 often possess extensive job experience and skills, yet are still vulnerable to discrimination,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “Employers must look beyond age when making life-changing decisions for employees such as hiring and firing.”

Spencer Reed Group will pay $125,000 to settle a racial discrimination, age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a 55-year-old white employee. According to the lawsuit Spencer Reed violated federal law by discriminating against 55-year-old Caucasian employee because of her race and age and fired her as retaliation for her complaining about it. She was treated different than the younger African Americans.

The white woman worked as a senior functional analyst for Spencer Reed Group since 2003, was treated differently in many ways because of her age and race. She was subjected to adverse employment actions such as unduly harsh discipline, denied training, given the heaviest and most difficult workload and forced to provide work reports on a weekly instead of monthly basis.

One of the woman’s co-workers, a lead financial management analyst, said she felt that the treatment indicated “prejudice.” Finally the employee complained about the disparate treatment, but she was fired as retaliation the next day, the EEOC charged.

Noble Metal Processing will pay $190,000 to settle a racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a class of non-white employees. According to details in the lawsuit, Noble repeatedly overlooked qualified non-white employees, including a group of black employees and a Bangladeshi employee, for promotions to the maintenance department.

Also included in the case was a white employee who opposed this type of racial discrimination and complained that managers in the maintenance department were using racial slurs was fired shortly after the company learned of his complaints. It is hard to imagion companies still behaving in this fashion given the amount of information that is available on discrimination. Once again the EEOC did a great job and held the company responsible. I see many discrimination cases based on non-white workers from countries in the far east.

“Noble should be commended for reaching a resolution despite its financial difficulties,” said Nedra Campbell, an EEOC attorney in the Commission’s Detroit office. Under the parties’ agreement, seven employees will share in the lump sum settlement amount of $190,000.

The Dudley Perkins Company, the country’s oldest Harley Davidson motorcycle dealership, will pay $55,000 to settle a gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Bowen Dean a female employee. According to the lawsuit, Dean was not allowed to work as a mechanic, while hiring less qualified men for the same position.

In many different professions that are dominated by men, females have a hard time breaking into their ranks. This is a classic case of a qualified female not being able to work in a job solely because of her gender. It is nice to see her pursue her rights and hold the company accountable. The EEOC also did a great job making sure she was compensated.

“Breaking into jobs in non-traditional fields continues to be a challenge for women, and despite the prohibitions on sex discrimination written into federal law in 1964, some sex segregation in employment continues,” said EEOC Attorney William R. Tamayo.

MRA Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of General Electric, writes a check for $130,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of 61-year-old Louis Behrendt. According to the lawsuit MRA Systems gave Behrendt a lower performance rating, despite his successful job performance, because of his age. The lawsuit also claims the company failed to assign Behrendt to a position as a Production Control Leader 5 and instead awarded the position, which had greater salary potential, to a younger, less qualified employee.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals who are 40 or older when making employment decisions, such as promotions, job assignments and performance ratings. In a case like this, employment records and credentials may be utilized to show the qualifications and past performance of employees in an effort to prove age discrimination.

“Age-based stereotypes about the abilities of older workers can result in older employees receiving lower performance ratings, lower compensation and fewer promotional opportunities than younger co-workers,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence

Affordable Care coughs up $150,000 to settle a sexual harassment and racial discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of two female employees. According to published documents Affordable Care violated federal law when its affiliated dentist, Nelson Wood, engaged in sexual harassment and racially harassed two female employees. The facts were that Wood created a sexually and racially hostile work environment for Ariede Mills, who is African American, and Laura Carl, who is white.

The lawsuit alleged Wood referred to women as “whining bitches,” propositioned Mills for sex, spanked Carl repeatedly on the buttocks, made insulting remarks about blacks, and claimed that he had a relative who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. It is outrageous the a professional would act in this manner. Both Mills and Carl complained repeatedly about Wood to Affordable Care but the company failed to stop the harassment. To add fuel to the fire Mills was fired in retaliation for her complaints, and Carl was forced to quit because of the offensive conduct. Quitting because of that type of behavior is referred to as constructive discharge.

EEOC Attorney Markus L. Penzel said “The EEOC is pleased that Affordable Care worked cooperatively with us to resolve this case with minimal litigation."

According to the lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") the Dollins Construction company punished black workers for complaining about a noose display and racist statements. According to the lawsuit Dollins violated federal law by racially harassing three African American construction workers and then engaging in retaliation against them when one complained.

Apparently the racial discrimination included the use of racially charged comments and the display of a noose. After they complained about the racial harassment they were not sent out on any further jobs, which is retaliation. As part of the settlement they will receive $15,000. Not only does this type of behavior cost the company money but I am sure it will cost them business with people who do not want to hire a company that allows this type of activity to take place.

“No matter how small an employer may be or how limited its resources, the EEOC will use the full measure of the law to eradicate racist displays from any place of employment,” said EEOC District Director James R. Neely, Jr.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a religious discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a Thomas Kokezas claiming he was discriminated against because he wasn't a certain religion and because of his age. Additionally the EEOC said Orkin engaged in retaliation against an applicant who complained to the company’s corporate headquarters about the alleged discrimination.

The age discrimination lawsuit claims Orkin discriminated during the hiring process against Thomas Kokezas, as well as a class of individuals based on their age, over 40, or religion, non-Mormon. The lawsuit alleges Orkin advertised on Craig’s List for a recruiter to assist in hiring LDS missionaries for seasonal employ­ment and stating that the summer position was great for returned missionaries, who tend to be in their 20s. Under the law such advertising is illegal because it shows a preference for a particular religion, and also a preference for younger workers.

“Employers must be vigilant in providing equal employment opportunities for all applicants regardless of their age or religion,” said EEOC Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill.

Creative Networks will pay $110,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Rhonda Encinas-Castro. The lawsuit claims two coordinators at the company were the victims of retaliation for complaining about national origin and racial discrimination and participating in an investigation about both.

Details in the lawsuit claim that Castro went to the EEOC to file a charge of discrimination based on national origin and race. However, the company fired Castro about 14 days later. Also the executive director threatened to fire Kathryn Allen, who had never been disciplined for anything before, because she had been named as a witness in Castro’s discrimination charge. This type of behavior by a company is not only wrong but illegal. The company could not honestly believe they would get away with this type of discriminatory behavior.

"We will continue to vigorously protect employees who complain about discrimination or serve as witnesses to it because they are the lifeblood to effective enforcement." said EEOC attorney Mary Jo O'Neill

Amino Transport, Inc. and Chariot Express, Inc. will pay $50,000 to settle a retaliation, religious and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Joshua Male. According to the lawsuit Male’s employer engaged in retaliation firing him because he had complained about workplace comments being made by two coworkers. The lawsuit also claims Male complained to the human resources ("HR") manager about persistent inappropriate jokes about Mormons, as well as workplace comments allegedly disparaging a pregnant female co-worker, women in general, and an African American.

The HR manager reported Male's complaints to the general manager of the facility, and Male was fired within less than 72 hours. This type of behavior is so obvious and it is amazing that companies still believe they can get away with treating people this way. It is nice to see people stand up for their rights and not let companies operate in this fashion.

“No one should lose his job for alerting human resources to inappropriate workplace behavior,” said EEOC attorney Jim Sacher.

The City of Boone, Iowa is being accused of violating federal law by hiring a 25-year-old rather than a more qualified 62-year-old because of his age prompting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") to file an age discrimination lawsuit. According to court documents, U.S. Navy veteran, Larry Cook was turned down for the new position of municipal infractions officer despite his extensive construction, electronic, communications and management experience. Instead, the city chose the youngest candidate, a 25-year-old with little relevant experience.

The EEOC is seeking back pay and liquidated damages for Cook as well as an order barring future discrimination. I believe the city was foolish for first engaging in age discrimination but also by not settling this case early in the process. Over 95% of all lawsuits settle before trial and in this case it seems a quick resolution to this lawsuit would have saved the taxpayers more money.

“Older workers, who have given so much to our American economy, don’t lose the right to earn a living because of their age,” said EEOC Chicago District Director John Rowe

The Pollard Agency pays $49,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Marian Lawson. According to the lawsuit, Lawson worked as a security guard and was fired because she wore a head scarf. According to Lawson's religious belief as a Mennonite Baptist, she is required to wear the head scarf.

According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must make reasonable accomodations for peoples religious beliefs and practices. In this case it would not have been difficult to allow Lawson to wear her scarf. The inflexibility of employers to make reasonable requests, will result in monetary settlements.

“This early settlement benefits everyone involved, especially Ms. Lawson, who can now put this episode behind her,” said Robert Dawkins, EEOC attorney.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of Amanda Heschmeyer against Cactus Grill Inc. According to the lawsuit an assistant manager at the restaurant asked 18-year-old Heschmeyer for sex, touched her and made unwelcome sexual advances toward her. Those types of actions create a hostile work environment and because of that type of environment, Heschmeyer was forced to quit her job which is known as constructive discharge.

The assistant manager no longer works for Cactus Grill Inc. and that will be bad news for the Cactus. The reason it is bad news, is because since he no longer works for the company, he is in a position to tell the truth and not worry about losing his job, since he already lost it. Many times companies end up in a bad position because the person who did the sexual harassment gets terminated and becomes a good witness for the complainant.

“Sexual harassment in the workplace is always wrong, but harassment of teenage workers, who are often in their first ‘real’ job, is even more egregious,” said James Neely, EEOC district director.

Colleen Vesper filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Gary Moore and the Illinois Thoroughbred Breeders and Owners Foundation. According to the lawsuit Moore and the Foundation made Vesper work in a hostile work environment after she refused Moore's sexual and romantic advances. Vesper had been the business manager of Fairmount Park until she lost her job last year. She claims the underlying sexual harassment issue led to the loss of her employment.

Prior to filing a lawsuit in either federal or state court, a person must first file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). It is nice to see people stand up and take a position and not let their bosses push them around. We wish Colleen Vesper the best.

The Pollard Agency pays $49,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit was field by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Marian Lawson. According to the lawsuit the Pollard Agency discriminated against security guard Lawson by firing her rather than accommodating her religious practice. As part of her Memmonite Baptist religion she wore a head scarf.

It is amazing that a company would risk a lawsuit over something so small and petty. I am glad to see this woman stand up for herself and demand her rights. Hopefully, the company will learn a valuable lesson and not behave this way in the future. In Illinois, I see many companies act this way.

“The EEOC is pleased that Pollard chose to resolve the matter early and to take steps to ensure similar problems do not occur in the future.” said Robert Dawkins of the EEOC

Former Kendall County Illinois Sheriff's Department worker Lisa Easi will receive $188,000 to settle her sexual harassment lawsuit against Terry Tichava, the chief deputy in the Kendall County Sheriff's Department. Easi was a twenty year veteran of the department and was Tichava's secretary at the time she was fired.

This case was getting closer to trial and many times the defendant will start to look at the total amount it may have to pay if it losses at trial. Sexual Harassment lawsuits because of their emotional nature can produce large awards. Many times a defendant is not willing to risk the details of all the testimony coming out and the potential of a large jury verdict. With a settlement amount this large, the testimony must have been damaging and there was obviously something of substance to this lawsuit.

In Illinois before you file a sexual harassment lawsuit in fedearl court you must first file a claim of discrimination which includes sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") or the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). If you file with the IDHR they will automatically file with the EEOC.

The University of New Hampshire pays $220,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Amy Kallianpur, a former professor. According to the lawsuit, Kallianpur alleged she was the victim of sexual harassment by her boss, department Chairman Chuck Gross. She accused Gross of making sexually offensive statements such as repeatedly telling her that he loved her and demanding that she tell him that she loved him. Gross also allegedly made demands that they share a hotel room. Kallianpur first filed her complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and then filed a lawsuit in federal court.

Kallianpur complained to management about the sexual harassment and management refused to intervene and stop it. After Kallianpur complained Gross and the school engaged in retaliation against her by not renewing her contract. Gross no longer works at the University as he retired prior to the settlement of the lawsuit. It is always nice to see people stand up when they are being discriminated against.

"He threatened her by telling her a story about a student who intended to complain against him, and how he preempted her complaint by giving her a failing mark so as to damage her credibility," the lawsuit said.

Kentucky Fried Chicken will pay 19 female employees more than $1 million to a settle sexual harassment lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of 19 female workers. Looks like they were frying more than chicken at this place.

According to the lawsuit male employees openly described sexual desires and interests with female employees and engaged in unwelcome sexual touching and groping. What is really shocking is that three of the women were teenagers at the time. Paying this large amount of money will make the owners think long and hard about how they operate their business in the future.

"The allegations in this case were shocking," said EEOC District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas.

Thomas Dodge paid $132,250 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of female employees who claimed offensive touching, degrading and sexually explicit comments and pornographic images. According to the lawsuit the females reported the sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct to management but no corrective action was taken. Some of the female employees who complained were terminated and others were forced to resign. Those would be examples of retaliation and constructive discharge.

It is amazing that so many women could come forward and complain and management would do nothing to stop the harassment. Management in this case even went a step further and punished the women for complaining.

Everdry Marketing and Management, a dry wall company, had a jury rule against them and award $471,096 in damages for a sexual harassment lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of 13 female workers. The case concerned a prolonged period of physical and verbal sexual harassment of mostly teenage telemarketers by male managers and co-workers at Everdry’s Rochester, N.Y., location. According to the lawsuit the sexual harassment included repeated demands for sex, frequent groping, sexual jokes and constant comments about the bodies of women employees. On one occasion, a male manager requested sex from a teenager with the promise of a raise if she consented.

This is a follow-up article to the May 6, 2010 article written about this case. The amounts of money involved and the number of teenagers involved make this case worth mentioning twice. Hopefully the company will institute some real changes in the workplace.

“Many of the victims in this case were young and especially vulnerable,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien.

Eagle Wings Indusdries which is an automotive supplier pays $428,500 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of three female employees. One of the female employees Kimberly Bridgman alleged comments directed at her were lewd and included a request for oral sex in exchange for a transfer. This type of sexual harassment is referred to as quid quo pro and is latin for 'this for that". Another words, the requesting party was asking for something in return for something.

You can see how expensive the bad behavior of an employee can be. It is extremely important that employers take sexual harassment complaints seriously and train employees properly on what behavior is acceptable in the workplace. In this case Bridgman took disability leave because of the sexual harassment and when she returned to work the conduct continued forcing her to take leave again. This time when she tried to return to work, Eagle Wings refused to reinstate her unless she agreed to undergo a battery of psychological examinations. At this point she claimed to be constructively discharged and filed the lawsuit. Constructive discharge occurs when the employer sets forth conditions which if aren't met require the employee to stay off work.

Poplar Springs Nursing Center pays $40,000 to settle an age discrimination and racial discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")According to the lawsuit, Poplar Springs discriminated against Gloria Carey, a 53-year-old black female, by denying her a social worker position because of her age and her race.

The amazing fact was Carey’s 27-plus years of experience as a social worker. Even with tis amount of time Poplar Springs refused to consider her for the position. Instead a less qualified 34-year-old white female was the only candidate interviewed and then hired. This shows that even though you don't have a document saying I won't hire you because of your race or age, circumstances can be utilized to prove your case.

A woman who alleged she was subjected to discrimination because she has multiple sclerosis settled her lawsuit for $35,000. Jill Roberts complained to the company, Mannatech about her problem and nothing was done to correct it so she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Mannatech Inc, claiming the company had turned her down for a job assignment because of her disability. Roberts alleged she was also denied the reasonable accommodation of as-needed restroom breaks, and as a result was denied the assignment at the company's call center in Copell. The lawsuit claimed violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Lafayette Colleg pays $1,000,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of five female employees. According to the lawsuit, the college’s supervisor in charge of “loss prevention” engaged in repeated and unwelcome sexual harassment of the women in the public safety department. The supervisor allegedly kissed the women and made hand gestures about sex acts he wanted them to perform.

Probably the most damaging evidence was that he e-mailed pornography and sexually explicit materials to the women. Email is turning out to be the best evidence because it is very hard to deny and it is something you can put in front of a jury and it is self explainatory. Colleges and employers would be wise to step up their sexual harassment and discrimination training to all employees to ensure this type of behavior does not happen. You can see how costly this type of behavior is.

“No one should have to endure the abuse these women faced at work,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “This significant settlement shows that the EEOC will insist on meaningful relief for workers who are victims of harassment.”

The Maryland Classified Employees Association ("MCEA") union pays $80,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Gail Tate-Buntin. According to the lawsuit Buntin was involved in an EEOC investigation based on allegations of another employee, Michele Handy. Buntin claims she suffered retaliation because she was truthful during the investigation and the company did not like what she witnessed.

According to the lawsuit MCEA denied a promotion to Handy and subjected her to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment because she filed a discrimin­ation complaint with the EEOC. This is a classic case of an employee minding her own business and being brought into an investigation and then having something negative happen to her. Employers would be wise to look at this case and develope employment practices that don't violate the rights of its' employees.

“Title VII depends for its enforcement upon the cooperation of employees who are willing to oppose or report employment discrimination,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence.

Preston Hood Chevrolet pays $120,000 to settle a sexual harassment, gender discrimination and racial discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuits were filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of females employees and Rickey Hayes. According to the lawsuits Preston Hood subjected a class of female employees to gender harassment and to sexually explicit, provocative and insulting language, pornographic material and unwelcome sexual advances.

Additionally, Preston Hood subjected Rickey Hayes to racial discrimination because he was black. Details of that harassment include, racial slurs and racially derogatory language. In both cases, the employees complained to management and nothing was done to stop or correct the harassment. You would think management would have the brains to realize that with so many people coming forward and complaining something bad must be going on. Many times management likes to put its head in the sand and take the approach that if they just ignore the problem it will go away. That was a costly mistake in this case.

“Every employee deserves the freedom to work in an environment free from any form of harassment,” EEOC attorney Delner Franklin-Thomas said.

Cannon & Wendt Electric Co. will pay $100,000 to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Victor Cortez who claims he was subjected to racist statements based on his national origin and that he was the victim of retaliation because the company terminated him after he complained about the unlawful discrimination.

According to details in the lawsuit Cortez's immediate supervisor Mark Ghose made very crude and illegal comments to him. The comments included “I hate all Mexicans,” “they are worthless,” and “I hate Mexican music.” Ghose made it clear that he wanted to fire Cortez. Cortez complained to upper management and to the owner Albert Wendt, however nothing was done to stop the harassment and he was fired. This company is a repeat offender as far as discriminating against employee and it is nice to see the EEOC keep after this company. Hopefully, people will read about what is taking place and not do business with this company.

"This is a particularly troubling case because the EEOC sued this particular employer for religious discrimination a few years ago. After being sued, most employers take their EEO obligations under the law seriously. It is troubling to the EEOC to see a repeat offender.” said Janet Elizondo, EEOC attorney.

Lafayette College pays $1 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by female employees. According to the lawsuit a campus police officer sexually harassed the females and subjected them to other lewd behavior. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of five women. According to the lawsuit the five women allege officer Barry Stauffer continued harassing them even after they complained about him to administrators.

Some of the details of the lawsuit include claims that Stauffer grabbed the breasts and buttocks of female employees,made lewd comments describing sex acts he wanted to perform on them, tried to look inside their shirts at their breasts, and unsnapped their bras. And probably the most damaging evidence was that he sent women e-mails with pornographic content. This type of behavior can expose a college to a great deal of liability as evidenced by the million dollar settlement.

''No one should have to endure the abuse that these women faced at work,'' said EEOC Chairwoman Jacqueline A. Berrien.

Continue reading "Lafayette College Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit For $1 Million" »

Pace Services a construction company pays $122,500 to settle a national origin, racial discrimination and religious discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit wasa filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Mohammad Kaleemuddin who is of the Islamic faith and East Indian descent. The lawsuit also included 13 other employees because they were black or Hispanic.

According to the allegations in the lawsuit a Pace supervisor referred to Kaleemuddin as “terrorist,” “Taliban,” “Osama” and “Al-Qaeda.” Kaleemuddin complained to superiors about the harassment but nothing was done to stop it. Finally, Kaleemuddin was fired by the supervisor who was harassing him. Allegedly the same supervisor, as well as others in Pace management, regularly referred to African Americans as “n----s” and to Hispanics as “f-----g Mexicans.”

EEOC Attorney Jim Sacher said, “Employees have an absolute right to be free from discriminatory harassment in the workplace. The EEOC will vigorously challenge violations of this statutory right.”

Golden State Mutual Life Insurance will pay $30,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit. The retaliation lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of William Barringer after he was demoted in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. According to the lawsuit, an employee who Barringer managed was sexually harassed by his supervisor, and this supervisor also supervised Barringer. Barringer reported the sexual harassment to the vice president and also told his supervisor that he was reporting his behavior.

In this case the Barringer stuck his own neck out to protect one of his employees and he suffered retaliation. It is good to see a good boss who goes to bat for his worker. I am very glad the EEOC was able to help Mr. Barringer and he was able to make the company pay for their handling of this situation. Good job Mr. Barringer.

“Employees should be confident that they can make their employers aware of violations of federal anti-discrimination laws without fear of reprisal,” said Lynette A. Barnes attorney of EEOC. “The anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII are indispensable to the attainment of a workplace free of discrimination.”

SDI Athens East, LLC, doing business as Sonic and Tomco Management, LLC, pays $70,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a carhop. The sexual harassment lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of the female worker who claimed she was the subject of sexual comments and other sexual type behavior.

The lawsuit alleged the store manager of a Sonic drive-in restaurant subjected a female carhop to a barrage of sexually charged comments and repeated sexual overtures. The lawsuit also states that the comments and conduct by the manager were so severe that the female was forced to resign, which is also known as constructive discharge. Cases like this illustrate why better training should be held in the workplace. Hopefully, this company will get the message that sexual harassment is not tolerated.

“The abuse suffered in this case is precisely the kind behavior that Title VII was enacted to stop” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC.

The University of Louisiana ("ULM"), will pay $450,000 to settle an age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of former professor and dean of the College of Business Administration, Dr. Van McGraw. According to the lawsuit McGraw alleges the university rejected him for employ­ment repeatedly because of his age, and because he had filed an earlier age discrimination lawsuit against the university.

The lawsuit alleges the University violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). McGraw had previously worked for the university for 37 years and retired in1989 as dean of the College of Business Administration. After retiring he was imme­diately rehired as a professor in the Department of Manage­ment and Marketing. ULM terminated McGraw in 1996 under a then-new board policy regarding the reemployment of retirees.

The most frequently filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in 2009 were racial discrimination (36 percent), retaliation (36 percent) and gender discrimin­ation (30 percent). The reason why the numbers add up to over 100 is that charges of discrimination can have multiple categories selected. For example someone may file a charge claiming racial discrimination, gender discrimination and retaliation. In fact it is more common to have multiple charges than just a single charge of discrimination.

Tyson Foods Inc., was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). A violation of the ADA occurs when there is an allegation of disability discrimination. According to the lawsuit Tyson refused to hire Mark White because he had epilipsy. According to a doctor hired by Tyson there was no job White could perform because of the epilipsy.

The problem with that theory is that White had successfully worked at Tyson in the maintenance department on two prior occasions after he was diagnosed with epilepsy but before the company had hired a doctor to perform medical screenings. It seems obvious to me that Tyson just didn't want the man working for them and used this doctors report as a pretext to not hiring him.

“It is illegal for a company to refuse to employ a disabled person while assuming the person cannot perform the job,” said Barbara A. Seely, regional attorney at the EEOC

Les Schwab Tire Centers will pay $2 million to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of women who were not hired by the company. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed the lawsuit on behalf of the females and alleged that the women were qualified to change tires but the culture of the organization was to not hire females. According to details in the lawsuit, over 200 women were denied sales and service positions with Les Schwab Tire Centers.

This lawsuit took four years to settle and you can see how long these types of lawsuits can take. People should realize the value of trying to settle an employment discrimination case early. If cases don't settle they tend to drag on for years and most end up settling anyway. By settling a case early, the added expense and uncertainty of a lawsuit is avoided. In this case, with over 200 women involved and four years of litigation, I am sure Les Schwab Tire Centers spent a good deal of money on attorney fees.

"The EEOC will continue to investigate employers and industries that have put women in certain types of jobs, and men in others," said Mike Baldonado, director of the agency's San Francisco district.

Dona Ana County settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with five women for $150,000. The women sued the county under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claiming they were subjected to a hostile work environment by the county. All of the women worked as custodians and had male supervisors who would allegedly make derogatory and sexual comments to the women. The women complained about the conduct of their supervisors and the discrimination continued.

The women first filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and then the EEOC referred to case to the United States Justice Department for investigation. You can see how much money agencies and companies have to pay because of the behavior of their workers when they act in such a foolish fashion. Until companies and organizations properly train their employees on what is acceptable behavior these types of cases will continue.

"It is critical that employers understand what constitutes sexual harassment, and that they take allegations of harassment seriously," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.

RJB Properties, Inc. and Blackstone Consulting, Inc., have been sued for sexual harassment, retaliation and national origin. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Latino employees. According to the lawsuit, 14 employees who worked as janitors and supervisors were fired because of their national origin, sexual harassment and retaliation. The Hispanic employees also had to listen to derogatory names and comments while they were working.

Additional details of the lawsuit include one Hispanic supervisor who was fired because he would not follow his superiors orders to fire another Hispanic employee for no reason. An employee does not have to follow discriminatory orders from management. It was nice to see this supervisor stand up to management and not follow their allegedly illegal orders. The EEOC also alleges Hispanic male employees were subjected to sexual harassment and when they would not go along with the request for sex, were subjected to retaliation by being fired.

“Employers cannot apply one set of rules to Hispanic workers and another set of rules to non-Hispanic workers, which is what we found occurred here. said EEOC attorney Ann Henry

Continue reading "Chicago Based RJB Properties Sued For Sexual Harassment and Retaliation" »

Kane County Illinois will pay $75,000 to Erma Rodriquez who is a former corrections officer to settle her sexual harassment lawsuit. Rodriquez claims she was subjected to sexually suggestive remarks over the course of two years and she reported the harassment to her superiors. She also filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and claims to have been the victim of retaliation for making the report. According to the lawsuit Rodriguez received a verbal reprimand after filing her claim with the EEOC.

The final straw for Rodriquez was when she found a phallic-shaped piece of insulation foam that had graphic markings on it. The item was left on her desk and caused her emotional distress. The lawsuit claims the day she found the item and reported it, she became the subject of an internal investigation which she claims was done in retaliation for making the report. It is typical in sexual harassment lawsuits to see the defendant make life difficult for plaintiffs once they come forward and file complaints. This is typical behavior and I am glad to see the defendants pay for what they did wrong.

Chicago bakery Gonnella Baking Co. agreed to pay $350,000 to settle a retaliation and national origin harassment lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of seven Mexican employees. According to allegations in the lawsuit Gonnella did nothing to stop the harassment of the employees. This type of behavior is not acceptable and illegal in Illinois.

The employees allege that their manager made hostile comments about them because they were Mexican. Once employees complained to management about the comments they were subjected to shifts that lasted over 12 hours and in some cases 19 hours. They were also told to not complain further about the discrimination or else face the consequences. This type of behavior is considered retaliation. In Chicago there are many companies that treat employees like this and hopefully more employees will come forward to assert their rights.

“The derogatory language and other harassment directed at the employees in this case are entirely inappropriate in the workplace,” said John Hendrickson, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago.

Greenforest Community Baptist Church agrees to pay $53,000 to settle two pregnancy discrimination lawsuits. The lawsuits were filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Victoria Brown and Shuntal Prince. According to details in the lawsuit Greenforest violated federal law when it fired Prince and rescinded a job offer to Brown after learning they were pregnant. They company not only engaged in pregnancy discrimination but also retaliation.

In the case of Brown she already received an employment offer when she went for a follow-up meeting with the headmaster to discuss some final pre-employment matters before she was to begin her new job. During this meeting, Brown informed the headmaster that she was pregnant and the headmaster told her she would not be able to teach there because of her pregnancy. This is a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the second case Prince was called into a meeting with the school’s director to discuss some concerns she had about Prince’s health. Although the context of the meeting seemed routine it was really a pretext for discussing Princes pregnancy. During the meeting, the director told Prince she heard rumors that Prince was pregnant. Prince confirmed that she was pregnant and the director fired her.

“Pregnant women have an equal right to participate in the work force,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office.

Continue reading "Baptist Church Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit For $53,000" »

White Way cleaners will pay $42,500 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed in federal court by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Michelle Johnson. According to the lawsuit Johnson worked for the cleaners in the back and transferred to a counter position once she became pregnant. This transfer was part of a policy the cleaners had to allowing women to escape the smell of chemicals and work an easier job if they were pregnant.

The problem continued when Johnson was denied a raise, which she alleges she would have received if she were not pregnant. Additionally, Johnson began pregnant a second time and claims she was fired once she notified the cleaners of the second pregnancy. In this case the cleaners own policy shows they were discriminating against pregnant women. If a pregnant woman does not mind working in the back around chemicals, it should be of no concern to the company. The employee should have a choice in keeping the job they currently hold if they become pregnant.

“The U.S. Supreme Court held almost 20 years ago that an employer may not substitute its own judgment on an employee’s pregnancy for hers. The EEOC is dedicated to ensuring that women are not treated differently because they are or may become pregnant, and this case reminds employers of their obligations under the law.”

Kmart Corporation pays $120,000 to settle an age discrimination, constructive discharge and retaliation lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a 70-year-old pharmacist. According to details in the lawsuit, Kmart thought the pharmacist was too old and should retire. Kmart also said the pharmacist was greedy for wishing to work once she reached 70 years of age.

Kmart scheduled the pharmacist to work on Sunday even though they were aware she attended church and would not be able to work that day. This is a prime example of how coompanies try to set workers up for failure by asking them to do something they know they can't do in an attempt to come up with a reason to fire the worker. Kmart also threatened legal action against the pharmacist using a pretext on an unrelated matter to retaliate against her for her discrimination complaint. The pharmacist was forced to quit her position because of the harassment and this is referred to as constructive discharge.

“Instead of addressing this pharmacist’s legitimate complaints of age discrimination, Kmart made a bad situation worse by threatening her for complaining,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

Continue reading "Kmart Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit For $120,000" »

Alliance Rental Center will pay $21,500 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a former worker, Tyler Templeton who was fired because he would not wear a red shirt on Friday to show his support for the military. According to the lawsuit Templeton who is a Jehovah's Witness, said it was against his religious beliefs and his observance of neutrality on issues of war to go along with wearing the red shirt.

Templeton informed his supervisors about his religious beliefs and his observance of neutrality on issues of war, including military efforts, but was reprimanded for not complying with the Friday dress code. It would not have taken much for the company to respect the religious beliefs of Templeton and tell him it was okay not to wear the red shirt. The company is in business to make money not to tell people what they should support. Templeton was fired shortly after he refused to wear the red shirt. Firing him is regarded as retaliation.

“This is a positive outcome for all parties involved, and it is our hope that the company will be successful going forward as a result of the changes called for in this settlement agreement,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Meaghan Shepard.

Les Schwab Tire Warehouse settled a huge gender discrimination lawsuit for $2,000,000 and other corrective measures. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a class of females who failed to gain employment with the company. The EEOC alleges that the reason the women were not hired was because of their gender.

There are many industries that are male dominated and even though a company may not try to intentionally discriminate against females, the numbers don't lie. In this case, the EEOC was able to prove through the qualifications of the females and the number of females hired that there had to have been discriminatory practices taking place. Sometimes as John Adams said facts are a stubbon thing.

"While the parties have engaged in extensive litigation the past four years, we are pleased to work with Les Schwab to bring this case to a resolution and to start a new era of cooperation," EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo said.

Imagine Schools, Inc. pays $570,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit in federal court. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Charity Brooks and LuShonda Smith after it became known they were pregnant. According to the lawsuit Imagine Schools failed to retain the two women after closing a middle school but opening another middle school and high school in the same area.

Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is very sad that at this time in our history female workers are still being singled out and discriminated against. Large settlements like this should make employers take heed and stop this type of behavior. Many times employers believe they can get away with their behavior and it takes a lawsuit to stop them.

“Unfortunately, the EEOC keeps having to drive home the point that no woman should lose her means of earning a living simply because she is pregnant,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

Administaff, Inc. will pay $115,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Scott Jacobson and Joey Jacobson. The two brothers were called slurs by managers and coworkers because of their religion, Judaism. The harassment consisted of defacing Scott Jacobson’s work vehicle with a swastika symbol and putting the brothers in a trash bin.

This type of behavior may seem childish and may have been motivated by a herd mentality but it is illegal and dangerous. It is too bad that people have to be so cruel and malicious toward their fellow workers. The real troubling portion of this case is that management took part in the harassment.

“What happened to these workers was cruel and callous, involving physical mistreatment, as well as hateful religious slurs and anti-Semitic symbols” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") the number of discrimination complaints filed with them related to depression, anxiety and other psychiatric disorders almost doubled between 2005 and 2009. These claims would be filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). These claims can be tough to prove because the person filing the claim must prove their disability substantially impairs their life and that the accommodation they are requesting does not cause an undue burden on the employer. Nationwide in 2009 3,837 ADA complaints were filed. There have been positive court rulings recently that have helped people who file claims under this form of discrimination.

In Illinois aside from filing a claim with the EEOC for ADA discrimination, an employee can also file a claim with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). The IDHR is tasked with investigating discrimination and in this type of case ADA discrimination would most likely violate
Article 5 of the Human Rights Act ("HRA") which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of disability. There are many advantages with filing with the IDHR as opposed to the EEOC. I prefer state court and the IDHR investigates charges in a timely fashion as opposed to the EEOC.

The Boeing Company will pay $380,000 to settle two lawsuits involving gender discrimination and retaliation. The lawsuits were filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of two female engineers. In the first lawsuit Antonia Castron complained of gender discrimination based on sexist remarks which resulted in a hostile work environment. After she complained to management, she was moved to a new location and two months later she found herself without a job. The lawsuit filed by the EEOC alleges Boeing engaged in retaliation for terminating Castron.

In the second case Renee Wrede twice complained of gender discrimination and remarkably both times Boeing’s own investigators substantiated her complaints. This is the remarkable part of this case. Even though Boeing was able to agree that Wrede was suffering from gender discrimination, Boeing allowed her harassers to influence her layoff evaluations and reduce her scores. It should be no suprise that Wrede was also layed off. Even though Boeing tried to manipute evidence, the EEOC’s investigation proved Boeing manipulated evaluation scores in order to justify the terminations of Wrede and Castron. It is hard to believe corporations still behave like this.

“Covert attempts to mask discriminatory and retaliatory motives, such as Boeing employed, will fool no one.” said EEOC acting attorney Rayford Irvin.

A lawsuit against Rend Lake College was dismissed by a federal judge because the plaintiff Salah Shakir was not able to provide evidence of unlawful activity by the Illinois community college. Shakir claimed discrimination based on national origin by an administrator who retaliated against Shakir because of his Muslim religion and Iraqi roots. The allegation included trying to ensure he would not be able to head the school.

In order to prevail in a lawsuit alleging nation origin discrimination, one would have to prove that but for the fact of the country of origin, the person would have either gotten a promotion, not been fired, or received a raise. If there are other non-discriminatory reasons why the negative job action or lack of positive job action took place, then the plaintiff will not be able to prove the case and it will most likely be dismissed.

“The board constantly strives to ensure that Rend Lake College is welcome to both employees and students of all backgrounds and cultures,” said the school’s attorney, Julie Bruch.

Continue reading "National Origin Discrimination Lawsuit Against Rend Lake College Dismissed" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") settled two lawsuits against Landwin Management, Inc. for $500,000. The lawsuits involved national origin discrimination and sexual harassment. According to facts in the lawsuit non-Chinese banquet servers were not hired based on their national origin. Apparently all the non-Chinese banquet servers who previously worked for the hotel were not hired back during the turnover and instead replaced with less qualified Chinese workers. The EEOC alleges that the majority of the replaced workers were Latino.

Additionallty, Landwin Management which managed the San Gabriel Hilton subjected female employees to sexual harassment. Allegations of sexual harassment included the housekeeping department supervisor calling the women prostitutes and whores. The women complained to management and nothing was done to stop the sexual harassment. You can see how much money this ended up costing the company--not much of a cost savings. The company also has to deal with the negative publicity.

“The days when employers make decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions shaped by the race or national origin of their employees should be far behind us,” said Anna Y. Park, the regional attorney for the EEOC.

Branch Banking and Trust will pay $24,000 to settle a Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
lawsuit with Linda Hewett and filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on her behalf. The problem for Hewett started when her employer would not grant her request for a reasonable accommodation. Hewtt is a hearing-impaired employee who was denied a reasonable accommodation to work in a different position because she had a progressively severe hearing loss and could no longer work as a senior bank teller.

According to details in the lawsuit Hewett was denied reassignment to other vacant positions at Branch Banking and Trust where her hearing impairment would not affect her job performance. This was a reasonable accommodation and the company would have been better advised to have transfered her. In the current tight job market more companies believe they can treat workers as they wish and don't have to suffer any recourse. In this case Hewett asserted her rights and was victorious--good for her.

“Workers with disabilities are productive members of the American workforce,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office.

Akeena Solar agreed to pay $30,000 to Gladys Tellez a payroll technician to settle an Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on her behalf. According to the lawsuit Tellez was fired by Akeena Solar within hours of her first day at work. Apparently her supervisor discovered that her left arm was paralyzed and didn't want her working for him. It is remarkable in this day people still have that type of attitude toward people with handicaps.

According to documents in the lawsuit and investigation by the EEOC determined that Tellez was fully qualified and capable of performing the essential functions of the job. This is a clear case of someone who can perform a job and is not given the chance because of someone else's poor decision. Tellez gets the final word and this case should send a signal to other employers not to discriminate against people with disabilities.

“All too frequently, the mainstream public, including employers, perceive people with disabilities through a filter of upon myths and stereotypes, instead of assessing each person on their own terms,” said EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ("Seventh Circuit") has breathed some life into Paul Turner. Turner worked as a waiter for The Saloon, Ltd. ("The Saloon"), a Chicago steak-house. While working as a waiter her claims to have been the victim of several forms of employment discrimination including sexual harassment, retaliation, and violation of the Americans with Disabilites Act ("ADA"). According to the lawsuit Turner had a sexual relationship with his supervisor and claims that he ended it and she began to sexually harass him. Turner complained to restaurant management about the sexual harassment and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

After getting a right to sue letter from the EEOC Turner filed a multi-count employment discrimination lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois and a Judge in that court dismissed the complaint during a summary judgment hearing. Turner appealed and the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court Judge except on the sexual harassment count. In short, the sexual harassment case will continue.

The details of the sexual harassment claims include, once a customer spilled champagne on Turner's pants, and when he went to the bar area to find towels to dry himself off, Lake, his supervisor and former lover followed him there. She put her hands inside his pockets, grabbed his penis, and said, "You sure are soaked." In another instance Lake pressed her chest against him and asked, "Don't you miss me?" Lake approached Turner from behind and grabbed his buttocks. Lastly Lake saw Turner with his clothes off while he was changing into his work uniform and told him that she missed seeing him naked.

Walmart agreed to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of a class of female workers and potential female workers for $11.7 million. According to the allegations in the lawsuit Walmart’s Distribution Center denied jobs to female applicants for a period of seven years by hiring male applicants for warehouse positions while not hiring females who were either as qualified or more qualified. Hard to believe that this type of coordinated behavior still takes place.

In addition to paying the money, as part of the settlement Walmart must offer the next 50 positions to females and after that every third position will be offered to females. This case lasted a very long time and the amount although large in the grand scheme of things is very small for a large company like Walmart. People should realize that big companies will fight and use delay tactics when faced with discrimination lawsuits. Corporate greed seems to be getting worse in this country and organizations like the EEOC keep fighting the good fight for the average person.

“Let this major settlement serve as a warning: Employers must stop engaging in these outdated and sexist practices, or they will face severe legal consequences.” said Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru

In Illinois if a person believes they have been subjected to sexual harassment then can file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") or the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). The following case illustrates one reason why I prefer to file a case with the IDHR as opposed to the EEOC. A federal judge ordered the EEOC to pay $4.56 million in attorneys' fees and expenses to a CRST after dismissing the EEOCs sexual harassment lawsuit. The EEOC filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against CRST on behalf of 270 female drivers. The drivers claim that CRST created a hostile work environment.

The problem for the EEOC was that a Judge ruled against the EEOC and in favor of CRST in a motion for summary judgment thereby dismissing the sexual harassment lawsuit. In federal court, a Judge can award attorney fees to a defendant who wins their motion for summary judgement thereby increasing the risk of litigation for a plaintiff. Another words, if you file a sexual harassment lawsuit in federal court and it is dismissed prior to a jury trial, a Judge could make you pay the attorney fees of the defendant, which in this case were a little more than $4.5 million.

Victims of sexual harassment should consider this ruling before deciding to undertake a lawsuit in federal court because of the potential for paying the attorney fees of the defendant. In Chicago average attorney fees for employment lawyers defending companies can range from $250-$850 per hour.

"The EEOC believes the court's decisions in the case were wrongfully decided and the agency will be appealing," said EEOC Deputy General Counsel James Lee.

Penny Jackson the former Bauxite school janitor filed a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against her former employer. In the lawsuit Jackson claims that for a period of seven months she was subjected to repeated sexual harassment from the maintenance supervisor Sammy Roberson. According to court documents Jackson was subjected to propositions for sex and sexually explicit comments. Jackson alleges she complained about the sexual harassment and was then the subject of retaliation. Prior to filing her lawsuit Jackson filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") who investigated and issued a right to sue letter.

The school has a different story regarding Jacksons claims. The school claims Jackson was a poor worker and that many other employees refused to work with her. They claim they did not renew her contract because of her work performance not because they were retaliating against her. Both sides claim they have witnesses that will prove their respective cases. It should be an interesting trial if it ever gets to that point. Many cases settle and I am sure this one will settle at some point. The school should think about how much money they will spend in legal fees. On a positive note for the school district, the EEOC did not file the charge themselves and only issued a right to sue letter which it must do in all cases if it does not complete a full investigation or file the federal lawsuit itself.

“As a direct result of Jackson’s complaining to her superiors and officers of the defendent, she was disciplined and her employment contract was not renewed,”

United Companies will pay $498,000 to settle a gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit which was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a female worker who court documents did not name. According to details in the lawsuit the woman has been working for the company since 1998 and held a variety of jobs before the company assigned her to work as a quality control technician. According to documents in the lawsuit once in that position the gender discrimination against her became overt and interfered with her ability to work.

In a big help for the female worker several male co-workers saw and overheard the gender discrimination and degrading treatment and backed her up when she complained to management. The female did complain about the gender discrimination to management and the men did back her up. Even the men thought they would be the subject of retaliation for supporting the female worker in her harassment claim. The company ended up terminated the female and two of her male supported but not before the department manager called the men troublemakers and told them they better shut up.

“Employers have a responsibility to maintain an environment free of sex discrimination and retaliation,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “Here, the managers themselves committed both those offenses.

Continue reading "United Companies Pays $498,000 To Settle Gender Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit" »

A young 17 year old female farm worker filed a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against her employer Giumarra Vineyards Corp. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of the young victim claiming a non-management worker made daily unwanted sexual advances to the alleged victim. According to the lawsuit, another employer made management aware of what was going on and management failed to stop it. The sexual harassment continued until the young woman and three others complainted directly to management but were terminated 24 hours later.

According to the lawsuit the company tolerated the alleged sexual harassment and thus created a hostile work environment. The company also engaged in retaliation by firing the workers once they complained of being sexually harassed. Some older workers will try to take advantage of younger workers and even think they can get away with sexually harassing them. In this case if the allegations are true the company did not do what it should have.

"Giumarra Vineyards denies the allegations in the complaint filed by the EEOC and will vigorously defend itself against all of the allegations. When this matter is concluded we are confident that our position will be affirmed." said a Guimarra Vineyards release

UPS Freight agreed to pay $46,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a Rastafarian. This is a very unique set of circumstances because the religion is one not considered mainstream. According to the lawsuit UPS refused to accommodate the Rastafarian religious beliefs of Nieland Bynoe. As long as the religious beliefs are sincere and a reasonable accomodation is available, the company must make the accomodation or risk liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. An example of a reasonable accomodation is if a religion does not allow its members to work on a certain day, say Sunday and giving Sunday off to an employee did not create a hardship for the employer, the employer must give the worker Sunday off.

In this case instead of making the reasonable accomondation UPS fired him. During new hire orientation as a driver for UPS management told Bynoe he had to shave his beard and cut his hair in accordance with the company’s grooming policy. Bynoe replied that his religious beliefs prohibit him from cutting his hair or shaving his beard. Bynoe again advised the human resources manager about his religious beliefs and asked for a reasonable accommodation on the following day but UPS fired him. This is also a form of retaliation because Bynoe asked not to be discriminated against and he was fired.

“Our freedom to practice our religious beliefs is a fundamental right in this country,” said Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") can be faxed instead of filed in person or through the mail. If you have a charge of discrimination, whether based on gender, race, religion or sexual harassment you have to file the charge within 180 with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or 300 days with the EEOC. The IDHR has always allowed for complaints to be filed by fax but the EEOC never recognized fax filings. In Laouini v. CLM Freight Lines, Inc. the Seventh Circuit held that a receipt showing a fax was sent to the EEOC is sufficient to prove the date of filing.

It is always very important to remember that there are very strict time limits to filing a charge of discrimination. You must not procrastonate and let too much time slip away. In some instances an employer may drag out the internal investigation so that by the time you receive the internal findings of the company, more than 180 days has passed and you can't file a charge with the IDHR.

Continue reading "EEOC Complaints Can Be Faxed" »

Big Lots settled a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of five employees for $400,000. According to the lawsuit Big Lots violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting a black maintenance mechanic and other black employees to racial harassment and racial discrimination at its distribution center.

The documents filed in the litigation also claim Hispanic workers including an immediate supervisor made racially derogatory jokes, and comments including the use of the words “n----r” and “monkey.” The men reported the racial discrimination to management but Big Lots failed to correct or stop the harassment.

“Working in a job that they valued highly, the employees in this case rightfully expected to earn a living free of discrimination,” said Anna Park, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “

A female police officer who wishes to remain anonymous settled her sexual harassment and gender discrimination lawsuit against the city of Port Allen for $130,000. Although some details remain sealed some details include that on Dec. 4, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued a letter to the city stating that the Police Department had engaged in gender discrimination for disciplining an employee more harshly than other officers. The problems got worse and on Sept. 1, 2006 the EEOC issued a second letter asserting that the same employee was the subject of sexual harassment and the city failed to take appropriate action to correct the problem. This sealed the fate for the city.

In cases like this sometimes remaining out of the public spotlight is very important to the person who is the subject of discrimination. The fact that the EEOC issued two letters and the city paid $130,000 indicates that something wrong was taking place at the police department. It is important to hold those responsible by filing a complaint and following through with the process.

“I don’t totally agree with the settlement, but I understand that the council did what they felt was in the best interests of the city,” said Mayor Derek Lewis

Frank Fesnak settles his age discrimination lawsuit with Horshal for $175,000. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to details provided in the lawsuit Fesnak performed his duties as vice president of strategic alliances without incident but was fired because he was 47. It is alleged that after Fesnak was assigned to report to a different supervisor, the new supervisor made derogatory comments regarding older workers. Frank worked for a company called Astea, which is a professional consulting services group. Once Astea heard about the new supervisors comments it abruptly terminated Fesnak and hired someone 15 years younger to replace him.

This is typical with outsourced companies. They will do anything to keep their client happy so they can continue to do business. They apparently will even engage in discriminatory conduct if it helps their bottom line. In this case the main company Horshal engaged in discrimination by having a senior employee make the age discrimination comments whereby the outsourced company felt compelled to hire younger workers.

“We are pleased that Astea worked with us so that we could file both the complaint and the consent decree resolving the lawsuit on the same day without the parties engaging in costly litigation,” said Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence

Richard Knight a male hotel worker for the Columbia Sussex Corporation, settled his gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed on his behalf by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to the lawsuit, Knight who was a manager claimed that Columbia Sussex fired him from its Sheraton Hotel because he was a male, and because he complained that a female co-worker was not disciplined for the same purported infraction--which is retaliation.

Details in the lawsuit claim the companies general manager demanded that Knight go into his office without the presence of a human resource representative, but did not force Knight’s female co-worker to proceed without a representative-when they both had the same infractions. When Knight asked the general manager whether he was granting privileges to the female manager that he would not grant to Knight, the general manager replied that he could do whatever he wanted and then he immediately terminated Knight. For the exact same infraction the female manager was not disciplined. As part of the settlement Knight will be returned to his position and receive back pay.

Knight commented on the settlement, “I am very grateful that the EEOC brought this case on my behalf. I love the hotel industry. My main goal was always to get my job back. I am excited to get back to work with Columbia Sussex in my chosen field.”

Continue reading "Male Hotel Worker Settles Gender Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit" »

Attrells funeral chapel will pay $62,500 to settle an Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Barbara Jackson. According to the lawsuit Attrells failed to allow amputee Jackson an almost two-year employee, to continue working as a secretary once she required the use of a wheelchair. In a remarkable statement Attrell’s claimed Jackson could not carry out her secretarial duties if she could not walk. In an even more remarkable statement Attrells said having an employee in a wheelchair might make their grieving clients feel bad. Are you kidding me? Having her hobble around on one leg would make the grieving clients feel better than seeing her get around in a wheelchair? What planet are these people on.

As is very typical in situations like this Jackson suffered financial hardship due to difficulties in finding a comparable job after she was fired. You can only imagion looking for work with one leg and having to tell a future employee you were fired because your boss didn't think you could perform your job in a wheelchair. Jackson not only suffered financially, but also through humiliation and loss of self-esteem.

“Attrell’s fired Ms. Jackson based on its own stereotypes about what a person who uses a wheelchair can and cannot do,” said A. Luis Lucero, Jr., director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “Ms. Jackson was not even given the opportunity to demonstrate her abilities to carry out her work functions using a chair. Such stereotyping harms people with disabilities, but it also hurts employers because they lose out on talented and qualified employees.”

Continue reading "Funeral Home Buries Itself and Must Pay $62,500 To Settle Americans With Disabilities Act Lawsuit" »

Sears, Roebuck & Co. agreed to settle their Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") lawsuit for $6.2 million. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC') filed the lawsuit on hehalf of individual workers and in the end found 235 workers eligible to share in the settlement amount. According to the lawsuit Sears maintained an inflexible workers’ compensation leave exhaustion policy and fired employees instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. This is all a violation of the ADA.

This is a good example of what can happen to a company when they engage in discrimination. Had Sears made reasonable accomodations to workers the EEOC would not have gotten involved. Once the EEOC got involved and did some basic discovery, it releaved Sears had discriminated against many people. The average award to employees who are covered by this settlement is about $26,000. This was the largest ADA settlement in Illinois history.

“It is a satisfying day indeed when victims finally receive compensation for the wrongful discrimination they have endured,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “

Latino workers who filed a racial discrimination and sexual harassment lawsuit against Hilton Hotels settled their sexual harassment lawsuit for $500,000. The problem started when Landwin Management Inc. took over management of the Hilton hotel in 2005, some Latino banquet servers were fired and replaced with less qualified Chinese workers. The Latino employees contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") which filed the lawsuit on the workers behalf.

According to Landwin they agreed to settle because they wanted to avoid expensive litigation costs that might lead to even more job losses at the hotel. That is a real laugh. Settling a lawsuit for half a million is a tacit admission of guilt even if the hotel won't come out and claim it. The bottom line is that most businesses only care about saving money and cutting costs and if they have to trample on the rights of employees, they really don't care. This is a classic example of that.

"If you can show that the job required certain special skills that could only be filled by Chinese speakers, that would be a different matter," said Derek Li, the supervisory trial attorney for the EEOC.

Anthony Kerr, a Muslim settled his retaliation and religious discrimination lawsuit against New Community Corporation for $25,000. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Kerr. According to detail of the lawsuit, New Community Corporation would not grant Kerr a reasonable accommodation when he requested that he be excused from a requirement that employees donate money to a Catholic school. His employer requested the donations because they are part of a Catholic parish. However Kerr's religious beliefs as a Muslim are different than the school’s religious mission which is based on the Catholic religion.

Based on court documents after Kerr refused to give a donation and complained that the demand for a donation conflicted with his religious beliefs, New Community Corporation removed him from its work schedule, which is retaliation. Retaliation occurs when you complain of discriminatory conduct and you receive negative treatment as a result of the complaint. Kerr ultimately filed a complaint with the EEOC and the corporation retaliated against him when he did file with the EEOC by firing him and then filing an improper complaint about him with his full-time employer alleging that he had engaged in misconduct at New Community Corporation.

“The EEOC will vigorously enforce the law to end such discriminatory practices. An employer, even one that engages in charitable work, cannot subject an employee to religious discrimination or retaliation.” said EEOC Attorney Louis Graziano

Continue reading "Retaliation and Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Settled For $25,000" »

Margaret Gibson settled her pregnancy discrimination lawsuit with U.S. Security Associates for $79,880. The lawsuit was filed on Gibson's behalf by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which is charged with protecting the rights of employee who are the victims of discrimination in the workplace. According to court documents U.S. Security Associates subjected Gibson who was a security guard to pregnancy discrimination and then fired her in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. In a remarkable series of events, U.S. Security Associates also fired her husband as part of the retaliation.

Details of the discrimination and civil rights violations were that Gibson was subjected to unwarranted discipline, sexist comments and mistreatment after she told her manager about the pregnancy. Allegedly, Gibson’s manager said a pregnant woman should be at home, not at work, and that Gibson’s focus should be on her children. These types of comments are from the dark ages and have place in the modern work place. In another shocking comment the manager also complained about Gibson’s pregnant appearance in the guard uniform.

Most cases of retaliation are proved with circumstantial evidence. In this case Gibson’s was fired the same day she turned in her paperwork for maternity leave. That is awful coincidental to be a coincidence. According to court documents U.S. Security Associates terminated her husband when he failed to stop his wife from filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC.

“The EEOC is dedicated to ensuring that employers treat all employees equally, regardless of gender, pregnancy status or association,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the Atlanta District Office.

Ivy Hall Assisted Living, LLC agreed to pay $43,000 and other non-monetary relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit. The discrimination lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Khadija Ahdaoui a Muslin employed by Ivy Hall. According to details in the lawsuit Ivy Hall discriminated against Ahdaoui in her housekeeping job by firing her rather than accommodating her religious belief that she wear a Muslim head scarf ("hijab").

Court documents claim Ivy Hall insisted that as a condition of her continued employment, Ahdaoui remove and refrain from wearing her hijab on the job. When she refused, she was terminated. What is alleged is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers make an effort to accommodate employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The accommodation is this case was very minor and Ivy Halls response to the accommodation was insensitive.

“Title VII protects employees from having to make the choice Ms. Ahdaoui was forced to make between her religious beliefs and her employment,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office.

Continue reading "Ivy Hall Assisted Living Settles Religious Discrimination Lawsuit For $43,000" »

The Mineola Fire Department will pay $237,072 to settle a class action age discrimination lawsuit which was filed on behalf of 25 firefighters by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to the allegations in the lawsuit the fire district refused to let volunteer firefighters over age 60 accrue credit toward a retirement pension, because of their age. The direct result was after a firefigher turned 60 they lost pension increases which is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").

Because of the downturn in the economy many businesses and government agencies are looking for ways to cut costs. Discriminating against an entire class of people is not the way to balance the budget. This case should act as a shot across the bow of government that treating people over 40 differently than other employees will not be tolerated and will cost them money in the long run. In this case the 25 firefighters will get increases to their monthly retirement checks and some will get cash settlements.

“This fire department’s system in effect penalized older firefighters because of their age, and that was simply illegal,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

Stokes-Hodges Chevrolet Cadillac will pay $140,000 to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleged the car dealer allowed a white male management consultant to subject an African American sales manager to racially derogatory comments. The comments occured when the white consultant would visit the dealership three or four times a week over a four week period. As a result of the nasty comments, the African American sales manager was subjected to a hostile work environment.

The comments were humiliating and were always in the presence of other people. The sales manager complained to management about the derogatory comments and at one point two white managers asked the consultant to stop his discriminatory behavior. However the consultant ignored the requests of the white managers and continued to make the derogatory comments at every opportunity. Upper management did not force the consultant to stop his behavior and a lawsuit was filed to protect the rights of the African American employee.

“This is an outrageous case where an African American employee was subjected to humiliating and degrading behavior,” said Bernice Kimbrough, district director for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “

Crowell will pay $21,500 to settle a sexual harassment and constructive discharge lawsuit filed on behalf of Deanna Collins by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to court papers Crowell Contract and Design, Inc. subjected Deanna Collins to a hostile work environment. The basis of the hostile work environment was when Timmy Christopher who is the president and co-owner of the company would tug on Collins’ pants and made multiple threats to Collins to pull down her pants.

In a remarkable act of stupidity, Christopher pulled Collins pants down in front of her co-workers which resulted in her great embarrassment and humiliation. Collins could no longer take this and other forms of sexual harassment and quit her position. A constructive discharge occurs when circumstances get so bad and a hostile work environment exists that forces an employee to quit; as it what happened here. It is not very often that a president of a company engages in such blatant sexual harassment and does so in front of witnesses.

“This settlement should serve as a notice to employers that the EEOC does not consider the threat or the act of pulling a woman’s pants down in the workplace to be a sophomoric prank,” said Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office.

Continue reading "Crowell Pays $21,500 To Settle Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

Sims Chevrolet pays $85,000 settling a racial discrimination and retalia­tion lawsuit brought by five former employees. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of the former employee. The allegations include that beginning in July 2007, Sims Chevrolet subjected a class of African Americans to different terms and conditions of employment on the basis of their race. Additionally this created a hostile work environment.

According to papers filed in the lawsuit the racial discrimination included racial epithets, such as repeated use of the N-word. Management also made decisions based upon the race of the employee and at one point the company engaged in retaliation against one employee after he complained about the racial discrimination.

EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence of the Philadelphia District Office, which oversees parts of Ohio, said, “This case of discrimination could have been avoided if the employer had followed Title VII requirements."

Arapahoe Motors, Inc. which does business as Ralph Schomp motors will pay $1.505 million to settle an age discrimination, sexual harassment and gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of five women and five men. The women claim they were subjected to sexual harassment, gender discrimination and a hostile work environment while employed. Some of the conduct alleged in the lawsuit include offensive comments and physical touching. As a result of reporting this conduct and of refusing to participate in this type of behavior the women claim they were demoted and had their salaries reduced. Some claim they were not promoted because of gender discrimination.

On the age discrimination claim the EEOC claims five male employees over age 40 were terminated because of their ages and replaced with younger, less experienced workers. The lawsuit also claims that a manger under the age of 30 made age-related comments about the older workers before they were fired and in a move that makes no business sense, employees younger than 40 with lower sales numbers were retained.

“Sexual harassment and sex discrimination against women in traditionally male-dominated industries, such as the auto industry, are still unfortunate realities,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru."

Continue reading "Auto Company Pays $1.505 Million to Settle Sexual Harassment, Gender and Age Discrimination Lawsuit With The EEOC" »

Saks Fifth Avenue will pay $170,000 to settle an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of former Saks makeup artist, Marlene Babin. Babin claimed she was fired because of ulcerative colitis which she claims was a disability. Babin underwent five major surgeries in connection with her colitis and was forced to spend three months in the hospital.

The final straw in the case came when Babin applied for an open makeup artist position at the store’s La Mer counter. Babin interviewed for the La Mer position and remarkabley on that same day, Saks sent Babin a letter stating that it did not have any positions appropriate for her background, even though Babin had more than 20-years of experience as a makeup artist. Saks eventually hired a make-up artist with no experience. Saks later admitted that Babin had been very qualified for the La Mer position. That statement proved damning to Saks position and they decided to settle.

Babin said “I was devastated when Saks fired me and then refused to hire me back. I loved my job and took a lot of pride and joy from working with people. The court’s decision in refusing to throw my case out means a great deal to me. I am grateful that I had the oppor­tunity to have my story heard. I feel that by this settlement, justice was served.”

Continue reading "Saks Fifth Avenue Pays $170,000 To Settle ADA Lawsuit" »

Vanguard Group settled a racial discrimination lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for $300,000. The lawsuit was based on a black prospective employee, Barbara Alexander who was not hired for a financial planning manager position because of her race. Alexander had substantial work experience and was well qualified for the position of financial planning manager. Alexander has an MBA in finance and possessed 14 years of financial management experience. Vanguard passed over Alexander for employment and hired a less qualified white applicant.

In this day and age many companies are sophisticated enough not to come right out and say we aren't hiring you because of your race. Racial discrimination lawsuits are usually proven and settlements obtained through diligent discovery and comparison of other employees. It is imperative to contact an employment attorney who concentrates on discrimination lawsuits.

Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, said, “We commend Vanguard for its willingness to resolve this matter amicably and early in the litigation process."

Continue reading "Vanguard Group Pays $300,000 To Settle Racial Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Riverstone Residential, a property management firm settled a discrimination lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of former employee Shaun Oldridge for $30,000. Oldridge suffers from bipolar disorder and was hospitalized due to his condition. Even though Oldridge notified his employer about being in the hospital, the company fired him. At previous times during his employment, Oldridge asked for time off for medical reasons and was refused.

The lawsuit was filed under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") which prohibits companies from discriminating against employees who have medical conditions which fall under the Act. Oldridge said “I think what they did was inappropriate and unethical." I couldn't agree more and obviously, the company realized what they did was wrong and settled this case. It was nice to see Oldridge stand up for himself and take on this company. There are many rights available to employees even in states like Illinois which are right to work states.

EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill said, “People with disabilities are an untapped resource that employers should utilize."

Continue reading "EEOC Settles Americans With Disabilities Lawsuit For $30,000" »

Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp. will pay $110,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. According to court documents the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleged management and workers made crude remarks about women's bodies, grabbed at one female employees breasts, persistently solicited females for sexual favors and sexually assaulted at least one female employee. When the women cmplained to management in an effort to stop the sexual harassment, the females were either demoted, disciplined or fired--all forms of retaliation.

The lawsuit also alleges that management told some female employees that women should not be in the auto business. This type of behavior is not acceptable and the females stood up for themselves and made management pay. It is very important to document behavior like this and to contact an employment attorney who can file a complaint on your behalf with either the EEOC or in Illinois, the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). The IDHR will cross-file with the EEOC but by law only one agency will take the lead in investigating the complaint.

“The women in this case sought to earn a living selling cars and rightfully expected to do so while being treated with dignity and respect,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC.”

Continue reading "Chevrolet Car Dealer Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit With EEOC For $110,000" »

Mesaba Airlines settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of five individuals. The EEOC alleged in the lawsuit that Mesaba Airlines violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it terminated a Jewish customer service agent because she refused to work on the Jewish Sabbath. Four Christian applicants who applied for employment were allegedly rejected during interviews because they stated a desire for weekend shifts that would not conflict with Sunday church services.

Mesaba Airlines had a policy whereby employees could not request a shift change even if they made arranagements with other employees and made the arrangements well in advanace of the schedule change. The no shift swap policy conflicted with Title VII, which requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee whose religious belief conflicts with a work requirement. This only except is if the accommodation creates an undue hardship on the employer. As a result of this lawsuit Mesaba Airlines no longer has the policy. The EEOC claimed the policy was a form of discrimination.

“Employees should not be forced to choose between practicing their faith and keeping or getting a job,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “As this suit shows, the EEOC vigorously enforces Title VII’s protection against religious discrimination.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") settled a retaliation lawsuit with Rock Concrete Construc­tion Corporation for $31,000. In addition Rock Concrete Construction will also provide workers with discrimination training and allow employees access to a company hotline for reporting work place discrimination. The basis of the lawsuit was the company stopped providing work to Eric Bufkin who filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.

Details of the lawsuit include Eric Bufkin’s filing a charge of discrimination against a company that Rock Concrete Construction did a good deal of work with. When Rock Concrete Construction found out, they asked Bufkin to drop his charge and told him that if he did not it would impact him in a negative way. Bufkin refused to drop the charge of discrimination he filed with the EEOC and Rock Concrete stopping providing work for him. What Rock Concrete Construction engage in was retaliation. Retaliation occurs when a company threatens you with a negative job action if you file a charge of discrimination or if you won't submit to their demands and drop a charge of discrimination.

“Employers are simply not entitled to punish employees for complaining about discrim­ination,” said Laurie A. Young, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Indianapolis District Office.

Continue reading "EEOC Settles Retaliation Lawsuit With Rock Concrete Construction For $31,000" »

Aaron Rental Inc. which operates more than 1500 stores nationwide settled a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").
According to the lawsuit a general manager of Aaron’s Fairview Heights, Illinois store made sexually explicit comments to a female employer. The young female employee was also solicited for sex on a regular basis by the general manager. The EEOC would not disclose the amount of the settlement which also provides what is known as remedial relief. Remedial relief usually includes training for management and the establishment of a hotline for reporting discrimination.

Also alleged by the EEOC is the manager repeatedly attempted to force the female employee to have sex with him and that the sexual harassment culminated when he assaulted her in the store’s warehouse. Many times older members of management prey upon young female workers because they believe the young workers will not know how to respond to the sexual harassment or will be too afraid to report it. Warehouses are usually isolated and there may not be witnesses around so they could become dangerous places. It is very important to let management know as soon as possible that you are being sexually harassed and seek the advice of an experienced sexual harassment attorney.

Continue reading "Aaron Rentals Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit With EEOC" »

The city of Shippingport agreed to pay $70,000 to settle a sexual harassment claim filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Denise Cuteri. Cuteri is the former treasurer for the city. According to the claim Cuteri alleged she was sexually harassed by two road crew workers for months while working in the Shippingport offices. The two road crew workers were fired after an investigation and both were charged by police for the sexual harassment.

Road supervisor William T. Nelson and Jason Crooks were charged by police with repeatedly harassing Cuteri. The sexual harassment included making sexual comments, looking town her blouse and sending her explicit text messages. Text messages can often be used to prove sexual harassment and should be saved if you believe you are the victim of sexual harassment. Even if you delete the text message, there is software available to retreieve the deleted messages.

Outback Steakhouse settled a gender discrimination lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for $19 million. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of over a thousand female employees in restaurants throughout the country. The lawsuit alleges that Outback Steakhouse unlawfully discriminated against female employees by treating the females different from male employees. In the legal industry this is known as discrimination based on terms and conditions of employment. The female employees were denied equal opportunities for advancement within the company.

When this happens to female employees it is known as the glass ceiling. The glass ceiling at a corporation takes place when females cannot get promoted to the higher-level profit-sharing management positions within an organization. In this case the female employees at Outback Steakhouse were not able to advance into upper management where the lucrative jobs are. In this particular case, the EEOC claimed females were denied favorable job assignments, including kitchen management experience. This is important because without experience in those positions employees were unable to make it into top management. If you look at the management profile of most corporations, they are still made up of white males.

“There are still too many glass ceilings left to shatter in workplaces throughout corporate America,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC will continue to bring class lawsuits like this one against employers who engage in gender discrimination on a systemic scale. Hopefully this major settlement will remind employers about the perils of perpetuating promotion practices that keep women from advancing at work.”

Continue reading "Outback Steakhouse Pays $19 Million To Settle Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Jack in the Box is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for sexual harassment beacuse of frequent remarks about female employees' anatomy and unwelcome sexual advances and innuendoes. According to the lawsuit a manager is also accused of touching the victims inappropriately. The EEOC alleges that once management became aware of the sexual harassment and discriminatory conduct it failed to act and stop it.

Richard Bartels, the manager of Jack in the Box was named in the lawsuit. The name of the co-worker was not released. Another co-worker was allegedly sexually harassed and called the EEOC. The EEOC investigated the claims and filed the lawsuit on behalf of the workers once it was clear Jack in the Box would not settle the case. According to court papers one victim allegedly experienced sexual harassment for more than a year.

EEOC District Director Michael Baldonado of San Francisco said the alleged sexual harassment started in January 2007 by a co-worker and was continued by the manager in February 2007.

.

Continue reading "Jack In The Box Sued For Sexual Harassment" »

People should be aware of how long a sexual harassment case can take if filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Take this recent case. International Profit Associates ("IPA"), a Buffalo Grove-based business consulting firm, had a sexual harassment case filed by the EEOC against it on behalf of more than 100 plaintiffs eight years ago. Not only hasn't the case settled, but it has yet to go to trial. According to documents filed in court sexual harassment was rampant at IPA. Women employed there claim they were groped, called names and solicited for sex constantly and those who refused or complained were punished.

There are reasons why sexual harassment cases like this can take so long. Defendants and their attorneys can gain an advantage by making the process drag out. People get tired of litigation and may be more likely to settle for less. Other people involved in the case can't recall details and when the case does go to trial, their memories may not be as clear as to facts and conflicts in testimony may occur. I recommend keeping a diary to refresh your memory and to write details you may otherwise forget.

"I think that's fair to say it is unusual," said Diane Smason, one of the original EEOC attorneys to file the case on June 12, 2001, and who is still on it today.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Cases Can Last For Years" »

Allstate Insurance company settled an age discrimination lawsuit the the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ('EEOC") for $4,500,000. The lawsuit was filed by the EEOC on behalf of 90 claimants. The EEOC alleged that Allstate violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Allstate which is based in Illinois is said to have treated a class of older workers negatively during a companywide reorganization. In particular Allstate adopted a plan called Preparing For The Future Reorganization Program. The program was part of Allstate’s reorganization from employee agents to what the company considered independent contractors. That program had a disproportionate impact on employees over the age of 40 because more than 90 percent of the agents subjected to the hiring moratorium were 40 years of age or older.

Of course Allstate denied that its hiring moratorium violated the ADEA, however the $4.5 million dollar settlement says different. Companies cannot institute policies that disproportionately affect older workers. There are many reasons why companies would like to get rid of older workers, namely they can pay younger workers less money, and younger workers are less likely to have large medical bills. Also, younger workers are less likely to challenge the policies of a company.

“We at the EEOC are now bringing more and more lawsuits like this one to challenge company-wide policies or practices which discriminate against a large number of workers,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Make no mistake: As this settlement shows, we will insist on significant compensation and meaningful injunctive relief to resolve these cases.”

Continue reading "Allstate Pays $4.5 Million To Settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Six women who claim they were sexually harassed by Barry Stauffer, a former security guard for Lafayette College settled their sexual harassment lawsuit for $1.2 million. According to the terms of the settlement each women will receive $200,000. All of the women allege they Stauffer grabbed the women's breasts and buttocks, looked inside their shirts, rubbed their shoulders and tried to kiss them. The women also allege Stauffer made sexually lewd comments and sent his co-workers sexually explicit material and pornography by e-mail.

This type of behavior is not acceptable in the work place and more and more of this seems to be taking place in colleges. This case was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of the six women. The EEOC investigates claims of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination. In Illinois a person who believes they are the victim of sexual harassment can file with the EEOC or the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). Both agencies have the same role, with the EEOC being on the federal level and the IDHR the state level. I prefer to file with the IDHR and have them cross-file with the EEOC.

“In this case, we took immediate action, in accordance with our published procedures, in response to any complaint of sexual harassment that was received. The College has a zero-tolerance policy with respect to sexual harassment" said Roger Clow Lafayette College Spokesman.

Continue reading "Lafayette College Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $1.2 Million" »

Five former employees of Bell Road Kia and Bell Road Automall will receive $500,000 to settle their sexual harassment, hostile work environment and retaliation lawsuit against the car dealership. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of the former employees and according to the lawsuit the hostile work environment included such disgusting comments as the females being called whores and cunts. The allegations in the lawsuit also say there was widespead use of computers to view pornography and one manager even masterbated while watching pornography and sitting behind a female employee.

According to the lawsuit an openly hostile work environment existed and the dealerships failed to take appropriate corrective action against the known harassers and instead retaliated against female employees who reported the sexual harassment. As a result of complaining to management about sexual harassment all five employees were demoted, terminated, or constructively discharged. This is referred to as retaliation and it violates federal law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Former employee Julie Blakley said, “We were repeatedly subjected to degrading harassment and the managers made it known to us that they did not take our complaints seriously. Our exposure to abuse was prolonged by the fact that employees did not receive adequate training on preventing sexual harassment or on the process for filing complaints.”

Continue reading "Car Dealer Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit For $500,000" »

Schiemer Farms agreed to pay $14,500 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation alwsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Theresa Arias and Rebecca Jones. The two women alleged in their lawsuit that management at the farm permitted their sexual harassment by Mark Henry an employee, and then engaged in retaliation when they complained.

According to the sexual harassment lawsuit Henry made vulgar remarks and talked about his sex life including very vivid and graphic details. Henry is also alleged to have rubbed his groin against one of the women. The women were originally seeking over $100,000 each in damages but the amount was lowered once the case was filed and it looked like it would come down to a he said, she said situation. In cases like this where there may not be many witnesses and it is one persons word against another, the settlement amounts are usually lower.

“I feel like I’ve been dragged through the mud,” Farm owner Schiemer said.

Thomas Dodge Subaru will pay $132,250 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit involving two female employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed the lawsuit on behalf of the two former employees who allege that Thomas Dodge Subaru subjected them to pornography, offensive touching, degrading behavior and sexually explicit comments.

According to the lawsuit the two female employees were forced to resign which cost them their only source of income. The severity of the sexual harassment was the cause of their resignation. Additionally the lawsuit claims another woman was retaliated against by being fired after complaining about the sexual harassment. The company failed to take appropriate action to stop the sexual harassment and engaged in retaliation.

"No employer should allow such degrading and shameful conditions for women in the workplace," said Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., district director of the EEOC's New York District Office.

Continue reading "Thomas Dodge Subaru Pays $132,500 To Settle Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

Cherryville-based R-Anell Housing is paying $200,000 to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision ("EEOC") on behalf of female applicants. According to the lawsuit the company refused to hire female applicants based on their gender. The lawsuit alleged the company a gender biased workplace which denied female employees opportunties available to men.

According to the lawsuit, discovery revealed that the company had not preserved applications and personnel records as required by federal law. This is typical behavior of a company that does not want people to see what types of hiring practices they are engaged in. In settlements like this a decree is issued in which the EEOC will monitor the company for four years to ensure it does not engage in gender discrimination.

Tepanyaki a Japanese restaurant will pay $30,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Alison Woodbury. According to the lawsuit Tepanyaki discriminated against Woodbury by firing her because she was pregnant. According to court records, Woodbury was hired as a server and during her initial training Tepanyaki learned she was pregnant and terminated her, which is retaliation.

It is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to discrimination against a pregnant person. Many times companies will try to make up reasons to fire a worker once she becomes pregnant and it is important for the worker to protect her rights.

"Under federal law, employers must permit pregnant employees to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs," said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill. "All workers, including pregnant employees, deserve fairness in the workplace. Women should not lose employment opportunities because of pregnancy."

A national movie theater chain,Regal Entertainment Group, will pay $175,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") which alleged the company subjected a male employee to sexual harassment by a female co-worker. The lawsuit also alleged the company engaged in retaliation when he complained about the sexual harassment. The EEOC also alleged that as a result of the conduct a hostile work environment existed.

In its lawsuit it was alleged a female co-worker repeatedly grabbed a male workers crotch. The male employee asked the female to stop and when she would not he reported the sexual harassment to his direct supervisor. The direct supervisor then notified the general manager, and she failed to take action and the sexual harassment continued. Additionally the general manager retaliated against the male employee and two other supervisory employees who witnessed the sexual harassment. The retaliation took the form of unfair performance evaluations which were lower than they should have been, unwarranted discipline, and a level of scrutiny of daily job performance that was not warranted.

Continue reading "More Than Popcorn At This Movie Theatre" »

The International House of Pancakes ("IHOP") will pay $105,000 to two waitresses who were sexually harassed by an assistant manager.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") handled the case on behalf of the two waitresses and a federal jury awarded them $105,000 at the conclusion of the trial. Both waitresses were teenagers when they worked for IHOP, and according to testimony at trial were subjected to unwelcome physical touching, propositions for sex and sexual comments. This behavior created a hostile work environment. Additionally one of the waitresses alleged retaliation because she refused to the sexual advances.

Other waitresses said they faced sexual harassment and reported that IHOP, did not correct the situation. The assistant manager accused of the sexual harassment quit for unexplained reasons, at the time the investigation started. One waitress could have received more money but jurors were presented with evidence of her MySpace page, with links to sexually-charged materials. You can see how important it is to not have that type of material on the Internet. The second waitress who didn't have that type of material on the Internet was awarded $100,000 in punitive damages.

It is clear the jury was "outraged" by the way the company handled the situation, Jean Kamp, associate regional attorney for the EEOC Chicago District Office said.

Continue reading "IHOP Pays $105,000 in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and legendary restaurant Tavern on the Green settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for $2.2 million. According to the lawsuit there were claims of sexual harassment, a hostile work environment and retaliation. The alleged sexual harassment included groping female staff members, demands for sex and sexual favors and the regular use of graphic sexual comments.

As is typical in these types of settlements the Tavern on the Green denied any wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The managers accused of engaging in severe and pervasive sexual harassment, and retaliation are not longer working for the restaurant. Most of the sexual harassment came from one long-time manager who has since left the restaurant. You can see how expensive the conduct of one manager can be to a business.

Massey Energy and its subsidiary Spartan Mining Company settled a lawsuit alleging age discrimination for $8.75 million. The lawsuit was a class action led by five minors who alleged that Massey failed to hire workers over 40 years old in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. In all the lawsuit involved more than 200 job applicants. Under the terms of the settlement, 82 miners will each receive $38,000 in back pay and general compensatory damages with 141 job applicants each receiving $19,000.

In Illinois charges of age discrimination can be filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). I file charges with both agencies but prefer to file with the IDHR because I believe the state investigates better and in a more timely fashion. Many times a company that engages in this type of behavior does it on a large scale.

Continue reading "Massey Energy Pays $8.75 Million To Settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Bellco Credit Union will pay $57,250 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit which was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis­sion ("EEOC") on behalf of a 61-year-old bank teller was fired because of her age. The lawsuit was filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") which prohibits employment discrimination because of age. The ADEA applies to males and females over the age of 40.

Age discrimination seems to be a growing problem in Illinois and throughout the country. Because the unemployment rate is over 10%, many employers believe they can treat employees in a harsh and discriminatory fashion and not face any consequences. With cuts in both the state and federal budgets, many agencies don't have the resources to properly investigate claims of age discrimination and other forms of discrimination. It is important to get an employment lawyer involved early in the process to protect your rights and get the compensation you deserve.

“The EEOC takes age discrimination, and all discrimination, very seriously. In these economically challenging times, fair treatment by employers is more important than ever." said
Rayford Irvin, Acting Director of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office.

Continue reading "Bellco Credit Union Pays $57,250 To Settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit" »

A national movie theater chain, Regal Entertainment Group agreed to pay $175,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a male worker who was being sexually harassed by a female co-worker. According to the lawsuit the company subjected a male employee to sexual harassment by a female co-worker and then retaliated against him for complaining about the unlawful conduct – along with two supervisors who tried to help.

According to the lawsuit a female co-worker who repeatedly grabbed his crotch. The male reported this conduct to his direct supervisor who complained to the theater’s then-general manager, but she failed to take adequate steps to stop or prevent the harassment. Instead, the general manager engaged in retaliation against the harassed employee and two other supervisory employees (male and female), who are part of the EEOC’s lawsuit. In Illinois retaliation includesd discipline, lower performance evaluations or other adverse job actions that are not warrented.

The Cheesecake Factory Inc. is paying $345,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit alleging six male employees were subjected to sexual harassment. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of the males and also includes allegations that the company was on notice about the sexual harassment and tolerated repeated sexual assaults against the employees by a group of male kitchen staffers.

Some of the salacious details in the lawsuit include allegations the alleged abusers directly touched employees’ genitals, forced employees into repeated episodes of simulated rape and made sexually charged remarks. The EEOC contends that management was aware of the sexual harassment, were given formal complaints and did nothing to stop it. At the end the males called the police. This type of behavior can stay with employees their entire life and can alter their life. It is outrageous that management did nothing to stop the sexual harassment.

“The evidence was clear, and everyone knew about it,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “Behind the lavish decor that the company boasts on its Web site was a horribly dysfunctional workplace where male workers lived in fear.”

Continue reading "Cheesecake Factory Dishes Out $345,000 For Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

Arbonne Internaltional which operates as a skin care products company is paying $30,000 to settle an American's with Disabilities Act ("ADA") lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Lisa Wilson by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to the lawsuit Wilson who is deaf was not hired by the company because of her disability. Especially today with unemployment at over 10% many companies believe they can discriminate against a prospective employee and get away with it.

In cases like this many people are unsure of their rights and are afraid to come forward and complain. Additionally, many times there is not clear evidence and the complaining person must rely on the investigative techniques of a good attorney. Getting a good attorney involved in the case early is the best way to protect your rights. In addition to the monetary settlement, Arbonne International must comply with prohibitions against further discrimination, train employees on discriminatory conduct and post and distribute a policy of non-discrimination.

EEOC Regional Attorney Laurie Young noted, “The ADA was passed to protect applicants like Lisa Wilson who are willing and able to work but are discriminated against by employers who may have false perceptions about disabilities.”

Continue reading "Arbonne International Settles ADA Lawsuit For $30,000" »

Lisa Drozdowski claimed that she had to wear adult diapers at her job at Danella Construction Corp. because it would not provide portable toilets and recently she was awarded $150,000 in a gender-discrimination lawsuit brought on her behalf by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The men at the construction sites would just go to the bathroom in holes but Drozdowski had to walk a great distance to use a restroom. When Drozdowski complainted to management she suffered retaliation when the company stopped giving her work.

Four other female employees of Danella Construction Corp., also claimed that they were discriminated against because of gender, split an additional $50,000. According to the complaint other female flaggers who were present would shield each other from passing cars and co-workers with blankets while they went to the bathroom on the side of the road. The additional problem facing Drozdowski was that she was the only woman on a job and could not go to the bathroom and ended up urinating on herself. Rather than continue to urinate on herself she started to wear adult diapers to work each day.

"It was humiliating, but I needed the job." said Drozdowsky.

Drozdowsky is a single mother with three children.

Continue reading "Female Construction Worker Gets $150,000 For Being Forced To Wear Diapers" »

Tim Dahle Nissan settled a lawsuit for sexual harassment and retaliation by paying $455,000 and other substantial remedial relief. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC)" on behalf of five female employees who allegedly were subjected to unwelcome sexual comments and conduct. According to the lawsuit some of the conduct included many requests for sexual favors and sexually explicit language. According to the women many of the salesmen and sales managers took part in the sexual harassment over a period of several years.

An additional charge in the complaint was that Tim Dahle Nissan engaged in retaliation against one woman by firing her because she complained about the sexual harassment. In Illinois as in other states it is a violation of state law and federal law to fire an employee or take other adverse employment action if the employee complains about sexual harassment. Many times an employer doesn't want to deal with a complaint and finds it easier to fire the employee.

“Sexual harassment is always unacceptable, and it is especially disturbing when the harassers are mistreating a teenager in the workplace, as was the case here,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC takes its mission to eradicate this misconduct very seriously.”

Continue reading "Nissan Car Dealership Pays $455,000 To Settle Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") settlement a gender discrimination class action lawsuit for $1,025,000 and far reaching injunctive relief against Lawry's Restaurants, Inc., for allegedly failing to hire men into food server positions for decades.
According to court papers Lawry’s maintained a longstanding companywide policy of hiring only women for server positions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex-based discrimination (also known as gender discrimination).

In one of the most bizarre set of facts uncovered in an investigation the EEOC found that Lawry’s policy barring men from being hired as servers had existed since 1938, despite the enactment of Title VII a quarter century later. Remarkably Lawry’s claimed the policy was based on tradition. I guess you could burn crosses on someones front lawn and claim it was based on tradition and Lawry's would understand? Please.

"Sex discrimination, against men and women alike, continues to be a problem in the 21st century workplace,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “This case should remind corporate America that employment decisions must be based on merit and ability to do the job – not on gender stereotypes.”

Continue reading "Restaurant Pays Over $1 Million To Settle Gender Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Six employees of Ruby Tuesday settled their sexual harassment lawsuit for a total of $225,00 which was broken down as follows: Michelle Gydosh, $101,000, Melissa Johnson, $32,000,
Rosemary Singer, $57,000, Dawn Kovacs, $60,000 and Nicole Wallace, $5,000. According to the lawsuit General Manager Christopher Mendoza made sexually charged remarks to adult and teen female employees. Sometimes he also remarked about customers.

Former Ruby Tuesday waitress Michelle Gydosh complained that the sexually harassing environment was so intolerable that she was unable to continue working there. Five co-workers joined Gydosh in the lawsuit, with each woman making similar claims. Gydosh said that from August 2006 onward, Mendoza repeatedly made embarrassing sexual remarks about her body, such as "your breasts look good today" or "your breasts look really nice."

According to the complaint, Mendoza constantly told Gydosh that she was "hot" and that he wanted to "make a porn video" with her.

In June 2007, Gydosh became ill during her shift and a co-worker asked Mendoza if Gydosh could go home. "All she needs is a good (expletive) up her (expletive), and I'd be good for that," Mendoza replied, according to the complaint. Disgusted, Gydosh left the restaurant and submitted a written complaint through Ruby Tuesday's complaint hotline. Gydosh also complained directly to Krista Williams, regional service manager, and to Jim James, district manager. In all instances Ruby Tuesday was put on notice of the sexual harassment and hostile work environment and did nothing to stop it.

Continue reading "Ruby Tuesday Dishes Out More Than Food and Pays $225,000 To Settle Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

A sexual harassment and retaliation case filed by a former security officer at a jewerly store was settled for $405,000. The security guard claimed he was sexually harassed and terminated after reporting the harassment to management in violation of federal employment law. The security guard alleged that during his employment as a security officer he was subjected to various acts of sexual harassment, including unwanted sexual attention and sexual propositions from a female senior manager, numerous instances of inappropriate and unwanted physical contact, and inappropriate and offensive comments.

According to the lawsuit the security guard reported the sexual harassment to senior management in accordance with company policy and, after doing so, he was terminated by the harasser as an act of retaliation. After filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") the case was resolved through a negotiated settlement for $405,000.

According to court papers filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Hobby Lobby prohibited Julie Tufts, an employee in its Rochester, Minn.-based store, to use her wheelchair when performing her job and failed to accommodate her inability to climb ladders. This is a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") and as a result, Hobby Lobby agreed to pay Tufts $35,000 plus other relief to settle her discrimination claim. The ADA portion of her claim was that Tufts was unable to continue to work at Hobby Lobby due to the alleged discrimination and was discharged because she could not come back to work without use of the wheelchair.

Along with paying $35,000 Hobby Lobby signed an injunction against discrimination and retaliation. Retaliation takes place when an employee is singled out because of filing a claim of discrimination or asking for a reasonable accomodation. In this case asking for a reasonable accomodation because of Tufts requirement to be in a wheel chair. As part of the settlement Hobby Lobby must revise its internal policies to clarify that persons with temporary impairments may be considered as persons with disabilities. Hobby Lobby must also conduct employee training on ADA issues and update its employee handbooks.

“This case might never have arisen if Hobby Lobby had clear policies to guide its management and human resources employees in determining whether to provide reasonable accommodations to employees whose impairments are long-lasting but not necessarily permanent,” said EEOC Regional Attorney John Hendrickson of the agency’s Chicago District.

Dominion Correctional Services, LLC and Corrections Corporation of America, both doing business as Crowley County Correctional Facility, paid $1.3 million and other significant remedial relief to settle a large sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of 21 female former workers. The workers were allegedly subjected to a gender based hostile work environment and retaliation at an all-male, privately run medium security prison in Olney Springs, Colo.

According to the lawsuit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleged female employees at the prison were subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment that included male managers forcing them to perform sex acts in order to keep their jobs. This adds new meaning to the idea of working hard to get ahead. According to the lawsuit a female officer made a complaint of sexual harassment against a male coworker, and was then placed in an isolated location, where she was raped by the man about whom she had complained.

Another shocking allegation is that the Chief of Security forced a female corrections officer to have intercourse with him, which she did in order to keep her job. Other male managers similarly expected their female subordinates to provide sexual favors. A female corrections officer was coerced first into performing oral sex, and later intercourse, with a male captain, for fear of losing her job. Another female officer testified that a male lieutenant regularly made comments to her about how she looked and commented that he could do a lot better than her husband. He then allegedly told her that if she wanted to keep her job she needed to sleep with him. She resigned.

"We at the EEOC see an unfortunately high number of sexual harassment cases, but what allegedly happened here was shocking,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “No working woman should ever have to endure harassment and requests for sexual favors by managers in order to earn a paycheck – or suffer retaliation for complaining about the illegal harassment.”

Continue reading "Prison Pays $1.3 Million to Settle Sexual Harassment Case" »

Adecco a staffing firm was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")after it failed to take appropriate action when female employees complained about sexual harassment at a client site. According to the lawsuit another employee was compelled to quit because of ongoing sexual harassment. Adecco continued to assign women to the plant despite the sexually hostile work environment, according to the lawsuit.

The EEOC reported that Adecco assigned Veronica Jalpa and other women to Pittsburgh Plastics Manufacturing Inc. in Butler, Pennsylvania, and that a Pittsburgh Plastics supervisor sexually harassed them through sexual comments and touching. The EEOC said Jalpa asked for a different shift to avoid the supervisor but was fired by Adecco.

“Adecco has fully cooperated with the EEOC and we are disappointed that it has decided to take this course of action given the information that was made available to the agency,” Adecco wrote.

Continue reading "Staffing Firms Adecco Sued For Sexual Harassment" »

Napoli's Italian Restaurant, was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") claiming minor female workers were sexually harassed while working at the restaurant. According to the lawsuit a female server and other female employees at the restaurant were subjected to sexual harassment in the form of lewd comments, propositions and touching. A specific incident listed occurred in early 2008, when the female server was only 17 years old. According to the EEOC release, male managers also allegedly subjected other female employees to “a campaign” of inappropriate behavior.

The lawsuit claims male managers allegedly detained the server who filed the original complaint in a restaurant office and turned out the lights. The female quit following the alleged incident because she feared for her safety. This is was in commonly referred to as constructive discharge.

“We received the charge of discrimination from a young woman who worked there and who claimed that she and other young female employees were subjected to sexual harassment,” said Baran, who was unable to say how many workers were allegedly harassed or if they were all minors at the time.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against the Standard Register for gender discrimination of a female employee. According to court papers Penny Zink had male coworkers who repeatedly discriminated against and harassed her because she was female. Zinke was forced to quit her job as a result of the gender discrimination which is also referred to as constructive discharge.

According to the lawsuit the male workers called Zink names and yelled at her. They also failed to give her the needed assistance to work on a two-person machine even though male employees were given that aid. This is common in gender discrimination lawsuits. The males were trying to make it difficult for her to do the job so she would fail.

“Standard Register denies the allegations in the lawsuit,” Dale McMichael, Standard Register director of client relations, said in an e-mail to the Dayton Daily News.

Krista Stephenson claimed she was sexually harassed by Veterans Affairs ("VA") center director Craig Howard while she worked for him as staff assistant. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit on her behalf and the Department of Veterans Affairs agreed to settle the sexual harassment lawsuit for $25,000.

In cases like this many times the parties will reach a voluntary settlement rather than risk a lengthy discovery process and the prospect of trial. At trial the amount awarded could be high or there could be no award at all. By reaching a settlement both parties can contain costs and Stephenson is guaranteed money--while also feeling vindicated by making the VA pay.

Dan Ryan, spokesman for the Canandaigua VA, declined to comment other than to issue a statement saying: “VA personnel matters are confidential by regulation.”

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") claims including a retaliation charge rose 23% in the year ended Sept. 30, 2008. The EEOC says more than a third of all claims filed with the agency have claims involving retaliation. Claims that didn't involve retaliation rose 12% during the same period. EEOC officials cite several reasons for the increase in retaliation claims. Due to the tough economy many employees feel slighted at being laid off or fired. Additionally, many companies are firing workers who complain because there are so many workers willing to take the employees job due to the tough job market. This is one instance where the squeaky wheel doesn't get the oil but gets the boot.

Retaliation is easier to prove than discrimination involving sexual harassment, or based on other forms of discrimination especially since a 2006 Supreme Court decision adopted a broader definition of retaliation. Many times a claim filed by the EEOC will have both a discrimination claim and retaliation claim. For example, an employee who is sexually harassed at work will report the harassment and then get fired or demoted. The employee will then file a claim with the EEOC for sexual harassment and retaliation.

M&N Equipment was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging a woman was retaliated against after making a sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker. According to the lawsuit the women was sexual harassed while working at the compnay and complained to management about the harassment. The company not only failed to remedy the situation at work but engaged in retaliation against the women when she came forward.

The lawsuit alleges that during the four months after the woman complained about being sexually harassed the company retaliated by reducing her work hours, taking away her company car, not giving her a promised transfer, and then fired her without explanation. Then once the woman found work at another company, M&N Equipment called that company two days later and falsely maligned her work performance, resulting in her being fired by her new employer.

"It is particularly important for a woman to feel safe from retaliation when she speaks out against sexual harassment in a workplace," said Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC office. "This is precisely the reason our laws prohibit retaliation for sexual harassment complaints."

Chicken restaurant chain Seymour Zaxbys is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for sexual harassement and retaliation. According to the lawsuit two employees were sexual harassed and then complained about the sexual harassment. The same day that they complained about the sexual harassment they were both fired.

As a matter of law retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits retaliating against employees who complain about alleged unlawful employment practices such as sexual harassment. In cases like this the EEOC will try to settle the case prior to filing a lawsuit. Damages which can be awarded in sexual harassment and retaliation cases include compensatory damages, punitive damages and an injunction against future discrimination. Also the company could be ordered to hire the employees back.

The Country Inn hotel is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for sexual harassment. The EEOC alleges the hotel’s management condoned the sexual harassment of several female employees and penalized the women when they complained about the hostile work environment. According to the lawsuit Candace Bland and other female servers including those under 18 were subjected to pervasive sexual harassment by two male coworkers.

According to allegations in the lawsuit, one man dropped his pants in front of the female employees and both male employees repeatedly engaged in offensive and unwelcome touching of female employees, including grabbing their breasts, “humping” against the women, slapping their buttocks and kissing them. Both men also made repeated requests for dates and persistent use of offensive and demeaning language towards the women.

Despite complaints by Bland and other women to the owner and other managers, the employer failed to take prompt measures to stop the harassment and after Bland filed a complaint with the EEOC her hours were cut and she was removed from work for a week. Other women who complained about the hostile work environment also had their hours reduced or the terms of their employment altered. In Illinois this type of conduct is called retaliation.

“It is unacceptable for an employer to punish employees who complain about sexual harassment by reducing their work hours and thereby reducing their income. Retaliation like this has a chilling effect on those who choose to exercise their federally protected rights and is blatantly illegal,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence.

Eman Al-Khadra, a doctor at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center filed a lawsuit against the hospital and her boss Hector Wong claiming gender discrimination and sexual harassment.Al-Khadra accuses Wong of sexually harassing her beginning when she interviewed for a job at the hospital. Additionally the lawsuit alleges gender discrimination against her based on lesser pay than comparable male doctors. She also claims she was not promoted because she rejected Wong's sexual advances which is retaliation.

According to Al-Khadra, she was threatened by Wong who is a martial artist after she rejected his sexual advances. At the same time her promotion was rejected and given to another female doctor who did not reject Wong's sexual advances, according to the lawsuit. Al-Khadra claims the hospital should have known about Wong's sexual harassment and did not stop it.

Al-Khadra claims Wong and the hospital retaliated against her after she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging sexual harassment against Wong and of the hospital.

A llaw between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and a Taco Bell restaurant involving a sexual harassment lawsuit was settled for $35,000. Penn Taco will pay a group of female employees $35,000 as part of a settlement with the EEOC. Additionally the company agreed to revise its anti-discrimination policies, and provide training to supervisors and managers about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and how it applies to sexual harassment.

The company must also post a notice of the settlement. The company is now taking steps to protect employees from unlawful sexual harassment and hopefully won't have issues arise like this in the future.

"We are pleased that Penn Taco worked with us to resolve the case," Equal Employment Opportunity Commission acting regional attorney Debra Lawrence said.

Continue reading "Taco Bell Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $35,000" »

According to the lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Balance Financial, the company discriminated against Joyce Snower, a blind woman in Chicago because of her disability. The company made a job offer to the woman to work at its planned Chicago office and she began performing services for them from home. After the company learned the woman was blind they rescinded her job. This could be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Melanie Damian, an attorney for Balance, said the woman was never employed by the company. Although offered a position, the woman did not fill out the paperwork to be hired and did not take a drug test, causing the offer to be withdrawn. In addition, the company no longer does business in Chicago and didn’t have the number of employees needed to be covered by the law in this instance.

“We think the case is without any basis,” Damian said. The company will be responding to the EEOC’s complaint, she said.

Jennifer Braude a former associate at the law firm Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson filed a sexual harassment lawsuit which is full of juicy details. There is a twist to this sexual harassment lawsuit however as the harassor is her female boss. According to court papers during the 18 months Braude was an associate at Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, she was subjected to a hostile work environment due to the sexually charged conversations initiated by her direct supervisor, Meredith Sossman. Sossman has since been fired and is now assistant vice president at Drexel University's Earle Mack School of Law.

The lawsuit alleges that Sossman talked about her own sexual interests, including engaging in foursomes and kissing her best female friend, who Sossman allegedly described as looking very similar to Braude. Sossman also allegedly made Braude turn around slowly when she entered the room so Sossman could see what she was wearing and made Braude's sex life the subject of discussion. Braude first file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

Sossman would allegedly tell Braude she was dirty hot and pressured her to go with her to a sex toys shop in Concordville, Pa., to purchase a vibrator, directing her on how to use it and instructing her to report back to Sossman in the morning after she used it.

Continue reading "Female Law Partner Sued For Sexual Harassment Of Female Associate" »

The 31-year-old woman who worked for La Pianta LLC, which does business as Frenchman Hills Vineyard is suing her former employer for sexual harassment. She is represented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). She claims her manager engaged in malicious and reckless conduct related to sexual harassment. THe EEOC will file a lawsuit on behalf of a claimant if they believe there is enough information and evidence to succeed.

William Tamayo, an EEOC lawyer based in San Francisco, said the alleged sexual harassment began in May 2008, shortly after the woman began working at the vineyard. He said it lasted three months and ended when the woman quit because of the sexual harassment.

"Sexual harassment is not something that should be a condition of work," Tamayo said,, adding, "Some of the harassers prey on these women in desperate situations."

Two brothers, Paul Martinez, 57, and John Martinez, 56 who own Arvada Mexican restaurant are being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for sexual harassment of a 16-year-old employee, April Wyatt-now an adult. The two brothers are accused of physical and verbal sexual harassment and then retaliation when they fired the female employee after she complained of the sexual harassment.

According to the lawsuit starting in 2003 and ending in 2006, Paul Martinez repeatedly groped Wyatt by grabbing her backside, crotch and breast; pulled her underwear; and stuck his fingers in her mouth when she yawned. Martinez also shared inappropriate jokes and comments with Wyatt. By the end of 2006 Wyatt could no longer take the sexual harassment and complained. She was fired shortly thereafter which is retaliation.

“The conduct alleged here is reprehensible,” Stuart J. Ishimaru, acting chairman of the EEOC, said in a statement. “The harassment was compounded by the retaliation against a teenager who sought to complain about her illegal treatment.

Continue reading "Restaurant Sued For Sexual Harassment Of Minor" »

Tomayo Financial Services, based in Chicago Illinois was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for sexual harassment and retaliation. Tomayo has four offices in Chicago and is a mortgage lending organization. According to the lawsuit female employees were sexually harassed and subjected to retaliation when they complained about the sexual harassment.

The EEOC claims numerous men employed at Tomayo, including executives, were part of continuous and widespread sexual harassment of women. The men referred to women with sexual epithets, engaged in threatening physical and verbal sexual conduct. The women reported the sexual harassment but nothing was done by Tomayo to stop the conduct and it only increased.

John Hendrickson, EEOC regional attorney for the Chicago District, said, “It does not matter what industry is involved—whether it’s automobiles, household products, mortgages—sexual harassment and retaliation are non-starters from both a business and a legal perspective.

Continue reading "Chicago's Tomayo Financial Services Sued For Sexual Harassment" »

McDonalds is being sued for sexual harassement by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to the lawsuit McDonalds failed to stop sexual harassment of male employees by a female supervisor at a restaurant in New Jersey. The EEOC claims Mcdonalds engaged in unlawful employment practices based on sexual harassment and created a hostile work environment.

The EEOC claims the underage workers were subjected to unwelcome comments about their appearance by an assistant manager. McDonald’s allowed the supervisor to physically grab, touch, spank, hug, and pinch male employees without their consent because of their gender. In situations where minors work with adults there is also an extra burden on the employer to make sure the adults who are in management positions are not doing anything inappropriate to the minor workers.

“McDonald’s failed to take sufficient action to remedy or prevent sexual harassment of its employees,” according to the complaint. The unlawful employment practices were intentional and “done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging Party.”

Continue reading "Can You Say McSexual Harassment?" »

Hilltown Packing is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for sexual harassment and retaliation. It all started when Filomena Ruelas who packed broccoli in the fields for the company between 1999 and 2005, faced sexual comments, propositions and touching from her supervisor. After reporting the behavior to management, she was not called back to work the next season, the suit says.

In cases like this many times the employer is not interested in helping to stop the sexual harassment because they are only interested in making money. Anyone who put a monkey wrench into the money makeing maching is deemed a trouble maker and retaliated against.

"All I wanted to do is work in peace and help support my family," Ruelas said.

Castle Chevrolet has been sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for sexual harassment alleging the Chicago auto dealer's female customers were called dingbats and female employees were routinely called obscene epithets. The lawsuit alleges principals in the dealership made sexually hostile, abusive and threatening remarks to female employees and groped them.

According to the lawsuit once the female employees complained about the sexual harassment the dealership did nothing to change its conduct. Castle Chevrolet general manager Bob Politza is denying the allegations, saying the company has "a very strict" policy against sexual harassment.

EEOC regional attorney John Hendrickson said in a statement Wednesday it was amazing that at a time when the auto industry is struggling for survival and women exercise so much influence in the marketplace that anyone would in engage in sexual harassment or show contempt for female customers.

Continue reading "EEOC Sues Chicago Auto Dealer Over Sexual Harassment" »

Sears, Roebuck and Co, commonly referred to as Sears settled a lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") based on the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") for $6.2 million and significant remedial relief. According to the lawsuit Sears maintained an inflexible workers' compensation leave exhaustion policy and terminated employees instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, in violation of the ADA.

Discovery showed that hundreds of employees who had taken workers' compensation leave were terminated by Sears without seriously considering reasonable accommodations to return them to work while they were on leave, or seriously considering whether a brief extension of their leave would make their return possible. All of this was in violation of the ADA.

"The era of employers being able to inflexibly and universally apply a leave limits policy without seriously considering the reasonable accommodation requirements of the ADA are over," EEOC attorney Hendrickson said.

Continue reading "Sears Settles EEOC Lawsuit Over ADA for $6.2 Million" »

Hilton Hotels in Chicago was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging the hotel violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting its Hispanic employees to a hostile work environment. The hostile work environment came in the form of subjecting the Hispanic workers to frequent ethnic slurs from the hotel’s executive chef. The slurs included referring to Hispanic employees under the chef's supervision as wetbacks, stupid Mexicans and f**cking Mexicans.

In cases like this the EEOC will first try to negotiate a settlement between the parties and if unsuccessful will then file a lawsuit if the facts support it. In a down economy like we presently have, many employees will look the other way or put up with this type of discriminatory conduct because they are afraid of losing their job. It takes guts to come forward and file a complaint to protect your rights. Another option for the two workers would have been to file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). The IDHR would automatically cross file the complaint with the EEOC. I prefer the IDHR venue because they seem better staffed to investigate claims and I prefer to stay in the state system.

“Employees should never have to put up with such humiliation and ridicule on the job,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

Continue reading "EEOC Files Lawsuit Against Hilton Hotels Chicago For Hostile Work Environment" »

Adams Brothers Farming Inc. is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Yareli Uriostegui claiming sexual harassment and retaliation. According to the lawsuit Uriostegui was subjected to repeated sexual harassment and she complained about it to management which did nothing to stop the sexual harassment. Shortly after complaining about the sexual harassment Uriostegui was fired by Adams Brothers Farming Inc. which the EEOC claims is retaliation for reporting the sexual harassment.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court and claims a foreman touched Uriostegui sexually many times and also verbally harassed her in a sexual nature. When Uriostegui complained, she was written up for poor performance and fired two weeks later. The EEOC is seeking compensatory damages, back pay, punitive damages and other injunctive relief.

Continue reading "Adams Brothers Farm Sued By EEOC For Sexual Harassment and Retaliation" »

UPS settles a lawsuit involving Joanne Nijem who was represented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for $120,000. Nijem also alleged that UPS engaged in retaliation once she reported the sexual harassment. Nijem was the only female employee at the facility and alleged she was subjected almost daily to insults and criticisms in front of coworkers and customers, and when she reported the sexual harassment to the company hotline and the regional director, she was terminated a week later--which in Illinois is retaliation.

As in most cases like this UPS denied it did anyting wrong. As part of the settlement UPS will provide training to management and human resources officials who fired Nijem and agreed to maintain an anti-harassment policy and post it so employees can see it. When you look at the amount of money UPS had to pay on a case like this it makes you wonder what supervisors are thinking when they engage in such behavior.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Settles For $120,000 Between UPS and EEOC" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc. alleging that female farmworkers were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment by male coworkers at its processing plant. According to the lawsuit the men engaged in sexual harassment by asking female employees to show their breasts, asking the females out on dates for sex and making other sexual advances to female employees. This type of behavior in the work place seems to be getting more common place and employees have to stand up and hire an attorney to protect their rights.

The lawsuit also alleges the women were subjected to discrimination because of their Mexican national origin. The Mexican women had things thrown at them and they were called derogatory terms such as “dumb Mexican” or “stupid Mexican.” The women complained about the sexual harassment and national origin discrimination to supervisors and managers, but Knouse Foods failed to take prompt and effective action to stop the harassment. The harassment and discrimination only go worse after the women complained.

“This is another tragic example of an employer failing to stop cruel, humiliating, and illegal victimization of vulnerable employees,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

Continue reading "EEOC Files Sexual Harassment and National Origin Lawsuit Against Knouse Foods Cooperative" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") released its' report for 2008 and it shwos there were 16,752 complaints alleging employment discrimination– up 2.4 percent from the prior year. These complaints are allegations against government agencies only and do not include complaints against private companies. The complaints were filed against federal agencies on the basis of retaliation, gender, race, national origin, religion and age.

Other interesting statistics in the report include of 7,538 cases closed on the merits, 2.5% resulted in findings of unlawful discrimination. Both parties entered into settlements in 19.5 % or 3,249 complaints. Agencies awarded a total of over $50 million in monetary benefits to complainants for unlawful discrimination.

“Federal agencies must step up their efforts to improve complaint processing time, while also focusing on quality results,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “

Continue reading "EEOC Report Shows Increase in Discrimination Lawsuits" »

NPMG Acquisition Sub, LLC, ("NPMG") agreed to pay $415,000 and in addition to other relief as part of a racial discrimination lawsuit settlement. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a group of three African American workers who were subjected to to racial slurs and epithets.

According to the lawsuit two white supervisors engaged in severe verbal abuse which created and perpetuated a racially hostile work environment against black employees. In addition to the $415,000, the company must provide a written apology to the three African American workers on company letterhead, post notices and conduct anti-discrimination training.

“It was unbelievable, the things they said,” said Michael Buckner, one of the discrimination victims. "My supervisors often referred to my fellow African-American employees and me as ‘n-----rs’ and ‘porch monkeys’ and forced us to play so-called ‘Civil War games’ where employees were divided into North and South. They also referred to black children or mixed-race children as ‘porch monkeys’ or ‘Oreo babies.’ On several occasions, I was told to turn off my ‘jigaboo music.’”

Continue reading "NPMG Pays $415,000 To Settle Racial Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Dave's supermarket has been hit with a federal lawsuit regarding sexual harassment. In Cleveland the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit claiming the supermarket violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting female employees to sexual harassment. According to the lawsuit a department manager subjected women to egregious sexual harassment including asking the woman for sex and groping.

According to court papers once the top tier of management became aware of the sexual harassment and the manager's behavior the top group of management at the supermarket did nothing to stop it and allowed it to continue. Damages from sexual harassment include lost pay, future pay, emotional distress damage, attorney fees, and punitive damages. There seems to be an increase in sexual harassment cases this year probablly due to the problems with the economy.

"We continue to see an increase in the number of harassment complaints, however, this was one of many instances when the employer could have taken steps to prevent it from ever happening," said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence.

Continue reading "Dave's Supermarket Sued For Sexual Harassment" »

Dolgencorp LLC, which does business as Dollar General is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for sexual harassment and retaliation. The lawsuit states that from at February 2005 through May 2006, Amanda Tittle Strickland, Maria Kinley Strickland, Tina Baxley and other similarly situated female employees were subjected to sexual harassment by Dollar General. The women were sexually harassed by a male store manager with crude and offensive sexual comments, unwelcome touching of the women's buttocks and breasts and request for sex.

All of the women complained about the sexual harassment. The company failed to take appropriate action to stop the sexual harassment and retaliated against the women. Strickland had to quit her job to escape the harassment. The EEOC is asking for an injunction to stop Dollar General from engaging in discriminatory employment practices. The women are seeking monetary damages.

Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District Office, said, "In this case, Dollar General had a policy prohibiting sexual harassment. However, the evidence obtained by the EEOC indicates that despite the policy, a member of Dollar General's management created the sexually hostile work environment for the female employees and other managers knew about it but took no action to stop it.

Continue reading "Dollar General Sued For Sexual Harassment and Retaliation" »

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a jury verdict int he amount of $241,708 for plaintiff Youssef Bouamama against Go Daddy Software Inc. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Bouamama, a Muslim of Moroccan national origin who speaks Arabic and claimed Go Daddy Software Inc. had engaged in retaliation against Bouamama when it fired him for complaining about religious and national origin discrimination.

In the underlining lawsuit, the jury found in favor of Bouamama and said that Go Daddy Software Inc. terminated Bouamama, for complaining about religious discrimination and national origin discrimination. After 9-11, there has been a rise in the number of complaints and lawsuit filed based on national origin. Muslims seem to be the latest group to be subjected to this type of discriminatory conduct.

“We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the jury’s finding of retaliation,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Upholds $241,708 National Origin Verdict" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") Office of Federal Operations awarded Department of Interior employee Celeste Gray $149,459 to settle her sexual harassment lawsuit. According to the lawsuit over a period of two years Gray's supervisor would call her into his office to pick up trash off the floor in front of his desk so he could view her tell her that there was nothing he did not know about a woman's body and call her breasts the girls.

As a result of the sexual harassment Gray's weight increased dramatically to make herself less attractive to the supervisor. Gray also suffered from anxiety, nightmares, sleep disorder and was under the care of a psychologist. Gray received $100,000 emotional distress, $43,359 for past and future medical expenses and a $6,100 tax enhancement to offset the future medical expenses.

As an example of the kind of sexual harassment Gray endured, when she was going out of town, her supervisor in a sexual gesture said, "I hope you don't give up nothing,"

Continue reading "Department of Interior Ordered To Pay $149,459 In Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against Jewel/Osco for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). According to the lawsuit, Jewel-Osco refused to allow qualified employees with disabilities who are on authorized disability leave, or who are eligible for it, to return to work if they have any work restrictions.

They are also terminating employees if they reach the one-year mark on leave and that Jewel refused to allow qualified employees with disabilities assignment to temporary light duty jobs unless they were injured on the job. The case stemmed from an employee who suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and severe allergic reactions to cosmetic fragrances

The EEOC also cites Jewel because it failed to stop the harassment of an employee disabled by a seizure disorder.

"According to the lawsuit Jewel told the man to go have a seizure and crawl on the floor.’”

Continue reading "Jewel Stores Sued By EEOC For ADA Violations" »

One of the largest insurance companies in the world, Allstate agreed to pay $4,500,000 to settle age discrimination lawsuits with 90 former employees, all of whom are over 40 and provide significant remedial relief. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commision ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit back in 2004 and alleged that Allstate put in place a policy that had a disproportionate impact on Allstate’s employees over the age of 40 because more than 90 percent of the agents subjected to the hiring moratorium undere the program were 40 years of age or older.

Allstate fiercely contested the lawsuit but eventually gave in to the EEOC. As a backdrop for their decision to gave in Allstate relied on a recent Supreme Court case. In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held in Smith v. City of Jackson that a facially neutral policy, such as Allstate’s hiring moratorium, which disproportionately affected those age 40 and over violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") unless the policy was based on a reasonable factor other than age.

As part of the settlement Allstate will pay former employees who sought employment or would have sought employment a total of $4.5 million to be divided among the class via a settlement fund. Additionally Allstate is required to pay for discrimination prevention training, post notices regarding age discrimination and participate in other relief designed to educate Allstate managers in order to prevent future violations of the ADEA.

“Discrimination against older workers is counterproductive and wrong, and the EEOC has been taking a close look at ways to increase our law enforcement efforts in this area,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

Continue reading "Allstate Pays $4.5 Million To Settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Four female doctors alleged sexual harassment by Medical Superintendent Dr. Vinod Kumar of Gandhi Nagar Hospital. Some inside the hospital believe the sexual harassment complaint was filed because the hospital and in particular Dr. Kumar have been very strict with the doctors regarding employment issues. To date not many facts have been alleged and both sides seem to be keeping tight lipped.

In Illinois allegations of sexual harassment must be filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The complaint must be filed within 180 days and 300 days respectively. It is very important to speak with an attorney early to make sure you don't miss those important periods.

“We don’t believe that Dr Vinod can do such an act” an old female employee of the Hospital on the condition of anonymity.

Continue reading "Four Female Doctors Sue Hospital For Sexual Harassment" »

Nurse One Team One is the subject of a federal lawsuit by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of 25 former nurses who claim a patient sexually harassed them. According to the sexual harassment lawsuit, they claim a client inappropriately touched, groped and made sexual requests of them. The lawsuit alleges that man requested that only female certified nursing assistants provide his care.

The lawsuit alleges that Nurse One Team One ignored at least 25 written complaints of sexual harassment from that male client. EEOC attorneys said the company even retaliated against one of the CNA's by firing her because the woman refused to apologize to that male client for warning a fellow co-worker about her experience with him. The lawsuit asks for unspecified amount including back wages, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

"There is no excuse for knowingly and repeatedly subjecting female employees to a sexually hostile and abusive work environment," said Katharine Kores, EEOC Memphis district office director.

Mars Super Markets, Inc. agreed to pay $275,000 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a class action gender discrimination lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").According to the lawsuit, Mars refused to hire part-time deli clerk Gail Brown as an apprentice meat cutter at a Dundalk, Md., Mars store because she is a woman.

Mars, which operates 16 grocery stores in the Baltimore metropolitan area, had an ongoing pattern of failing to hire females as meat cutters and also failed to preserve various personnel and employment records, which also violated federal law. Refusing to hire qualified applicants because of their gender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and is gender discrimination.

"Eliminating an entire gender – half the population – from consideration for a particular type of job makes no sense and clearly violates decades-old federal law,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

In Fiscal Year 2008, the EEOC received 28,372 charges of gender discrimination.

Continue reading "Mars Super Markets Pays $275,000 To Settle Gender Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Taco Bell Corporation will pay $350,000 to two young women to resolve a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The lawsuit alleged that Terence E. Davis, a former manager at Taco Bell, sexually assaulted a 16-year-old female employee on her first day of work. The EEOC said Davis sexually assaulted the young woman on the work premises and then tried to follow her as she fled home. The EEOC also uncovered evidence during discovery that Davis had forcibly raped another 16-year-old female employee just five months earlier.

This type of workplace misconduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual assaults as the most egregious forms of sexual harassment. The EEOC filed suit against Irvine, Calif.-based Taco Bell Corporation after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. Davis pled guilty in 2009 to raping both women and is currently serving two concurrent eight-year prison terms.

“Sexual harassment is always unconscionable, but this situation was especially so, given the extreme nature of the assaults and the youth and vulnerability of the victims,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

Continue reading "Taco Bell Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit With EEOC For $350,000" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a class action lawsuit against the United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"), the world’s largest package delivery company, alleging it violated federal law by rejecting an extension of medical leave as a reasonable accommodation for its employees with disabilities.

According to the allegations UPS violated the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") when Trudi Momsen, an administrative assistant at UPS, took a 12-month leave of absence from work when she began experiencing symptoms of what was later diagnosed as multiple sclerosis. She returned to work for a few weeks, but soon thereafter needed additional time off after experiencing what she believed to be negative side effects of her medication. Although Momsen could have returned to work after an additional two-week leave of absence, UPS fired her for exceeding its 12-month leave policy.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Chicago after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement with UPS. The litigation, captioned EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (Civil Action No. 09-C-5291) and assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for Momsen and a class of disabled employees whom UPS similarly refused to accommodate, as well as an order barring future discrimination and other relief.

“This case should send a wake up call to Corporate America that violating the Americans With Disabilities Act will result in vigorous enforcement by the EEOC,” said Commission Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The ADA has been the law of the land for nearly two decades now, and employers simply have no excuse for failing to abide by its provisions.”

Wilcox Farms, which operates dairy and egg production facilities in Oregon and Washington, will pay $260,000 and provide remedial relief to settle a federal sexual harassment and retaliation suit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The lawsuit alleged that a male supervisor repeatedly grabbed, sought to forcibly undress and propositioned Wilcox Farms employee Diana Dominguez at its Aurora, Ore., facility. According to the federal agency’s investigation, the sexual harassment continued over many months despite Dominguez’s complaints to management, to the point where she began to fear for her physical safety. The EEOC found that Wilcox retaliated against Dominguez for reporting the harassment by isolating her from co-workers, forcing her to continue to work with the harasser and pressuring her to resign. Dominguez ultimately was forced to quit out of fear for her safety-which meets the legal definition of retaliation.

Under the terms of the consent decree settling the suit, Wilcox Farms denied any wrongdoing but will pay Dominguez $260,000. The company also agreed to adopt and to distribute to all employees a sexual harassment policy written in both English and Spanish; make its complaint procedures more convenient for employees to report harassment and retaliation; conduct sexual harassment training in English and Spanish for all managers, supervisors and employees; and to provide various reports to the EEOC over a three-year period.

EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, "This case involved a supervisor’s serious abuse of power over a female employee. Employers must take every report of harassment seriously. They shouldn’t dismiss such behavior as ‘the cost of doing business’ or ignore problems in hopes that they will go away. The law requires them to quickly and effectively respond to such complaints. Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal – no one should be required to work in a hostile environment.”

Continue reading "Wilcox Farm Pays $260,000 to Settle Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

PetSmart, Inc., the nation’s leading retailer of services and products for pets, agreed to pay $125,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to resolve a federal sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to the lawsuit female employees were subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment by a store manager. The store manager’s sexually offensive conduct and comments included repeatedly grabbing his genitals while talking to female employees and making explicit sexual comments and sexual innuendoes.

PetSmart not only failed to take prompt and effective action to stop the sexual harassment but engaged in unlawful retaliation against a female manager after she complained. The store manager allegedly yelled at the woman, belittled her in front of subordinates, followed her around the store and disciplined her despite her good job performance. As a result of the unrelenting harassment and unwarranted retaliation, the EEOC said, she was forced to quit her job. In additional to the cash settlement, PetSmart agreed to mandatory EEO training of all managers, supervisors and employees about employee rights and employer obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“We filed this lawsuit because all employees have the right to complain about sexual harassment without suffering unlawful reprisals,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. “We are pleased that the parties were able to resolve this matter and that PetSmart agreed to a variety of corrective measures designed to prevent future problems in the workplace.”

Continue reading "PetSmart Throws Bone To EEOC and Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit For $125,000" »

The St. Louis Rams settled an Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") involving disability discrimination for $134,000 and important remedial relief on behalf of Ron DuBuque, a long-term employee with a seizure disorder. DuBuque, who had been an assistant trainer with the team for 11 years before he was terminated, had epilepsy during his entire employment. DuBuque and the EEOC alleged that he had successfully performed his job until the Rams' management, in June 2006, claimed he was a medical liability and posed a threat to his own safety and that of coworkers. DuBuque was diagnosed with trauma-induced epilepsy in 1984, more than a decade before working for the Rams.

Under the terms of the consent decree the Rams will pay a total of $134,000 to settle the case – including emotional distress damages of $100,000 and a $34,000 contract in which DuBuque will be engaged as a Rehabilitation Specialist for two years. The decree also requires the team to provide training on the ADA to managers and supervisors of the Rams. These types of discrimination cases violate the civil rights act of 1964.

“As this case and many others show, disability does not mean inability,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “All employers should make workplace decisions based on merit and qualifications to do the job, rather than on myths, fears, or stereotypes associated with a person’s disability.”

Brand Energy Solutions, L.L.C. which operates Texas refineries will pay $175,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ('EEOC"). The EEOC said that an operations manager employed by Brand at a Corpus Christi refinery sexually harassed a female timekeeper whom he supervised. The sexual harassment included subjecting her to repeated unwelcome physical contact, sexual advances and comments; placing lurid images on her work computer; and threatening and intimidating behavior such as throwing objects at her and locking her in a trailer.

According to the suit, the woman was forced to quit her job when Brand Scaffold failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action to address the harassment, as the law requires. Further, the EEOC charged, Brand retaliated against the woman for complaining about the abuse. After she complained to management she was removed from her work site, placed directly in the harasser's office and was shunned by the other employees. She was told by co-workers and at least one Brand manager that whistleblowers never keep their jobs. This is a form of retaliation. Once an employee complains of discrimination and employer may not take disciplinary action against the employee.

“The law requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent such sexual harassment,” said David Rivela, senior trial attorney of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office. “We will continue to actively prosecute cases where employees are subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace. We are glad that Brand was willing to resolve this matter.”

Continue reading "Brand Energy Solutions Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit For $175,000" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit agains R-Anell Housing alleging that R-Anell Housing refused to hire Amy Hall and a class of similarly situated female applicants because of their gender. According to the complaint, R-Anell engaged in gender discrimination at its' manufacturing facility beginning as early as 2004, and at a manufacturing facility previously operated in Denver, N.C., beginning as early as 2003. The EEOC and R-Anell settled this lawsuit for $200,000 plus other relief.

The EEOC further charged that R-Anell maintains a sex-segregated workforce that has the effect of denying female employees equal employment opportunities. According to the EEOC court-filed complaint, R-Anell also failed to preserve applications and personnel records as required by law. Gender discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Excluding all women – half the population and half the talent pool – from the workplace is a counter-intuitive business strategy and illegal,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “This settlement shows the EEOC will insist on meaningful relief for victims of such blatant sex discrimination.”

Continue reading "R-Anell Housing Group Settles Gender Discrimination Lawsuit For $200,000" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") announced it settled a racial discrimination lawsuit against Material Resources LLC for $50,000 in compensatory damages, payment of $7,500 to an ex-employee and the company will offer anti-discrimination training.

The lawsuit alleged the company doing business as Gateway Co-Packing Co. didn't give a black employee the pay raise and health insurance coverage his white co-workers got. The EEOC says the company then fired the employee after he filed a complaint. This is commonly referred to as retaliation. In Illinois if an employee complains of discriminatory conduct the company cannot then discipline or termination the employee as a result of the employee bringing the discriminatory conduct to the attention of the company.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against Propak Logistics alleging reverse discrimination. According to the lawsuit, from October 1, 2002, through June 30, 2004, based Propak Logistics, Inc. engaged in unlawful employment practices by refusing to hire an entire class of people for non-management positions at its Shelby, N.C., facility because of their non-Hispanic national origin. The complaint said that the company hired predominantly Latinos to the exclusion of equally or more qualified non-Latinos--this is also known as reverse discrimination.

This type of discrimination is national origin discrimination and it is usually filed against companies for not hiring minorities but the door swings both way. A company cannot discriminate against any group based on race or national origin. If a company does discrimination based on national origin, the employee is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Discrimination based on national origin is simply illegal, regardless of the background of the victims or the beneficiaries of that misconduct,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

“This case represents the unfortunate reality that some employers are willing to discriminate against one racial or cultural group in favor of another,” said Lynette Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office.

Continue reading "EEOC Files Reverse Discrimination Lawsuit" »

The Sahara Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas violated federal law by creating a hostile work environment for Ezzat Elias an Egyptian kitchen employee through a daily barrage of derogatory comments due to his national origin and retaliating against him when he reported it according to a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to the lawsuit Sahara's supervisors and coworkers continuously belittled and harassed Elias, whose job was delivering food from the kitchen to the hotel buffet and maintaining the buffet, because of his Egyptian heritage.

The harassment included offensive comments, slurs, and graffiti, such as being called “Bin Laden,” “Taliban,” and “f ____ Egyptian” and being told to “go back to Egypt.” Elias was also targeted with graffiti, which he was then required to wash off. Despite Elias’s repeated complaints of such harassment, the defendants failed to take effective measures to stop it. Instead, supervisors retaliated against him, which included disciplinary write-ups and suspension. Retaliation occurs when an employee complains about being discriminated against and supervisors do nothing about it and in fact either encourage the discriminatory behavior or punish the employee for reporting the discriminatory conduct.

National origin discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for Elias, as well as injunctive relief to prevent such discrimination in the future.

"There is no excuse for such blatant and abusive behavior targeting workers on the basis of their national origin,” said EEOC Las Vegas Local Director Lucy Orta. “Employers must train their managers and frontline supervisors to prevent discrimination and to take prompt and effective action against harassment when it occurs."

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution ("ADR"), which is an alternative to litigation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") offers mediation free to people who file complaints with the agency. There are good reason to select mediation and also reasons against. On the EEOC's website the following is listed as reasons to select mediation:
-It's free
- It's fair and neutral as the parties have an equal say in the process and decide settlement terms, not the mediator. There is no determination of guilt or innocence in the process.
-it saves time and money as mediation usually occurs early in the charge process, and many mediations are completed in one meeting. Legal or other representation is optional but not required.
-It's confidential as the EEOC requires that all parties sign a confidentiality agreement. Information disclosed during mediation will not be revealed to anyone, including other EEOC investigative or legal staff.

There are a few reason not to select mediation however.
First, by avoiding litigation, the company is the one really saving money and thus the savings is given to them. The EEOC will investigate your charge for free and the company has to pay an attorney to defend the charge of discrimination.

Second, many facts don't come out in mediation because there has not been an opportunity to fully discover evidence the other side may have. Therefore, a complainant may be settling a claim without knowing all the facts and may have a much better case in reality than they realize.

Lastly, during mediation the complainant lays out his case and the employer has an opportunity to hear the entire case and therefore if the parties can't come to an agreement, the employer can draft their defense based on hearing the entire case.

Continue reading "EEOC and Mediation" »

Hometown Buffer settled a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision ("EEOC") for $710,000. The EEOC alleged Hometown Buffet failed to prevent and tolerated a pattern of ongoing sexual harassment in which male managers, supervisors, and co-workers subjected female employees to a sexually hostile workplace, including groping, hugging, kissing, sexual advances, and stalking employees outside the workplace. One female victim was allegedly raped by a male co-worker. The EEOC further alleged that due to the female employees’ young age and/or lack of English proficiency, a breakdown in the company’s complaint process failed to adequately remedy the sexual harassment.

In addition to a monetary settlement of $710,000, the two-year consent decree resolving the matter will also ensure the implementation of measures to prevent and remedy sexual harassment at the company’s El Cajon location. These measures include annual training for employees, managers, and supervisors regarding sexual harassment and retaliation; a formal complaint procedure with close tracking of any future complaints; and, providing annual reports to the EEOC regarding future complaints and remedial action.

"Sexual assaults are increasingly becoming more commonplace in sexual harassment cases,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Anna Y. Park of the agency’s Los Angeles District Office. “During this economic downturn, it is more important than ever for employers to actively ensure a workplace free of hostility. What may appear to be a short term gain by cutting out training on EEO laws, may result in long term cost to a company if claims of discrimination are not actively prevented or corrected.”

L&T Group of Companies, Ltd., the largest employer and conglomerate of garment manufacturers in Saipan, will pay $1.7 million and to provide far reaching and significant injunctive relief to settle a series of lawsuits filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The lawsuits alleged the company violated federal law regarding retaliation and discrimination based on national origin, pregnancy and age, all in violation of federal law. The EEOC alleged that the employer retaliated against 14 Filipino and Bangladeshi workers when it terminated them because they filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC.

The allegations in the case also included that Bangladeshi security guards were being treated differently than Nepalese with respect to assignment of overtime hours, work location, and housing. Further, the EEOC said the defendants discriminated on the basis of national origin by providing different amounts of benefits to Nepalese, Chinese, Filipino and Bangladeshi employees, and failed to conduct any investigation regarding the claimants’ allegations. Within two or three months after the charge was filed with the EEOC, the defendants unlawfully retaliated against the workers by failing to renew their contracts.

“This major settlement shows that the EEOC will vigorously protect the rights of all workers, within every reach of our jurisdiction, to be free of discrimination,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The resolutions of these egregious cases bring a measure of justice to the many workers who were retaliated against and otherwise victimized by discriminatory employment practices because of their national origin, age, or pregnancy.”

Continue reading "L&T Group of Companies, Ltd Pays $1.7 Million to Settle Discrimination Cases With The EEOC" »

Food service giant AVI Foodsystems, Inc. ("AVI") pays $90,000 and offers jobs to discrimination victims to settle a class disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The lawsuit alleged AVI violated federal law by failing to allow employees with disabilities to return to work without a full-duty, no-restriction doctor’s release.

The EEOC asserted that this policy violated the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The lawsuit alleged disabled employees who had been on leave and are able to return to work with some physical restrictions, but are still able to perform their jobs, should be allowed to do so. This policy adversely affected more than 80 AVI employees in several states, including Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

Laurie A. Young, regional attorney of the EEOC’s district office in Indianapolis said “Employers should be aware that the most recent amendments to the ADA became effective on January 1 of this year, and those amendments made substantial changes to the ADA as interpreted by the courts.”

Continue reading "AVI Foodsystems Pays $90,000 to Settle ADA Lawsuit With EEOC" »

Carl Sassaman was accused by a female co-worker of sexual harassment. Sassaman's boss conducted a very limited investigation which turned into a he-said,she-said as both partys claimed the other was lying. Sassaman's boss took not further investigation and assumed Sassaman had sexually harassed the co-worker and told him to either resign or he would be fired. Sassaman instead filed a discrimination lawsuit, Sassaman v. Gamache, claiming his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were violated.

The original lawsuit was dismissed by the Court however, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned that dismissal and remanded the case for further trial. The 2nd Circuit said that jurors could reasonably draw an inference of discriminatory intent if they accepted Sassaman's combined allegations that his boss suggested men are apt to sexually harass their co-workers and that the employer failed to properly investigate the alleged harassment.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), men generated 15.9% of sexual harassment complaints filed in 2008. The majority of those complaints were men complaining about sexual harassment by other men.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") settled a sexual harassment lawsuit against Luby’s Restaurants Limited Partnership, doing business as Luby’s San Antonio #19 (Luby’s), for $135,000 and significant remedial relief on behalf of a class of female workers who were subjected to a pervasive sexually hostile work environment for years.

The lawsuit alleged Luby’s with subjected female employees, including a teenager, to a sexually hostile work environment at its Floyd Curl Ave., San Antonio location. Specifically, the EEOC said that the women were subjected to, among other things, repeated unwelcome sexual touching, numerous sexual comments, as well as gestures and innuendo. The sexual harassment, which was allowed to continue for at least four years, also included a work atmosphere permeated with lewd and sexually offensive behavior, including restraining one woman in the women’s restroom while requesting sexual favors from her. Additionally, one of the female employees was forced to quit her job because Luby’s failed to take appropriate action to address the harassment.

EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Judith G. Taylor added, “Sexual harassment affects far too many workers in the service industries, but especially teenagers who feel they have no recourse and are especially vulnerable because of their age and inexperience. Every employer has a duty to protect its workforce from harassment.”

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which also prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin, and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation.

Continue reading "EEOC Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Luby's Restaurant For $135,000" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and electrical contractor T&D Electric Company of Burlington, N.C., agreed to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit for $175,674. The lawsuit EEOC v. T&D Electric Company of Burlington, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:06cv808, alleged that Tammy Holt and a class of female employees at T&D Electric were subjected to sexual comments, including remarkds about their bodies, clothing, sex acts and touching by the company's co-owner / president.

The alleged T & D Electric knew about the sexual harassment and failed to stop it and that as a result of the sexual harassment, several women were forced to quit their jobs. Sexual harassment in the workplace violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement with the company to eliminate these discriminatory practices.

"Sexual harassment by a company owner is especially egregious," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the agency's Charlotte District Office. "Employers have an obligation under federal law to ensure a work environment free from illegal harassment, to promptly investigate complaints, and to take appropriate corrective measures to stop this misconduct."

Scrub, Inc., a Chicago janitorial services provider, which provides janitorial services to the airline industry at O'Hare International Airport is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionn ("EEOC") for racial discrimination against African Americans in hiring. The EEOC claims although African American workers were a significant segment of Scrub’s labor market and applied for jobs in large numbers, they consistently made up less than two percent of Scrub’s work force.

Racial discrimination in hiring violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Scrub, Inc., Civil Action No. 09 Cc 4228) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; the case was assigned to District Judge Suzanne Conlon. The EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for Scrub’s discrim­ination victims. The agency also seeks injunctive relief, including rightful-place hiring of African Americans, training, and instituting policies, practices and programs which provide for equal employment opportunity for black applicants and workers.

“This employer’s hiring practices systematically screened out numerous qualified black victims, and we are suing to seek justice on their behalf,” EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said.”

John Hendrickson, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago, said, “Assuring the freedom to compete for jobs on a level playing field is one of the fundamental components of the EEOC’s mission. Race discrimination makes free and fair competition impossible, and such discrimination is prohibited by the laws we are charged with enforcing.”

Continue reading "Scrub, Inc., a Chicago Janitorial Services Provider Sued For Racial Discrimination By EEOC" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against Ashley Furniture also known as Phil Vinar Furniture Inc., in Moline Illinois alleging Ashley's discriminated against employees and job applicants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). The lawsuit involves approximately 30 to 35 people including employees and job applicants.The lawsuit alleges Ashley's discriminated against Jacqueline Foster because of sexual harassment and also violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by harassing Foster because of her disability and by refusing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC says Ashleys's retaliated against her and others for complaining about sexual harassment.

The lawsuit claims Ashley's engaged in racial and national origin discriminated against a class of African-American and Hispanic applicants by refusing to hire them because of their race and national origin. There is also an allegation that Ashley's violated the record keeping provision of Title VII by not keeping proper records of applicant and employees races and national origin.

The EEOC office in Chicago files about 30 cases of discrimination a year in Illinois.

The EEOC claims Ashleys violated the ADA by denying Foster and another employee health insurance benefits because of their disabilities, that the store engaged in retaliation against Foster in violation of the ADA by firing her after she engaged in protected activity and that the store violated the ADA by commingling employee medical records and personnel records.

Continue reading "EEOC Sues Ashley Furniture For Sexual Harassment, National Origin and Racial Discrimination" »

The EEOC alleged that Medical Health Group, Inc., violated the Americans with Disabilties Act ("ADA") when it refused to return an employee, Barbara Metzger, to work after she had recovered from breast cancer surgery. Metzger was had been with the group for 25 years.
About one week before her approved medical leave ended, Metzger was called into work on May 31, 2007. She told her employer the she intended to work without interruption while undergoing her remaining chemotherapy sessions and radiation therapy for her cancer.

The practice administrator then cited examples of people she knew whose cancer treatments made them too sick to work. At the meeting, Metzger was presented with a termination letter that stated she was being fired because she was

“currently unable to return to work on a full-time basis. Due to the seriousness of her illness, and extended nature of the treatment required we must exercise our option to permanently fill your position.”

The ADA prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on assumptions and misinformation about a person’s medical condition. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. This trend among employers to discriminate against long time employees who are facing serious medical problems is troubling. When employers are facing serious problems due to a slow down in the economy or other business problem they ask employees to band together and help the company through its' troubles. However when the employee has the problem, they are cast aside like driftwood on the vast ocean withoug regard for the lifetime of service they have given the company.

“A woman who is bravely battling breast cancer has enough of a challenge without having to lose her job because of unlawful discrimination,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC will stand up for the victims of this sort of bias."

Continue reading "EEOC Settles ADA Lawsuit Against Medical Health Group For $125,000" »

Laura Valenziano an 18 year employee of United Healtcare filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") against United Healtcare alleging they discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation and also that they retaliated against her for reporting the discriminatory conduct of her manager. It all started when Valenziano received a new manager and met the manager in person. The new manager began to make inquiries into Valenziano's personal life and ask about her female partner. After these non-job related inquires, Valenziano began to be treated different.

As reported in the Windy City Times, "within two weeks of the performance review, Valenziano was put on corrective action, which meant that she had 30 days to improve whatever had been listed on her evaluation as poor or she faced termination. The mention of a demotion was removed from the copy of the evaluation she received after protesting the corrective action." This is usually how discrimination in the workplace happens. The manager will start to put the employee on some sort of "corrective action" or "improvement plan", shortly after the employee complains about discriminatory conduct.

“It was one of the worst performance evaluations I've ever had. Along with that I received the largest bonus I've ever received,” said Valenziano. “The evaluation mentioned my devotion to the job.”

Continue reading "United Healthcare Sued For Sexual Orientation Discrimination" »

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") settled its age-discrimination lawsuit on behalf of Lawford Goddard, a former teacher at Bay Area Colleges. Goddard applied for an assistant professor's position at San Francisco State, where he had been a part-time lecturer since 1989. He had been teaching at Bay Area colleges since earning his doctorate from Stanford in 1976. A faculty committee placed him among three finalists for the job, but the school's dean chose another candidate.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged the dean told the screening committee he wanted "fresh blood and new ideas" and had made comments about getting rid of "old '60s hippies" faculty members. The lawsuit claimed Goddard was more qualified than the winning candidate for the $65,000-a-year job and had been rejected because of his age, with amounted to age discrimination.

The university denied discriminating and said it had chosen a candidate who was more accomplished in his writings, had a superior overall record and had performed superbly since his hiring. The settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing.

Continue reading "California Teacher Awarded $65,000 Plus Benefits In Age Discrimination Lawsuit" »

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") says The Vail Corp. will pay $80,000 as part of a settlement of a religious and gender discrimination lawsuit. According to the lawsuit an emergency services supervisor, Lisa Marie Cornwell was harassed based on her gender and religion at Vail's Keystone Resort ski area. Cornwell was denied religious accommodations, was treated less favorably than her male colleagues and was fired in retaliation for complaining.

According to the lawsuit Cornwells supervisor Garcia ridiculed Cornwell for asking for scheduling accommodation so that she could attend her preferred religious services, and denied her requests while scheduling lower ranking officers for the shifts she requested. Also, Garcia created and tolerated a sexually hostile work environment where he and other male employees made offensive sexual comments and jokes in the workplace. Cornwell complained to various Keystone managers and human resource staff about the harassment and being scheduled to miss her religious services on Sundays, but no action was taken to resolve the problems. The EEOC alleged that Cornwell was fired in retaliation for her last complaint, made less than ten days before her termination.

“Title VII imposes an affirmative obligation on employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices and beliefs when possible. When Congress added this provision to the statute, they expected employers to cooperate with employees to work out some reasonable accommodation. The environment in this case, where the employee was not only flatly denied accommodation, but also ridiculed for even asking, is unacceptable,” emphasized Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office.

Continue reading "Vail Corp. Settles Gender and Religious Discrimination Lawsuit for $80,000" »

Preferred Labor LLC, doing business as Preferred People Staffing, which is a national employment agency chain agreed to pay $250,000 to settle a gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to the lawsuit, Preferred subjected a class of female employees in its Worcester, Mass., facility to unlawful job segregation on the basis of sex and then retaliated against one woman for complaining. The EEOC said that Preferred restricted women to a narrow range of assignments and complied with discriminatory requests from its clients for male-only temporary employees which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Law of 1964.

“This settlement is a stark reminder to businesses: A customer’s preference to be staffed or served only by workers of a particular gender is never an excuse to engage in illegal sex discrimination,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV approved a consent decree detailing the settlement in which Preferred will pay $250,000 to women who were affected by the discriminatory practices. In addition, if Preferred resumes conducting business as a temporary day labor agency, it will be enjoined from engaging in discrimination or retaliation and will implement policies and procedures prohibiting those practices. Also, the company will have to conduct anti-discrimination training for its employees and managers and take other steps designed to prevent discrimination and retaliation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") settled a federal lawsuit with Swissotel for $90,000 thereby resolving a harassment and wrongful termination lawsuit.

The EEOC charged in its suit that Swissotel violated the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") by permitting two supervisors at its downtown Chicago hotel to harass, then fire the employee because of his developmental disability. The employee was repeatedly called “retarded” by his supervisors.

In addition to paying $90,000, Swissotel is required under the consent decree settling the suit to give ADA training to all of its Chicago-based employees, post a notice of the settlement at its Chicago hotel, and report to the EEOC complaints of harassment or disability discrimination and any actions taken as a result of the complaints.

“

Disability-based harassment, just like other forms of discriminatory workplace harassment, is against federal law and is tolerated by employers at their peril,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney in the EEOC’s Chicago District Office.

Continue reading "EEOC Settles ADA Discrimination Lawsuit with Swissotel of Chicago for $90,000" »

After the horiffic events of September 9, 2001, discrimination against Muslins and people of Middle Eastern descent has increased, including in workplace discrimination--such discrimination is known as discrimination based on national origin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin." 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted Title VII's use of the term "national origin" as referring "to the country where a person was born, or, more broadly, the country from which his or her ancestors came." Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86, 88 (1973). The EEOC guidelines give breadth to define national origin discrimination "as including, but not limited to, the denial of equal employment opportunity because of origin, or because an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group." 29 C.F.R. Section 1606.1.

Another basis for discrimination claims based on national origin can be found under section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. In Illinois, the controlling case is Abdullahi, v. Prada USA Corporation, 520 F. 3d 710 (7th Cir. 2008), whereby the Seventh Circuit held that hostility based on national origin (in this case Iranian) might be based on the fact that Iran is regarded as an enemy of the United States or by racial animosity. In 2008 the EEOC received 10,601 claims of discrimination based on National Origin with cases settling for a total of $25.4 million.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") an Oregon nursery violated federal law when it allowed female employees to be severely sexually harassed and retaliated against the women and male co-workers after they reported the harassment. This is the EEOCs third such case against Oregon agricultural employers. Last October, the EEOC filed lawsuits against Scheimer Farms of Nyassa, Ore., and against Wilcox Farms, Inc., and Wilcox Dairy Farms Group in Aurora, Ore.

The EEOC’s suit charges that sexual harassment and retaliation occurred at the Molalla, Ore., facility of Willamette Tree Wholesale, which operates 140 acres of retail nursery farmland, including a garden supply store and business office. According to the federal agency’s investigation, one worker, a 38-year-old Latina, was taken to remote areas of the farm by the company foreman and raped repeatedly over several months. In addition to threatening her with termination and loss of needed income, the harasser physically coerced her with pruning shears, and made threats against her life as well as against her family. Ultimately, when she refused to be sexually assaulted yet again, she was fired.

Another Latina co-worker, age 35, faced daily sexual innuendos and propositions for sex as well as grabbing and touching. When she and her husband, who also worked there, reported sexual harassment by a crew leader, Willamette Tree failed to investigate or respond to their complaint. The EEOC alleges that the couple and her brother were terminated in retaliation for having reported and opposed sexual harassment.

“All sexual harassment isunacceptable, but what happened hereis unspeakable,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “This shows how dangerous a situation can become when employers are hostile to workers' rights andsexual harassment goes unchecked. There simply is no excuse for any employer tolerating this sort of worker abuse, and enough is enough."

Continue reading "Willamette Tree Wholesaler Sued For Sexual Harassment and Retaliation by EEOC" »

Simon Property Group, Inc., a nationwide commercial property management company, violated federal law by subjecting Hispanic employees to national origin discrimination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charges in a lawsuit. Simon Property Group owns and/or manages various shopping malls throughout the country, including the Forum Shops at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, where the EEOC said the discriminatory acts took place.

According to the lawsuit, a class of Hispanic housekeepers were subjected to a hostile work environment while performing custodial and janitorial duties at the Forum Shops. The harass­ment began in 2005, when the housekeeping shift lead was hired, and ended when he was terminated for reasons related to the harassment. The housekeeping shift lead referred to housekeepers and other Latino employees as “wetbacks,” “tacos,” and “burritos” and repeatedly told them to “go back to Mexico” – among other things. He also told the Latinos that Mexicans have “inferior intelligence and capability in comparison to whites, and that is why whites are in power.”

EEOC Regional Attorney Anna Park of the Los Angeles District Office, which has jurisdiction for southern Nevada, said, “The abuse of Latino workers will not be tolerated by the EEOC.

Continue reading "EEOC Files National Origin Lawsuit Against Simon Property Group " »

The University of Phoenix will pay former employee Latrish Elaine Tarhini $32,500 as part of a settlement of a pregnancy discrimination claim. Tarhini, who worked as enrollment counselor at the school’s Houston campus, claimed that University of Phoenix management said she would not be in line for a promotion because she made an earlier pregnancy discrimination claim against the Phoenix-based company and its parent, Apollo Group Inc. This is a form of retaliation and is unlawful. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against the University of Phoenix on behalf of Tarhini in September 2008 in federal court, claiming the university violated retaliation statutes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is a violation of federal law to discriminate against employees who previously filed discrimination claims against their employers.

In the settlement, the University of Phoenix admitted no wrongdoing or liability, according to a statement provided to the Phoenix Business Journal. The “University of Phoenix is pleased to have resolved this matter. We are dedicated to providing a work environment in which our employees are treated fairly and with respect, and are recognized and rewarded based on their accomplishments. University of Phoenix is committed to providing equal opportunity in all aspects of employment and does not tolerate discrimination or harassment of any kind,” the university statement read.

Earlier this month, a $375,500 settlement was reached in a civil lawsuit against Harrison County Sheriff Mike Deatrick and Harrision County stemming from the sexual harassment allegations. The settlement requires the county to pay for training for sheriff's department employees, including jail officers, in an effort to avert future employment discrimination. Harrision County is in Indiana.

Under the settlement agreement also known as a consent decree, inn addition to the cash settlement, the decree would require the department to hire a federal monitor to oversee its anti-discrimination practices for a period of two years and to conduct annual equal employment opportunity.

Deanna Decker and Melissa Graham, who had worked as dispatchers, filed their initial complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in May 2008. Decker, 39, said in the complaint that the sheriff touched her breasts on numerous occasions and once put his hands down her pants. Graham said Deatrick left sexually derogatory messages on her personal cell phone and made similar remarks in person.
In a later complaint, both women said Deatrick engaged in retaliation after the first complaint in part by staring at the women while brandishing his drawn gun.

United States District Judge Anderson ruled that a series of sexually offensive comments made to three women employed by SkyWest Airlines, Inc., as alleged by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in a lawsuit could constitute actionable sexual harassment. SkyWest filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was rejected by the Court. In denying defendant SkyWest's motion for summary judgment, the court said that a reasonable jury "could find the comments to be 'uninvited sexual solicitations' and 'obscene language' rather than merely vulgar banter."

In its lawsuit EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., N.D. Ill. No 07 C 4925, the EEOC alleges that SkyWest discriminated against three former employees by subjecting them to sexual harassment by a co-worker and then firing them in retaliation for complaining about the hostile work environment, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The court noted that between six and eight offensive remarks were made to each of the women and included the speaker's statements,

"that he wished he could put his mouth on her breasts" and "that he wanted to have sex with her and get between her thighs."

"We find that a reasonable fact finder could find that these comments to be severe enough to constitute 'uninvited sexual solicitations' and 'obscene language,' rather than merely vulgar banter."

Continue reading "SkyWest Airlines Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Going To Trial" »

United Parcel Service ("UPS") will offer monetary damages and religious accommodations to a 19-year employee at UPS’s Bartlett, Tenn., facility to resolve a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The lawsuit, EEOC v. UPS, Inc. (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02576 filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee), charged UPS violated federal law by refusing to accommodate the religious beliefs of one of its drivers and trying to force him to work past sundown on his Sabbath, which violates his tenets as a member of the United Church of God.

Religious discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandates that sincerely held religious beliefs of employees must be accommodated by employers as long as it does not cause an undue hardship on the company. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. UPS denied that it engaged in discrimination against the employee.

“Religious discrimination is not to be taken lightly,” said Faye Williams, the EEOC’s regional attorney for its Memphis District, which covers Tennessee, Arkansas and Northern Mississippi. “All employers must respond reasonably to an employee’s religious accommodation requests.”

Religious discrimination charge filings reported to EEOC offices nationwide have substantially increased from 1,388 in Fiscal Year 1992 to 3,273 in FY 2008.

Continue reading "United Parcel Service Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit for $23,000" »

The Vail Corporation operators of ski resorts in Vail and Keystone, Colo., will pay $80,000 and furnish other relief to settle a religious and gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

According to the lawsuit, EEOC v. The Vail Corporation, 07-cv-02035-REB-KLM, Lisa Marie Cornwell, an emergency services supervisor at the Keystone Resort, was subjected to harassment based on her Christian religion and her gender, denied religious accommodation and treated less favorably than her male colleagues. The EEOC said that Cornwell’s supervisor, Rick Garcia, forbade her and another Christian employee from even discussing their Christian beliefs with one another while at work, and would not allow them to listen to Christian music while on duty, because it might offend other employees, but had no similar restrictions on music with profanity or lyrics promoting violence against women, which were offensive to Cornwell.

EEOC Denver Field Director Nancy Sienko added, “Claims of religious discrimination have increased by more than 80 percent in the last ten years.

Additionally, according to the EEOC, Garcia ridiculed Cornwell for asking for scheduling accommodation so that she could attend her preferred religious services, and denied her requests while scheduling lower ranking officers for the shifts she requested. Also, Garcia created and tolerated a hostile work environment where he and other male employees made offensive sexual comments and jokes in the workplace and subjected Cornwell to sexual harassment, the EEOC alleged.

Cornwell complained to various Keystone managers and human resource staff about the harassment and being scheduled to miss her religious services on Sundays, but no action was taken to resolve the problems. EEOC alleged that Cornwell was fired in retaliation for her last complaint, made less than ten days before her termination.

Continue reading "Vail Corporation Pays $80,000 To Settle Religious and Gender Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Federal District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer entered a consent decree resolving two lawsuits against Chateau Del Mar, Inc. and Hickory Properties, Inc., known as Hickory Hills Country Club. Under the decree, the defendants are required pay $590,000, including attorneys’ fees, to a class of women who endured a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation, and, in addition, up to another $100,000 to African American applicants who were denied hire because of their race, also known as racial discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") lawsuit, filed on March 25, 2008 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleged that the principal and manager of the facility sexually harassed a class of women employees over a period of years and refused to hire African American applicants. Female employees were called derogatory names and belittled as well as enduring sexual advances and, in some instances, physical assaults.

Shortly after three of the women filed their own private federal lawsuit for sexual harassment on October 24, 2007 (captioned Curry, Knable, & Raddatz v. Chateau Del Mar, Inc., Steven Gianakas, and Hickory Properties, Inc., No. 07 C 6021), Chateau Del Mar and Steven Gianakas sued them in Illinois state court. Their seven-count complaint alleged a wide variety of claimed wrongs, including, but not limited to, physical and mental injuries, “tripping and pushing Gianakas,” breach of fiduciary duty, and destroying property. (Chateau Del Mar and Steven P. Gianakas v. Knable, et al, Circuit Court of Cook County No. 2007L012463.)

“This serious and ongoing harassment of women was unconscionable enough. Then these defendants made a bad situation worse by punishing the victims for engaging in protected activity,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “This kind of retaliation is plainly illegal, even if it is cleverly disguised as a supposedly legitimate lawsuit.”

An EEOC investigation determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that the women were sued because they exercised their federally protected rights to protest discrimination. The circuit court of Cook County dismissed the lawsuit Chateau Del Mar and Gianakas had filed. Thereafter, the EEOC filed a second lawsuit on September 22, 2008 against Chateau Del Mar for retaliation. The three individual private plaintiffs intervened in the EEOC’s retaliation case, and all three suits were docketed as related cases before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer.

Continue reading "Hickory Hills Country Club To Pay $690,000 To Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment, Retaliation and Racial Discrimination Lawsuit" »

A Phoenix-based international military contractor, Simula, which is owned by BAE Systems will pay $110,000 and furnish other relief to settle lawsuit charging gender discrimination, age discrimination and retaliation filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC’s suit (Case No. 2:07-CV-01656-PHX-ECV) in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona charged that Simula, Inc. discriminated against temporary employees Margaret Chavez, Laura Box, and Christine Hanson by paying them less than male employees who performed the same job duties and not making them permanent employees. The EEOC also charged that Simula discriminated against Chavez on the basis of her age and ended Box’s temporary employment in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment.

"Employers cannot take advantage of temporary employees by denying them a work environment free of gender and age discrimination and retaliation,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Federal law protects both permanent and temporary employees from discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit employment discrimination based on age, race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy or sexual harassment) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation.

Continue reading "Simula Settles EEOC Gender and Retaliation Case For $110,000" »

A construction contractor operating at Texas refineries will pay $175,000 and agreed to a decree which enjoins Brand from discriminating against employees based on sex or retaliating against employees for opposing unlawful employment practices. It also provides for the implementation of an effective anti-discrimination policy and anti-discrimination training for Brand’s employees.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged Brand Energy Solutions, L.L.C., formerly known as Brand Scaffold Builders, L.L.C., with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting a female employee to sexual harassment and retaliation. The agency said that an operations manager employed by Brand at a Corpus Christi refinery sexually harassed a female timekeeper whom he supervised. The sexual harassment included subjecting her to repeated unwelcome physical contact, sexual advances and comments; placing lurid images on her work computer; and threatening and intimidating behavior such as throwing objects at her and locking her in a trailer. According to the lawsuit, the woman was forced to quit her job when Brand Scaffold failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action to address the harassment, as the law requires.

Further, the EEOC charged, Brand retaliated against the woman for complaining about the abuse. After she complained to management she was removed from her work site, placed directly in the harasser's office and was shunned by the other employees. She was told by co-workers and at least one Brand manager that whistleblowers never keep their jobs.

“The law requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent such sexual harassment,” said David Rivela, senior trial attorney of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office.

To settle a retaliaion lawsuit the University of Phoenix, Inc. will pay $32,500 and ensure managers and employees are trained in complying with laws prohibiting employment discrimination and retaliation. It also requires a notice be issued to Tarhini’s former supervisor on the EEOC’s allegations of retaliation, and that the university provide the agency with annual reports reflecting any retaliation complaints with Title VII implications.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, filed in September 2008 (C.A. 4:08-cv-02890 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division), charged that Latrish Elaine Tarhini, an enrollment counselor at the University of Phoenix’s Houston campus, applied for the company’s leadership development program and for a position as a team lead. After she was not selected for either, the EEOC said, Tarhini learned that management had stated she would never be a manager or considered for management because of her earlier pregnancy discrimination charge against the company.

“Denying an employee training opportunities in retaliation for having previously filed a discrimination charge violates federal law as much as a retaliatory discharge,” said Kathy D. Boutchee, the EEOC senior trial attorney in charge of the case."

Providence Alaska Medical Center will pay $220,000 and revise its policies, provide training on discrimination and retaliation for operating room employees, and file regular reports with the EEOC for monitoring in addition to other injunctive relief as part of a settlement of an age discrimination lawsuit on behalf of five workers laid off and denied rehire because of their age.

The EEOC charged that in February 2005, Providence laid off and refused to rehire longtime employees Gola Anderson, Lawrence Harris, Milagros Lopez, Rebecca Petrie and Canijie Sadiku, following a restructuring of the hospital’s operating room. The five employees had devoted between 11 and 24 years of their careers as surgery aides and anesthesia technicians to Providence and all had hoped to retire from Providence one day. The EEOC said that the five employees, ages between 46 and 56, lost their jobs due to their age, and were replaced by new hires in their twenties and thirties.

"Employers have a duty to ensure that they do not run afoul of the law when they restructure their workforce,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo. “We commend Providence for working cooperatively to resolve this lawsuit and believe that the relief provided in the consent decree will prevent something like this from happening in the future.”

Continue reading "Providence Alaska Medical Center to pay $220,000 To Settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit " »

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") settled a gender discrimination lawsuit for $1.45 millinois and significant equitable relief against Schott North America, a multinational developer and manufacturer of special glass and specialty materials, components and systems, based in Elmsford, N.Y. In addition to the $1.45 million in monetary relief, the three-year consent decree provides substantial equitable relief, including: injunctive relief enjoining Schott from engaging in unlawful discrimination under Title VII or retaliation; annual anti-discrimination training of all supervisors and managers at the Duryea, Pa. facility; and the posting of a notice about the settlement.

The EEOC charged that Schott laid off women because of their sex after a company reorganization in October 2004 of its specialty glass plant in Duryea, Pa. Prior to the reorganization, glass production at the plant was generally divided into two parts, the “hot end” and the “cold end”; 95.3% of the hot-end workers were male and 76.6% of the cold-end workers were female.

As part of the reorganization, the company created a new position of “melting line operator” and used a “skills matrix” to determine who would obtain these new positions. The glass company laid off employees whom it did not select for the melting line operator position. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that the skills matrix system benefited male employees, did not accurately measure the skills truly needed to perform the melting line operator job and had an adverse impact on female applicants – who were selected for layoff at a significantly higher rate than male employees. The EEOC alleged six female employees were not selected for melting line operator positions and were laid off because of their sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said, “This significant settlement demonstrates the EEOC's commitment to securing meaningful relief for victims of systemic sex discrimination.”

Continue reading "Schott North America Must Pay $1.45 To Settle Gender Discrimination Lawsuit" »

An eight person federal jury has returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in a sexual harassment lawsuit against AutoZone, Inc., the Memphis, Tenn.-based national auto parts retail giant. The jury ruled that AutoZone violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting employee Stacy Wing to a sexually hostile work environment. Wing complained about the sexual harassment, but AutoZone failed to take immediate and appropriate action to stop it.

The evidence presented at trial by the EEOC showed that Wing was subjected to egregious sexual harassment when she worked at the Mesa, Ariz.-based AutoZone in 2003. The EEOC presented evidence that the store manager repeatedly forced Wing’s head down to his genitals and made crude sexual remarks to her. At least one incident was caught on the store’s video camera, but AutoZone maintained it lost the video prior to trial, along with all records of Wing’s complaints and the “investigation” AutoZone claims it conducted.

“I am grateful to the EEOC for believing in this case and seeking justice on my behalf,” Wing said after the trial. “Without the EEOC, this type of behavior would go unchecked by those employers who do not care or do not understand how devastating sexual harassment can be to someone’s life.”

Continue reading "Autozone Inc. To Pay $65,000 For Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

Brooks Run Mining Company and staffing firm Neal & Associates will pay $115,000 to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") According to the lawsuit, women security guards as a class were discriminated against because of their gender. The EEOC alleged the women complained about sexual harassment, then retaliated against as they were prevented either by layoffs or transfers from working at the Brooks Run Cucumber mine site, although those security jobs were available to men.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Case No. 5:08-cv-0071) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

"Too often, women working in non-traditional fields suffer this kind of discrimination,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC will fight to protect the rights of all workers to be free from discrimination based on gender and free from retribution for asserting that right.”

The three-year consent decree settling the lawsuit gives $115,000 to three women, all former security guards at the Cucumber mine site. In addition to monetary relief, the decree provides for significant remedial relief, including promoting supervisor accountability. The settlement also requires yearly training for all management staff on employee rights and employer obligations under federal and state anti-discrimination laws, with an emphasis on sex discrimination.

Continue reading "Brooks Run Mining Co. and Neal & Associates Settle EEOC Gender Discrimination Lawsuit For $115,000" »

National retail giant Dillard’s, Inc., will pay $110,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit involving two male employees. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleged that the company permitted a sexually hostile work environment for men at its Fashion Square Mall store in Orlando, Florida.

The EEOC alleged that a male supervisor engaged in verbal and physical sexual harassment of a male sales associate and a young dockworker when the supervisor exposed himself, propositioned the men, and made sexually explicit and derogatory comments. According to the lawsuit Dillard’s ignored complaints about the male supervisor. Under the terms of the settlement the company admitted no wrongdoing.

“The EEOC will hold corporate America accountable for failing to prevent and correct employment discrimination,” said Commission Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

Continue reading "Dillard's Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $110,000" »

West Front Street Foods, a North Carolina supermarket has agreed to pay $30,000 to settle an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") lawsuit involving a white member of staff being allegedly racially discriminated against.

The EEOC alleged that West Front Street Foods fired a white, non-Hispanic meat cutter, from a Compare Foods supermarket in Statesville because of his race and national origin and then replaced him with a Hispanic worker.

Along with paying $30,000, West Front Street Foods shall distribute a formal, written anti-discrimination policy; provide periodic training to all its employees on the policy and on federal law's prohibition against national origin and race discrimination; and send periodic reports to the EEOC concerning employees who are fired or resign.

Duane Reade with more than 200 drugstores in the New York area, agreed to pay $240,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging a pattern of sexual harassment and retaliation at one of its Bronx stores. According to the lawsuit employees faced sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination and employees who complained and filed discrimination charges were retaliated against by being subjected to further harassment by supervisors.

The lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan after the commission tried to reach a voluntary settlement with Duane Reade. “This settlement achieves the EEOC's objectives by providing appropriate relief to the victims of sexual harassment while implementing appropriate measures to prevent this kind of violation in the future,” said Spencer H. Lewis, director of the commission’s New York district office. In addition to money damages, the suit had sought improvements in training and other policies.

“The store manager, Madiaw Diaw, frequently made vulgar remarks about women’s private parts, sexually propositioned female employees, made lewd comments about their pregnancies and bodies, assigned unfavorable job duties to pregnant employees and repeatedly grabbed female employees, including grabbing their buttocks,” the EEOC said in a statement.

Continue reading "Drugstore Chain Settles Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit for $240,000" »

A Clemmons North Carolina Burger King will pay $85,000 to Kathleen Joyner, a teenage employee, who was subject to unwanted touching, sexual advances and requests for sexual favors from the store’s general manager. When Joyner complained about the behavior to assistant managers, they did nothing. As part of the sexual harassment settlement, Burger King will provide sexual harassment training to its supervisors and post its sexual harassment policy in the store. The policy will give employees specific information about how they can file complaints with management.

Although the title suggests damages in a sexual harassment case, these damages are also available in most discrimination cases.
1. Economic Damages--consist of back and front pay plus incidentals. Included in this calculation are benefits. Back pay is the amount of money equal to wages an employee would have earned, including all benefits from the date of discharge through the date of final judgment. Front pay is an amount of money equal to wages and benefits the employee will lose in the future because of a lower paying job or no job at all. Incidentals may be relocation costs, education costs for retraining and costs for tools if required at a new position.

2. Emotional Distress Damages--There is new specific formula for this calculation and there are many factors to consider including, the credibility of the employee, length of employment, believeability of witnesses, prior or pre-existing similar injuries, nature and extent of counseling or other medical treatment, and strength of the underlying case.

3. Punitive Damages--Under Title VII and ADA violations punitive damages may be awarded. In order to recover the employee must prove the employer engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the employee, but also that liability for the punitive damages should be imputed to the employer.

4. Attorneys' Fees--All federal anti discrimination statutes and those in Illinois provide for the recovery of attorney fees by the prevailing party. Discretion as to the amount is up to the Judge.

Continue reading "Damages In A Sexual Harassment Case" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed suit against CRST Van Expedited in September 2007 on behalf of 265 former employees, alleging it failed to protect women driving on two-driver teams from unwelcome sexual conduct and harassment from male drivers and trainers. Chief Judge Linda Reade last week dismissed the EEOC's claim that CRST had a "pattern or practice" of tolerating sexual harassment. However Judge Reade acknowledged 146 female drivers "variously suffered physical, mental and/or emotional abuse at the hands of their male co-drivers and lead drivers." Additionally the Judge said there was evidence of male drivers crawling into women's bunks uninvited, ordering women off trucks and tossing their belongings out of cabs, and of male drivers punching, kicking, grabbing, fondling and raping female drivers.

According to the Judge, CRST provided evidence that it has a policy against sexual harassment, has multiple channels for reporting sexual harassment, and has acted on sexual harassment claims. CRST dismissed at least one driver for sexual harassment and in dozens of cases, it made sure some males no longer were teamed with female drivers.

I recently came across a sexual harassment case involving a multi-international company who does business in Illinois. The Illinois employee was required to sign various documents as part of the employment process, including a document whereby the employee was giving up her rights to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") and instead agreeing to go through mediation with some third party. Of course the employee did not have an opportunity to negotiate this issue and in fact it was a "take it" or "leave it" approach by the company. Either sign all the documents in front of you or work somewhere else.

I believe this policy is unconstitutional, in clear violation of both state and federal law and may afford employees of this company additional causes of action against the corporation including fraud, violation of 740 ILCS 23 the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, and violation of the Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 among others.

For example in Illinois the five elements of fraud are:

1. A material misrepresentation of a presently exisiting or past fact;
2. Knowledge by the defendant of its falsity or a reckless disregard as to whether it is true or false;
3. Intention that the other person rely on the statement;
4. Justifiable or reasonable reliance thereon by the other person; and
5. Resulting damage.

Clearly, subjecting an employee to sign away his/her rights is a misrepresentation and against the public policy of Illinois. If you have been forced to sign such an agreement you may have a remedy against your employer.

A case involving 149 Hispanic warehouse workes has been settled. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and B & H Foto and Electronics Corp. ("B & H") agreed to resolve a national origin discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC on behalf of 149 Hispanic warehouse workers at one of the largest retail sellers of photographic, computer and electronic equipment in New York. B&H will pay $4.3 million to settle the case.

The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that B & H paid Hispanic workers in its warehouses in Manhattan and Brooklyn less than non-Hispanic workers and failed to promote them or provide health benefits because of their national origin. Along with the settlement, the parties agreed to injunctive relief requiring B & H to equalize the wages of Hispanic employees to their non-Hispanic coworkers, conduct employer training, adopt an anti-discrimination policy, post EEOC notices, report to the EEOC, and to be monitored by the EEOC for the next five years.

Continue reading "Hispanic Workers Awarded $4.3 Millinion in Discrimination Case" »

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, Roy E. Dreshman Jr., 55, of Munhall, Allegheny County, alleges the sexual harassment began two months after he was hired as a nurse at Henry Clay Villa in Markleysburg in 1997. He alleges he was continuously propositioned, referred to as a "pretty boy" and subjected to unsolicited touching until he was terminated in 2008. Dreshman, a former stripper, indicated he told no one of his work as a stripper when he was hired, but it was made public when two co-workers recognized him. After that revelation, employees asked for lap dances, and some employees passed around photos of Dreshman as a dancer.

Dreshman alleged management retaliated against him when he complained, instead of initiating an investigation. The retaliation escalated when he threatened to file the EEOC complaint, ultimately resulting in his termination. Dreshman is seeking back pay, compensation for lost benefits and compensatory damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress.

"Residents made comments like: 'Oh, my gosh, you are one of them go-go boys,'" wrote Dreshman in the EEOC complaint.

Nordstrom, Inc. will pay $292,500 to 10 former employees and furnish other remedial measures to settle a harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC had alleged that the department store manager harassed Hispanic and black employees based on their national origin, engaged in racial discrimination and retaliated against those who complained about the harassment.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, an alterations department manager at Nordstrom complained that she "hate[d] Hispanics," and that Hispanics were "lazy" and "ignorant." Hispanic tailors were chastised by the alterations manager for speaking to each other in Spanish. The same manager made other derogatory remarks such as "I don't like blacks" and "you're black, you stink." These types of comments are a clear violation of federal law and will always subject a company to liability. Harassment based on national origin, race, and color violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"Employers must act swiftly to correct harassment and prevent abusive conduct," said EEOC Regional Attorney Nora E. Curtin. "Instead of dealing with the despicable racial and ethnic comments, Nordstrom management allowed the harasser to retaliate against the employees for complaining."

Continue reading " Nordstrom Pays $292,500 To Settle EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Skilled Healthcare Group will pay up to $450,000 and offer remedial relief to settle a lawsuit alleging discrimination in penalizing the company's Hispanic workers in California and Texas for speaking Spanish in their workplaces. The EEOC Lawsuit alleged Hispanic employees at the company's nursing homes and assisted living facilities were subjected to harassment; and to different terms and conditions of employment, promotion, compensation and treatment because of an English-only rule enforced only against Hispanics, which is a form of racial discrimination.

The EEOC found that 53 current and former Hispanic workers were subjected to the different treatment and harassment. The EEOC said some workers were prohibited from speaking Spanish to Spanish-speaking residents of the facilities and were disciplined for speaking Spanish in the parking lots while on breaks.

"As our country's workforce becomes increasingly diverse, employers must be vigilant in ensuring that if English-only rules are necessary, they are not discriminatory," EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

Continue reading "Skilled Healthcare Group Pays $450,000 To Settle EEOC Lawsuit Over Discrimination" »

ABC Financial Services will pay $20,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that ABC Financial Services fired Reshma Bandaru because she was pregnant. Bandaru was hired as a data entry clerk and placed into a four-week training program at the company's Sherwood facility after the training, employees were required to take a test. Approximately one week after she began the training, Bandaru was hospitalized for a condition unrelated to her pregnancy and missed a day and a half from the training.

The company then fired her because she had missed work and would need further leave to have her baby. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy discrimination). Pregnancy discrimination charge filings with the EEOC have increased substantially over the last ten years from 4,219 in fiscal year 1998 to 6,285 in fiscal year 2008.

"Women should not be penalized for choosing to have a family," said Regional Attorney Faye A. Williams of the EEOC's Memphis District Office.

Continue reading "ABC Financial Services Pays $20,000 To Settle EEOC Lawsuit" »

Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores, Inc. will pay $255,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit which was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The lawsuit alleged Cracker Barrel allowed its general manager, managers, and other male employees to subject a class of women at its Cedar Bluff, Tenn., location to sexual harassment and retaliated. According to the EEOC the general managers, other managers and male employees made repeated and unwanted sexual jokes, and lewd remarks. The women complained to the managers and Cracker Barrel's 800 number complaint line but the company failed to take action to stop the harassment, according to the EEOC. As a result of complaining about the sexual harassment, the managers moved the complaining women to areas of the restaurant where tips were low in retaliation for reporting the sexual harassment.

Part of the settlement requires the company to conduct annual training on sexual harassment and retaliation for all employees at the restaurant for three years. Cracker Barrel must also maintain and report complaints of harassment received for three years and post its sexual harassment policy, including its 800 hotline number for reporting such claims according to the Tennessean.com

Cracker Barrel spokeswoman Julie Davis said the restaurant chain decided to settle the situation to maintain a good working relationship with the EEOC.

"Cracker Barrel Old Country Store and the EEOC share the same goal in this matter: a workplace that is free of harassment," Davis said

Under federal law (Title VII), retaliation occurs when an employee is fired or has his/her terms and conditions of work changed as a result of making a formal complaint of discrimination. In this case moving the women to areas of the restaurant where tips were low was a change of the working condition.

The Star Tribune will pay $325,000 to settle a long-running sexual harassment case with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") affecting as many as 78 female mailroom workers. The Star Tribune denied wrongdoing and said it settled to avoid costlier litigation. The paper reported Thursday that it had also agreed to employ a supervisor on every mail room shift, provide training, prohibit harassment and retaliation, and make a human resources staffer specifically responsible.

The case dates from August 2005, before current owners Avista Capital Partners took over, but continued during the current regime. Two women alleged that they were "subject to sexist slurs, being sworn at, and having sex-based comments made to them. Co-workers would tell them to put up with it because they were working in the 'male room,'" according to a federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suit filed in September 2008.

EEOC litigator Laurie Vasichek says the settlement breaks down as follows:

• Three women who ultimately filed charges with the EEOC will split $175,000.

• Another 40 women who filed claims will split $90,000.

• Those 40 women, plus as many as 35 who sign waivers, will receive $800 each, up to $60,000. If fewer than 60 total sign up, they'll receive $530 each, up to $40,000.

Any unspent balance in the $40,000 or $60,000 will not be returned to the Star Tribune. Instead, it will go to a charity of the EEOC's choice.

Continue reading "78 Star Tribune Women Split $325,000 in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

Leanne Siri the highest-ranking civilian woman at Dallas Fire-Rescue ("DFR") filed a federal lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that she was demoted recently after complaining about lewd e-mails and sexual harassment from higher-ups.
Attorney Aaron Ramirez is representing another woman at DFR who filed a similar lawsuit saying a superior "...would loudly carry on all sorts of graphic and inappropriate sexual conversations with anyone who would listen." "I don't think it's isolated at all,” said Ramirez. “We have three clients currently right now. I know there's a fourth one that came out yesterday. We've talked to at least five or six other women."

Ramirez said another female firefighter he represents filed an EEOC complaint alleging men urinated on her bedding and placed straight pins in it.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is suing a southwestern Illinois Elks Lodge, alleging three board members sexually harassed three female bartenders. In its lawsuit (Case No. 3:09-cv-00200), filed in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis, Illinois, the EEOC claims that Vicki Vickers, Elizabeth Stemm, and Jackie Davidson (formerly Jackie Atteberry at the time of her employment by defendant) were subjected to unlawful sexual harassment while working at Elks Lodge No. 954 by three members of the Elks’ board of trustees on numerous occasions in 2005 and 2006.

The abuse, which the EEOC said was perpetrated by trustees Joe Ritter, Allen Dunham and Dennis Prough, included repeated unwelcome sexual advances and touching, and sexually explicit comments. The lawsuit said that after victims complained about the conduct, their work hours were cut, they were assigned the least desirable shifts, and they were subjected to threats and other abusive verbal comments. Davidson was terminated and a hostile work environment ensued in which Vickers was compelled to resign.

“

Employers have an absolute duty to prevent their employees from becoming the object of sexual abuse by people who are in a position of authority,” said James R. Neely, Jr., district director of the EEOC's St. Louis District Office

Adelphi University agreed to salary hikes and payments totaling more than $300,000 to several female professors as part of a settlement of a federal gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The settlement calls for Adelphi to pay 37 women a total of $305,889 and give raises to 30 of them and also includes monitoring and training on anti-discrimination laws for three years.

The lawsuit, filed in 2007 on behalf of Judith Cohen, an education professor who is also an attorney, alleged that Adelphi was paying female professors less than male professors of the same rank. What happened at Adelphi is commonly referred to as a glass ceiling. In 1995, the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission issued its report on the employment of women at the highest levels of business. The Commission found that within Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 companies, 95-97% of senior managers were male.

"Working women should never be shortchanged by receiving unequal pay for performing equal work," Stuart J. Ishimaru, acting chairman of the EEOC, said

Continue reading "Adelphi University Pays $300,000 To Settle Gender Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Basic Energy Services, L.P. agreed to pay $250,000 and consented to substantial injunctive relief to settle a sex discrimination and retaliation suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), the agency announced today. The EEOC charged in its suit that the Midland, Texas-based company, a major oil well servicing contractor, had discriminated against a former field attendant because of her sex and then fired her because she complained about a discriminatory promotion denial and sexual harassment.

It is alleged that Basic Energy Services denied Tawnya Smith, who worked for the company as a field disposal attendant, a promotion to field supervisor in 2006 because of her gender. Further, the EEOC asserted, Smith also was subjected to months of sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor, Roger Caldwell. After Smith filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and made an internal complaint about the sexual harassment, the suit said, the company terminated her in March 2007 in retaliation.

The EEOC’s suit was resolved by a consent decree, which was signed by Judge Tom Stagg on March 6, 2009 and entered into the record of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on March 6, 2009.

.

Continue reading "Basic Energy Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit For $250,000" »

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC)' settled its lawsuit with Wheeler Construction, Inc., a Phoenix-based construction company for $325,000 and other relief on behalf of Mexican workers. The lawsuit was based on discrimination because of national origin, harassment and retaliation.

The EEOC’s complaint alleged that employees Leonard Lopez and Juan Campos were subjected to harassment based on their national origin (Mexican) and retaliation for complaining about it. The harassment included comments by a supervisor referring to employees as “wetbacks” and “s--cs” and telling Latino employees to “go back to Mexico.” Lopez was born and raised in Glendale, Ariz., and had 20 years of service with Wheeler Construction at the time of the harassment. When Lopez complained to management about the harassment he was fired.

Campos also attempted to complain about the harassment and Wheeler failed to take any action to address it. After an EEOC investigation, the agency found that two additional employees alerted management of the discrimination and no action was taken.

Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the Phoenix District Office, said, “The fact that these employees work at a construction site is no excuse for the ethnic slurs that were used against Mr. Lopez and Mr. Campos.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") reached a settlement for $110,000 with TJX Companies Inc. (nyse: TJX - news - people ), which does business as Marshalls, T.J. Maxx and other stores regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit against a Marshalls store in North Carolina. The lawsuit alleged a male supervisor at a Marshalls store in Jacksonville of subjecting at least two women to unwelcome sexual comments, gestures and touching and that company management knew or should have known and failed to take corrective action.

A Hostile Work Environment existed as a result of the failure by management to take action to stop the sexual harassment. Once management is on actual notice of the sexual harassment, they must take steps to immediately stop the harassment--and they didn't.

In a statement, the company said the settlement isn't an admission of guilt but rather a decision that "enables the company to move forward."

First Street Surgical Center, L.P. and First Surgical Partners, LLC agreed to pay $290,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC alleged that First Street Surgical Center, L.P. and First Surgical Partners, LLC subjected several female workers at their Bellaire, Texas, facility to a sexually hostile work environment and that First Street retaliated against women who complained about the unlawful conduct, which is retaliation.

According to the lawsuit a nurse who made a written complaint against the male supervisor was fired the following day and another woman was given a poor evaluation because she complained about the sexual harassment. Additionally, the male nurse made unwanted sexual advances and sexual jokes and innuendos to female colleagues and subordinates.

Binghamton University fundraiser Elizabeth Williams accused Jason Siegel, a senior associate athletic director, and the other Binghamton athletics administrator, Chris Lewis, of egregious acts of sexual misconduct in her sexual harassment complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Williams said she decided to come forward when harassing behavior was directed at her and others, including graduate assistants and interns, in front of groups of people.

BU President Lois B. DeFleur said Thursday the university doesn't tolerate harassment of any kind, adding that fostering a respectful and professional environment on campus is among the university's fundamental values, according to the New York Times. According to the complaint, Williams was hired in March 2008 as the university’s regional director of major gifts, and she switched to raising money for the athletic department in January.

She said the harassment began her first day in the department, when she was told by Lewis that she needed to engage a donor at a Binghamton game because he liked “chesty, loudmouthed women.”

One week later, Williams said, she attended a dinner in New York with Siegel, Lewis and major donors from a fraternity. Soon after dinner began, she said, a donor began putting $100 bills on the table and asked her to tell him to stop when there were enough there for her to sleep with him. Williams claims this created a hostile work environment.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment complaint filed with EEOC at Binghamton" »

Four night-shift servers, Paula Michelle Clark, Sandy McEwen, Ina Cowan and Tammy Walker who worked at the Waffle House were awarded a $45,000 judgment against parent company SouthEast Waffles, LLC, for alleged sexual harassment by a night cook. The women also alleged that management did not take their complaints seriously and did not stop the harassment. The complaint was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and alleged sexual harassment, a hostile work environment and retaliation.

A federal judge in the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy action ordered SouthEast Waffles to allow the discrimination claim filed on behalf of the women to continue despite the bankruptcy action by the company. Under terms of a three-year consent decree, SouthEast Waffles cannot subject women employees to sexual harassment, and it must undertake anti-discrimination training, as well as report to the EEOC any similar complaints during the agreed-upon consent period.

The four women claim cook and third-shift boss John Norman touched them inappropriately, made unwanted sexual advances and requests for sexual activity.

Discrimination claims filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") last year rose to the highest in the agency’s 44-year history. Many believe this is a result of last years Supreme Court ruling that changed the way complaints may be filed. The EEOC said 95,402 claims were filed during 2008 which represented a 15 percent increase from 2007. Of the EEOC's total claims more than 25 percent contained an allegation of age discrimination while more than 34 percent included complaints of retaliation.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that workers need not file a formal complaint with the EEOC before suing an employer for age discrimination. The EEOC said it recovered $376 million for claimants last year as it filed 290 new lawsuits and resolved 339 suits and 81,081 non-litigation claims.

“Older workers generally cost more,” consequently, they’ve become job-cut targets, said the lawyer, a principal of Hannafan & Hannafan Ltd. “The companies are probably discriminating.”

Filing a discrimination claim can be a job-defense tactic, Sternberg, a partner at St. Louis-based Thompson Coburn LLP, said. “The law doesn’t have a fairness requirement, one has to translate that feeling of unfairness to unfairness based on a protected characteristic,” such as age reports bloomberg.com

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Claims Highest In History According To The EEOC " »

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a federal lawsuit against Elks Lodge No. 954 in Jerseyville, accusing the group of violating federal law by sexually harassing three female bartenders and then taking reprisals against them when they complained, also known as retaliation. The EEOC alleges Vicki Vickers, Elizabeth Stemm and Jackie Davidson were subjected to unlawful sexual harassment by three members of the Elks' board of trustees on numerous occasions while working at the lodge in 2005 and 2006.

The EEOC alleges Joe Ritter, Allen Dunham and Dennis Prough, had unwelcome sexual advances and touching, as well as sexually explicit comments directed at the three women. The lawsuit contends that after the victims complained about the conduct, their work hours were cut, they were assigned the least desirable shifts, and they were subjected to threats and other abusive verbal comments--retaliation. Davidson was terminated, and the environment became so hostile that Vickers was compelled to resign, the suit alleges.

"Employers have an absolute duty to prevent their employees from becoming the object of sexual abuse by people who are in a position of authority," said James R. Neely Jr., district director of the EEOC's St. Louis District Office

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois against Henry County, Ill., alleging that former employee Michelle Baze was sexually harassed by her supervisor Jack Anderson, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint alleges that Baze's former supervisor in the Henry County Animal Control Department subjected her to sexual harassment, including unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature and inappropriate sexual comments, during the course of her employment as a secretary. Baze further alleges that Henry County had been aware that the same supervisor had sexually harassed Baze's predecessor, but failed to take action to prevent him from harassing Baze.

Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin or religion. Baze alleges the creation of a hostile work environment as a result of the harassment.

"Title VII ensures that women can participate in the workplace free of harassment based on sex,"

Continue reading "Henry County Animal Control Department Sued For Sexual Harassment" »

A Maryland horse farm owned by philanthropist Robert E. Meyerhoff settled a federal sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for $180,000. The EEOC alleged the horse farm harassed Lindsay Donovan while she was employed as a farmhand. The EEOC also alleged that Donovan and her co-workers, Paul Stewart and Lee Anne Stewart, were fired after Donovan complained about sexual harassment and identified the Stewarts as witnesses who could support her claims. The $180,000 will go to Donovan and the Stewarts, according to the settlement terms.

Fitzhugh LLC, which operates Fitzhugh Farm near Phoenix, also said it would implement an anti-harassment policy and provide training to employees and managers on the prevention of employment discrimination, according to a consent decree filed yesterday in the U.S District Court in Baltimore.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleged that Big Vanilla Athletic Club violated federal law specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by sexually harassing several female employees at several of the company's Maryland locations. According to the lawsuit the women were subjected to repeated and unwanted sexually offensive remarks and sexual advances as well as retaliation for filing their sexual harassment complaints with the EEOC.

As part of the settlement, Big Vanilla Athletic Club must train current and future managers on anti-discrimination laws and post notices stating its commitment to maintaining an environment free of sexual harassment and retaliation.

According to government statistics, in the last ten years the number of retaliation charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") have increased by 33%, while other charges filed with the EEOC have only increased 2.5%. Under federal law (Title VII), retaliation occurs when an employee is fired or has his/her terms and conditions of work changed as a result of making a formal complaint of discrimination. Title VII also protects those individuals who testify, assist or participate in an investigation of illegal activity or those who oppose unlawful employment practices.

In a recent United States Supreme Court case, CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 128 S. Ct. 1951 (2008), an employee alleged he was terminated for complaining to management that a black co-worker had been fired for racial reasons which amounted to racial discrimination. The Court concluded 7-2 that if this allegation were true it was actionable and that retaliation claims are included under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

The important point in this case is that when filing a Title VII race discrimination charge, always include a retaliation charge as well because even if the race discrimination charge is unsuccessful, the retaliation charge may succeed and if it does, there will not be any caps on the liability to the employer.

Robertson Sanitation, a Phoenix-based trash hauling, recycling and disposal company that operates in Georgia, will pay $475,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

According to the lawsuit, Jeanine Moore applied for a truck driver position with Robertson at its Winder, Georgia facility in August 2005, was never interviewed or hired even though she was more qualified than a number of male applicants who were hired. A review of the job applications at that location between January 2005 and September 2006 showed that some of the men hired were less qualified than Moore, including six males who lacked Robertson's minimum qualifications for the truck driver position. The EEOC's investigation revealed a class of similarly qualified women who, like Moore, were also rejected despite their qualifications.

The consent decree (the term used when the EEOC settles a lawsuit) provides $475,000 in monetary relief to the class of qualified female applicants who were discriminatorily rejected for employment between January 1, 2005 and October 31, 2006. Moore will receive $70,000 in damages, while the remaining funds will be distributed among the other qualified claimants whose eligibility will be determined by a procedure set forth in the decree.

Additionally the company agreed to exercise good faith in offering employment to qualified female applicants for residential, commercial, industrial and roll-off truck driver positions at the Winder and Austell facilities and the company is also required to submit a report each year identifying the name, sex and qualifications of all qualified applicants for truck driver positions, the persons offered positions, and the persons hired.

According to the lawsuit Captain Ed Murray, 63, sent an explicit text to 29-year-old Rachel Quinn after they travelled together on a business trip. Quinn said she was reading a book in her hotel when she received the message in which Murray said:

"I cannot wait for you to go down on me."

Quinn said she was unfairly fired from her job with the private charter jet company Gama and that she had been a victim of sexual harassment and retaliation. Tribunal chairman Keith Bryant rejected both of Quinn's claims saying the court could not consider the sexual harassment claim because it had been made more than three months after the alleged incidents.

This was a United Kingdom case, in Illinois an employee has 180 days to file a sexual harassment complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights or 300 days to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As you can see from the case above, waiting too long can be fatal to a good case.

Murphy Ford Inc, a car dealership located in Chester, Pennsylvania, will pay $244,000 to settle a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit, filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC alleges that Murphy Ford sexually harassed three female employees and fired one woman for complaining about the unlawful harassment--which constituted retaliation.

According to the lawsuit which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the dealership's service manager sexually harassed Cynthia Bell and other female employees in the service department which included sexually explicit comments, references to oral sex and grabbing his private parts in their presence. Bell repeatedly made complaints to the owner and dealership management, however, Murphy Ford did nothing to stop the harassment and retaliated against Bell by suddenly firing her.

According to Debra Lawrence according regional EEOC attorney:

"This case should remind employers that they have an obligation to take prompt and effective measures to stop harassment in the workplace. If the employer instead does the wrong thing and terminates an employee who complains about harassment, then the EEOC will take action."

Continue reading "Car Dealership Pays $244,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit" »

Two movie-production companies, Los Angeles-based Mandate Pictures and Chicago-based Crick Pictures, agreed to pay $75,000 to settle a pregnancy-discrimination lawsuit filed by the Chicago regional office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). According to the lawsuit both companies refused to hire Cynthia Castillo-Hill for a position as a casting assistant after learning she was pregnant.

Castillo-Hill produced an e-mail from the hiring supervisor which showed that the two companies believed that Castillo-Hill's pregnancy would prevent her from being able to handle the stress and long hours associated with the job. However Castillo-Hill said

"Her own doctor had indicated that the job was appropriate."

Along with the payment of $75,000, the two production companies are enjoined under the decree from future pregnancy discrimination, and are required to provide managers with training on how to avoid discrimination. The discrimination occurred in 2005 during production of the 2006 film "Stranger Than Fiction," which starred Will Ferrell and was filmed in part in the Chicago area.

A sexual harassment lawsuit which was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleged that former Gainesville Police Capt. Ray Weaver in August 2007 was sexually harassing an employee of the department has been settled for $75,000. The victim alleged that the "city knew or should have known that there was sexual harassment going on in the police department." The investigation found evidence of several events that had occurred between the employee and Weaver, including inappropriate photos and masturbation in front of the female police officer.

Captain Weaver retired before the investigation was made public. Along with the payment of $75,000, Mayor Pegeen Hanrahan issued an apology to the victim saying:

"I do wish to apologize to the individual who was subjected to this circumstance," Hanrahan said. "I've been communicating about seeking compensation through Capt. Weaver. It was an outrageous and despicable act, and I have confidence that the actions taken by our management at our police department should not ever allow something like this to happen again."

A sexual harassment lawsuit that was filed almost five years ago by four female Jackson Mississippi firefighters, Tiffany Alexander, Sandra Hawkins, Jacqueline Moore and Stacy Prophet, who alleged their male supervisors made unwanted advances and inappropriate comments, and groped them was settled yesterday for an undisclosed amount of money. In addition to the financial portion of the settlement, the Jackson Fire Department ("JFD") must institute yearly sensitivity training.

In 2007, a jury awarded the women a total of $757,000 but the Judge citing jury error and misconduct by one of the plaintiff's attorneys, threw out the award in March 2008 and ordered a new trial. The second trial was expected this year.

Prophet said she had dreams of becoming one of the best firefighters, but sexual harassment by male supervisors forced her to leave the department

Continue reading "Firefighter Lawsuit Settled after Jury Verdict of $757,000 Thrown Out" »

A sexual harassment lawsuit was filed by Crystal Neely, a former employee of McDonald’s alleging the fast-food giant allowed the sexual harassment to occur while she was working as a cashier at the restaurant on Southwest Lost River Road in Stuart Florida. Neely claimed she was hired as a cashier by McDonalds in February 2008 but soon after was subjected to sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior from a co-worker. She claims the co-worker grabbed her breasts, tried to kiss her and told her he loved her, according to the lawsuit.

Neely complained about the sexual harassment to management but no action was taken to protect her, she alleges. As a result of her complaint to management a hostile work environment continued to exist until she was terminated in May--which she claims was retaliation for filing the complaint.

Prior to terminating Neely, she was moved to a different McDonald's--and the move hasn't been fully explained. Neely claims the move was the first step in the retaliation process with the final step being her termination.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Illinois Based McDonalds USA LLC" »

The Chicago office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") had filed a civil lawsuit against dentist James L. Orrington in September 2007, claiming he had discriminated against 18 employees by subjecting them to sexual propositions, comments and improper touching, which amounted to sexual harassment. Orrington agreed to pay $462,500 to settle the lawsuit which claims he violated discrimination laws by sexually harassing workers and by forcing employees who wanted to keep their jobs to submit to indoctrination in the tenets of Scientology.

The lawsuit also claims Orrington violated employee civil-rights law by firing or taking other retaliatory actions against some employees who had complained about his behavior. Retaliation occurs when an employee is fired or has his terms and conditions of work changed as a result of making a formal complaint of discrimination. Additionally, federal law also protects those individuals who testify, assist or participate in an investigation of illegal activity or those who oppose unlawful employment practice.

A result of settling the lawsuit a consent decree was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and calls for Orrington to pay $462,500 to the workers involved and enjoins him from further sexual or religious workplace discrimination. In the consent decree Orrington does not admit any admission of guilt however.

A sexual harassment lawsuit by former Robert Frost School Principal Deborah Nuzzi was dismissed by a federal judge in Illinois but Nuzzi plans to file an appeal that would keep her sexual harassment lawsuit against Bourbonnais Elementary School District 53 alive. Nuzzi claims school board member Rob Rodewald sexually harassed her and, after she complained of the sexual harassment, the school district retaliated against her.

Illinois U.S. District Court Judge Michael P. McCuskey said the sexual harassment allegations nearly violated court rules, "border on the sanctionable" and declared the retaliation claim "entirely without merit." The lawsuit alleges Rodewald touched Nuzzi on the shoulder on one occasion, then followed her into a hallway to ask "Deb, how are we doing, you and me? Are we OK?

The lawsuit also alleges a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in that the school district paid Nuzzi a lower salary than they paid her male counterparts. Nuzzi contends she was damaged in that she suffered humilation, stress, embarassment and lost wages among other forms of compensatory damages.

Continue reading "Illinois Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Filed by School Principal" »

A sexual harassment lawsuit has been settled between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and defendants AmerTac Holding and American Tack & Hardware but the settlement involves no admission of guilt by the companies. The suit was filed by the EEOC in 2003 on behalf of 13 women and claimed that John Di Stefano, vice president of information technology at AmerTac, exposed female workers to pornographic images on his computer on a daily basis and called them derogatory names.

The lawsuit was initially filed by a pair of female employees after their claims of sexual harassment underwent a mandatory review by the EEOC, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws. According to the lawsuit Di Stefano and another company executive allegedly retaliated against the women for complaining about the sexual harassment. The EEOC reviewed the case and were shocked by what was presented to them.

The settlement between the EEOC and defendants AmerTac Holding and American Tack & Hardware involves no admission of guilt by the companies, but requires them to provide anti-discrimination training and information to employees on sexual harassment in addition to the monetary settlement of $325,000.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Settled For $325,000" »

A sexual harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment complaint was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision ("EEOC") and Texas Workforce Commission ("TWC") against Bill Fitzgerald the boss of Michelle Garza, a probation officer. The Illinois Department of Human Rights serves the same function as the TWC.

Prior to filing her sexual harassment complaint, Garza had been with the probation department for nearly 20 years. In her sexual harassment complaint she claims to be an excellent employee but was recently written up for official misconduct. In her write-up she's accused of speaking too loudly on the phone with her ex-husband and she believes the write-up was done in retaliation for filing complaints of sexual discrimination.

According to the complaint while a group of co-workers were out at a local restaurant,Chris Madrid's, Fitzgerald commented on Garza's open toe sandals, began rubbing her feet and made inappropriate comments like "you know what I like even better than breasts? Feet." He also allegedly said that short pretty hispanic women like Garza turn him on. Garza claims the comments and actions of Fitzgerald left her in fear and stressed out. This is the basis for her hostile work environment claim.

Garza is seeking $200,000 in damages and continues to work as a probation officer although she is close to meeting the requirements for retirement.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Accusation Against Top Law Enforcement Official" »

Sexual Harassment allegations were made by Sabrina Morris, the head of the Georgetown South Carolina's Building and Planning Department, against Mayor Wilson. Morris claims the mayor told her to perform a pole dance on the top of a new bar Beef O'Brady's that was being opened in town. Morris also claims Wilson touched her inappropriately which would also constitute sexual harassment.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following. The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex. The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee. The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct. Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim. The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome. In determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment, the harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective standpoint of a "reasonable person

In Fiscal Year 2007, EEOC received 12,510 charges of sexual harassment and payouts totaled almost $50 million to employees who were victims of sexual harassment.

A sexual harassment and discriminatory promotion lawsuit alleging $15 million in damages was filed against former Warren County Sheriff Larry Cleveland and the Warren County Sheriff’s Department by two veteran female correctional officers, Michelle LeBarron and Cynthia VanDenburgh. The complaint alleges they were discriminated against due to their sex and that they were subjected to sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct by Sheriff Cleveland and the county.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Albany last May after first filing a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments. Title VII also applies to private and public colleges and universities, employment agencies, and labor organizations.

Here are United States Supreme Court cases that provide more information about Title VII.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
In a race discrimination case, the Supreme Court used “disparate impact” theory to analyze employment discrimination under Title VII.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Warren County Sheriffs Department" »

Auto parts retailer AutoZone agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Illinois lawyers following the case will notice an upward trend in settlement amounts in these types of cases.

The EEOC had charged that an AutoZone store in Starke, Fla., subjected women to unwanted sexual language and fired one woman for complaining about it--which amounted to retaliation. In Illinois, retaliation is defined by the Human Rights Act.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, a new manager at the store introduced himself on his first day of work using a crude and explicit sexual boast and the vulgar comments continued from there. The manager allegedly commented often on employees' breast size, shared details of his sex life and bragged that a customer offered him sex with his daughter in exchange for a certain auto part.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Case Against Auto Zone Settles For $150,000 " »

A former Ambassador East Hotel worker Juana Sallis ("Sallis") filed a complaint against Defendant Portfolio Ambassador East, LLC, ("Portfolio"), owner of the Ambassador Hotel in Chicago, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment while employed at the Ambassador East Hotel in Chicago when she was sexually harassed by two supervisors in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); and that Portfolio discharged her in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 because she complained about the sexual harassment.

According to her complaint Sallis was employed as a housekeeper at the Ambassador East Hotel in Chicago, Illinois, since May 3, 2000, and had satisfactorily performed the duties of her job. On November 23, 2005, Sallis was notified by a co-worker that another employee, Larry Cason, accused her of engaging in sexual acts with him. Sallis reported the incident to human resources director Elvia Munoz. Munoz and other members of the hotel management staff, including general manager Paul Lauritzen and executive housekeeper Bill Smith, "failed to take any action against Cason to have him cease and desist from engaging in his sexually offensive and derogatory behavior. Sallis alleges that as a result her work environment became hostile, egregious, outrageous, and offensive and severely affected her ability to perform the essential duties of her job.

On December 30, 2005, Sallis was discharged from her job as a housekeeper at the Ambassador East Hotel by Paul Lauritizen, Bill Smith, and Portfolio human resources director Linda Noriega. Sallis was told she was being discharged because she left work early on December 23, 2005. Plaintiff did not receive any documentation validating the reason for her discharge. On April 4, 2006, Sallis filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). On March 1, 2007, the EEOC issued a "right to sue" letter authorizing Sallis to sue under Title VII within ninety days. Sallis filed her lawsuit against Portfolio on May 24, 2007 and it is still pending.

Continue reading "Illinois Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Ambassador East Hotel in Chicago" »

The fastest growing sport in history, NASCAR settled a $225 million dollar sexual harassment lawsuit yesterday, the terms of which are confidential. Former NASCAR official Mauricia Grant said she was subjected to racial discrimination and sexual harassment when she worked as a technical inspector responsible for certifying cars in NASCAR's second-tier Nationwide Series from January 2005 until her termination in October 2007.

In her lawsuit she alleged 23 specific incidents of sexual harassment and 34 specific incidents of racial and gender discrimination. Among Grant's racial discrimination claims, she said she was referred to as "Nappy Headed Mo" and "Queen Sheba," by co-workers, was often told she worked on "colored people time," and was frightened by one official who routinely made Ku Klux Klan references. Grant also said she was subjected to graphic and lewd jokes and sexual advances from male co-workers, two of whom allegedly exposed themselves to her. After an investigation by NASCAR officials of Grant's claims the two male co-workers who allegedly exposed themselves to her were fired.

The settlement was reached after twelve hours of mediation earlier this month in New York. The mediation session was suggested by U.S. District Court Judge Deborah A. Batts after the first court appearance in what was expected to be a multi-year battle between the two sides.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex. The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee. The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct. Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim. The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.

Continue reading "NASCAR Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") announced the settlement of a sexual harassment case with the Minneapolis Star, the state's largest newspaper. The federal court in Minneapolis is still required to approve the deal.

The EEOC alleges in the complaint that the newspaper allowed a sexual harassment in that mailroom in the future.

For more information on sexual harassment please visit lasorsalaw.com

The EEOC in the last ten years has been active in pursuing claims against employers who sexually harass or otherwise discriminate against employees. Below is a survey of the dollar amounts employees have been awarded in cases brought by the EEOC.
In 2007, companies paid more than $65 million in prelitigation EEOC settlements alone.

EEOC v. Parmalat Bakery Division of North America, Defendant, a New Jersey division of an international company headquartered in Italy, was charged wtih sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The complainant was a sales division manager and the only woman in an office of four male executives. She was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, sexually explicit comments inappropriate touching and the showing of a pornographic video. She was awarded $300,000. Case resolved in 2004.

Kosen v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc., A group of female financial advisors alleged that American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.engaged in preferential treatment of male advisors in mentoring, promotion, compensation, and work assignments in violation of federal law.

This was a class action lawsuit in which it is alleged that they experienced gender and/or age discrimination including, but are not limited to, career advancement, failure to hire as a Financial Advisor, distribution of leads and accounts, work assignments, promotion. They were awarded $31 million dollars. Case resolved in 2002.

Continue reading "Survey of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") Cases" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "EEOC" issued new guidelines on July 22, 2008, stating charges of religious discrimination filed with the EEOC have more than doubled since 1992.

The EEOC clarified the term "Religion".

The new guidance starts with a section informing employers that the concept of "religion" has a very broad definition. Employers should understand that religion is not limited to the more common faiths – it also includes non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, and unique views held by a few (or even one) individual.
The EEOC provides an example of a man who practices the Kemetic religion, based on ancient Egyptian faith, with a group numbering fewer than ten members. This broad interpretation of religion should give pause to employers. The guidance explains that an employer should not reject his faith principles – including his wrist tattoos expressing his servitude to the sun god Ra – simply because the religion is "incomprehensible" to the average American.

The EEOC recommends employers provide a great deal of latitude to a claim that a particular practice or appearance is religious in nature, generally accepting that the sincerity of the belief is not in dispute. In a nutshell, the belief of the employee is prima facia valid on its face and the burden shifts to the employer to show the belief is not religious. The EEOC does say employers can call a supposed religious practice into question if the employee has behaved in a manner inconsistent with the professed belief in the past (e.g., history of working on Sundays), if the benefit sought is likely sought for secular reasons (e.g., easy work schedule), or if the timing is suspect (e.g., following an earlier request for the same benefit that was rejected).

The EEOC recommends a three-pronged approach to minimize the risk of discrimination claims: 1) establish written criteria for hiring and discipline, such as a policy handbook; 2) record the business reasons for disciplinary action through proper documentation; and 3) train managers on proper company policies.

Religious Harassment 101
The guidance provides some religious harassment 101 pointers. Basically it is improper to require or coerce an employee to abandon, alter or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment.

Additionally the EEOC demands the employer exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior, and if the employee unreasonably fails to take advantage of preventive opportunities, the employer can escape

The full compliance manual can be found at www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html" target="_blank">http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html

After a verified answer is received by the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"), the investigator from the IDHR will call and schedule a client interview. The interview will either take place at the Thompson Center in Chicago, the Springfield Office or via telephone. The Complainant is allowed to have her attorney present during the client interview although the attorney is there to advise not to answer questions. Having a skilled sexual harassment lawyer present during the interview can mean the difference between a successful and unsuccessful case.

The purpose of the client interview is for the investigator from the IDHR to learn about the case. The investigator wants a first person account of what happened, who witnessed what happened, who if any you reported the harassment to and the location of documents or other witnesses that may help the investigator obtain a complete picture of what took place.

It is important for the complainant and attorney to work together to make sure any names, location of documents or other relevant information are gathered and given to the investigator during the client interview. As the investigator has the ability to require the employer to produce documents and witnesses at the fact-finding conference, it is extremely important to get all of the information to the investigator at or prior to the client interview.

Continue reading "Illinois Department of Human Rights Client Interview" »

As of November 1, 2001, the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") has been under a federal-court injuction that among other things, orders the IDHR to "cease permanently from relying on credibility determinations made without affording the rights of confrontation and cross-examination." Cooper v. Salazar, 98 C 2930 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois at page 26. This case was followed closely by Illinois Sexual Harassment lawyers.

The purpose of the injuction is to deny the Department the ability to assess the credibility of witnesses where there is conflicting testimony. This applies to all witnesses whether they are for the complainant or respondent. In short, if the determination of substantial evidence turns on issues of credibility, the IDHR must make a finding of substantial evidence so the trier of fact may resolve the issue of credibility.

The Illinois Human Rights Act defines substantial evidence as "evidence which a reasonable mind accepts as sufficient to support a particular conclusion and which consists of more than a mere scintilla but may be somewhat less than a preponderance." 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(D)(2).

Conflicting evidence exists when there are statements of a person with material first hand knowledge contradicted by statements of a different person with marerial first hand knowledge; or business records contradicted or oral statements of a person with material first hand knowledge; or business records of one person contradicted by business records of another person.

Continue reading "The Illinois Cooper v. Salazar Injunction: A Relief for Illinois Sexual Harassment Lawyers" »

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. statutory caps on damages are imposed for both compensatory and punitive damages. This includes Illinois sexual harassment cases. The combined damage caps are based on the number of employees an employer has working for it. The breakdown is as follows:

• For employers who have 15 to 100 workers: $50,000;
• For employers who have 101 to 200 workers: $100,000;
• For employers who have 201 to 500 workers: $200,000;
• For employers who have in excess of 500 workers: $300,000.

Having an experienced sexual harassment lawyer review the facts of the case to determine the size of the employer is critical. Many times employers can hide the number of employers or miscount through an elaborate scheme designed to hide the true number of employees.

EEOC filings by men have increased in the last ten years. From 1997 until 2007, the number increased from 11.6% to 16% of all EEOC filings--which represents an increase of roughly 38% over the ten year period. Put into number in 1997 there were 1843 filings by men, in 2007 the number increased to 2001. During that same period filings of both men and women decreased from 15,889 to 12,510.

I believe the decrease in total filings is due to more proactive human resource departments and better education of the work force regarding sexual harassment. I suspect the increase in male complaints is due to the number of women in supervisory and management positions and just an increase in general of women in the work place. Here is a link to the ">EEOC chart which tracks such data.

Another interesting fact from the EEOC chart are the numbers of settlements of charges for both men and women which increased from 6.8% in 1997 to 13.6% in 2007--a 100% increase over the ten year period.

Administrative closures decreased from 39.9% in 1997 to 24.2% in 2007. When the settlement and administrative closure numbers are taken together, it indicates the quality of charges filed has increased during the ten year period. Companies are more willing to settle a quality charge and the EEOC would have a more difficult time closing a case that has merit.

Continue reading "EEOC Sexual Harassment Facts and Trends From 1997-2007." »

Sexual Harassment in Illinois is brought by filing a charge or claim under the Human Rights Act. The charge or claim is brought by filing with the Illinois Department of Human Rights in either Chicago or Springfield. The Illinois Department of Human Rights then conducts a client interview, fact-finding conference and makes a determination as to whether the charge or claim should proceed to be heard before the Human Rights Commission ("HRC"). A sexual harassment claim can also be brought before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). You may also bring a claim before both the EEOC and HRC.

As of January 1, 2008, a new law was enacted allowing for also filing a claim of sexual harassment in state court after first filing with the Illinois Department of Human Rights. A video of the new changes can be viewed at lasorsalaw.com

New Law after Changes
As of January 1, 2008, complainants will have the added option of pursuing a civil action in the circuit court in the county where the alleged violation occurred, rather than proceeding before the IDHR. The key components of the new law are:1. If the Director of the IDHR files a dismissal order based on a lack of substantial evidence determination of a violation, the complainant will have the right to either seek review of the dismissal order with the IDHR or file a civil action in circuit court.

If the complainant decides to seek review with the IDHR, a request must be filed within 30 days after receipt of the IDHR Director's notice of dismissal and the complainant is barred from later filing a civil action.b. if the complainant decides to file a civil action, it must be filed within 90 days after the receipt of the IDHR's Director's notice of dismissal.2. If substantial evidence of a violation is determined by the IDHR Director, the complainant has the right to file a civil action in circuit court or request that the IHRC file a complaint with the IDHR.a.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment in Illinois: The Current Law" »