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.

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. “

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.

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. “

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."

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."

As if that were not enough, it is alleged that the managers also imitated speech patterns of black employees, and denied them breaks while allowing breaks to white employees. The employees complained numerous times to management however the racial harassment and discrimination continued. Management did not seem to realize how serious the racial harassment was and now that the company must pay over one million dollars I am sure they realize how serious it is. Aside from the settlement amount in this case, I wonder how much money Bahama Breeze will lose as a result of lost revenue from people who don't wish to give this company their business.

“No worker should ever have to endure a racially hostile work environment in order to earn a paycheck,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “It is particularly disturbing when managers engage in and condone the very unlawful conduct they are required to prevent and correct."

Auguste alleged she was harassed and intimidated by Santa Clara authorities after she investigated a sexual assault case involving her nephew, Damon Auguste. The lawsuit claimed California authorities tried to harass and intimidate witnesses and members of Damon Auguste’s family including Donna Auguste. The harassment included having sheriff’s deputies execute a search warrant based on false information from the California authorities.

To further complicate matters, city records show that during Young’s tenure as a manager, half of the 24 employees he hired were white men. The problems began because of a dispute over other employees and in the end Young and Hill were pitted against each other. An exhaustive investigation was completed and in the end the city decided settling was the most practical approach.

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. “

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.’”

This new law adds order of protection status to the current protected classifications of religion, age, race, national origin, gender, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, military status, and unfavorable discharge from military service. The initial charge would be filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights in either Chicago or Springfield.

Under federal law Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 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.

University spokesperson Michael Cooper says MSU couldn't comment on the issue because it's pending litigation.The Minnesota State College and University system says MSU is moving to have the case dismissed; that motion will be heard October 23 in US District Court.

According to the complaint Lott complained about the sexual harassment to human resources and nothing was done to stop the behavior. In fact according to Lott, the workplace became a hostile working environment after he reported the offensive behavior. Lott is seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

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.