The Seattle District Office filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, a car dealership in Oregon City, Oregon, subjected a charging party to a hostile work environment based on his national origin (Iranian) and religion (Islam), and discharged him because of his national origin and religion and in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. The complaint also alleged that defendant terminated a second CP for objecting to the treatment of minority employees in the workplace.
In February 2002 defendant acquired the Subaru dealership where both charging parties worked as sales representatives. The new General Manager (GM) and a recently promoted General Sales Manager (GSM) subjected the first CP to a daily barrage of slurs (calling him "terrorist," "sand nigger," and "camel jockey"). Defendant promoted the second CP to Floor Manager on September 1, 2002. Both before and after his promotion, he complained to the GM about the treatment of minorities in the workplace, particularly the treatment of the first CP. Defendant demoted the second CP back into a sales position on October 11, 2002. A week later, he handed the GM and GSM a letter reiterating his concerns about the hostile work environment and mentioning the behavior of the GSM and another salesman. Two days later he sent a similar letter to an executive of defendant's parent company, Lithia Motors. Shortly thereafter, defendant gave the second CP a disciplinary notice claiming he had made racist comments, and then terminated him on November 25. Meanwhile, the first CP had an argument with an employee who had been harassing him and both men were disciplined. On December 15, 2002, the first CP sent a letter to Lithia management complaining of harassment. On December 23, defendant disciplined CP for allegedly failing to follow consumer policy, and on January 3, 2003, ordered him to resign or be fired.
The San Francisco District Office resolved this case through a 3-year consent decree providing that the two CPs will share $360,000 in monetary relief. Defendant will provide each CP with a reference letter stating that he "performed satisfactorily." The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against employees and applicants in violation of Title VII. Defendant will adopt procedures for promptly investigating and providing redress for complaints of discrimination. It will designate management employees responsible for investigating discrimination complaints and post their names and contact information. Defendant also will place a Complaints Box in a nonmanagerial area of the facility and the designated management employees will gather complaints from the Complaints Box.
The Denver District Office filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that Lithia Motors (the eighth largest automobile retailer in the U.S.) and Lithia Dodge of Cherry Creek (an Aurora, Colorado subsidiary of Lithia Motors) maintained a racially hostile work environment and subjected charging party to unequal terms and conditions of employment based on his race (black), and constructively discharged CP in retaliation for his complaints about discrimination. CP had been employed at Cherry Creek Dodge since 1998 or 1999, before Lithia bought it. In January 2003, Lithia transferred a white employee to Cherry Creek Dodge as the new General Manager (GM). Defendant had previously disciplined the new GM for "anger management issues." Shortly after the GM's arrival he made racial remarks to CP (perjorative comments about "BP time" (black people time) and remarking that he'd fired "a bunch of you people already") and subjected CP to less favorable treatment than whites (screamed obscenities at him more frequently and required him to undergo a drug test when no reasonable grounds existed for so doing while not testing a white employee known to be intoxicated at work). After CP filed an internal complaint on April 29, 2003, the new GM berated the personnel coordinator for assisting with CP's complaint and intensified his harassment of CP. CP resigned on May 16, 2003, having heard nothing from headquarters about his internal complaint. Defendant subsequently counseled the GM regarding unacceptable behavior.
The Phoenix District Office resolved this case through a 4-year consent decree providing CP and two other former black employees with $562,470 in monetary relief ($320,000 to CP and $142,500 and $100,000 to the two other claimants). Defendants are prohibited from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
The Philadelphia District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that Rite Aid, a leading national drug store chain, disciplined and then discharged charging party, an attorney at defendant's corporate headquarters in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, in retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination. CP worked as an associate counsel in defendant's Real Estate Department from 1997 until she was discharged in September 2002. During a 1999-2000 reduction-in-force defendant retained only 6 out of 15 attorneys in the Real Estate Department, including CP. In August 2001, CP complained to the deputy general counsel that the vice president of real estate law was affording a male coworker more favorable pay and assignments than she received, based on sex. On the heels of CP's complaint, the VP began criticizing her, humiliating her in front of colleagues, and monitoring her attendance and lunch breaks. In September 2001, he issued a disciplinary notice regarding her performance, to which she responded with a letter stating that she believed the discipline was retaliatory. In January 2002 the VP gave CP her first-ever written performance review in 5 years with Rite Aid, citing deficient performance; placed her on probation for 6 months; denied her a pay raise; and denied her the 3% cost of living adjustment that all Rite Aid employees received. On April 24, 2002, Rite Aid told CP it had concluded that her sex discrimination claims were unfounded. Defendant gave CP a second negative written performance review later the same day and a third one in June 2002. The CP reiterated her belief that the performance reviews were retaliatory and said she intended to file a charge with the EEOC. She was discharged in September 2002 a few days after defendant learned she was preparing materials to send to the EEOC. The 2- year consent decree resolving this case provides CP with $93,000 in monetary relief.
The Philadelphia District Office filed this ADEA case alleging that the County of Bergen, New Jersey terminated charging party (age 47) and other assistant county counsels because of their ages. Charging party had worked for Bergen County as an assistant county counsel for about 15 years when the county installed a new county counsel on January 1, 2003. Two days later the new county counsel terminated the five oldest assistant county counsels (ages 39, 42, 47 (CP), 59, and 63), purportedly in a reorganization. The new county counsel retained four incumbent assistant county counsels, and within weeks hired three new assistant county counsels younger than 40. Defendant was unable to articulate the criteria used in selecting individuals for termination. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, three individuals will share $250,000 in monetary relief ($185,000 for CP, $50,000 for the second individual, and $15,000 for the estate of the third). The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against employees and applicants based on age and from engaging in practices that retaliate under the ADEA.
The St. Louis District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a Catholic liberal arts school in Wichita, Kansas, refused to promote charging party to Vice President of Enrollment Management (VP-Enrollment), based on her sex (female), and demoted her in retaliation for her complaints about sex discrimination. CP had received several promotions over her 12 years with defendant and was the Dean of Admissions when her boss, the female VP-Enrollment, resigned in August 2004. CP immediately began performing the VP-Enrollment's duties along with her own. Despite university policy requiring internal posting before jobs could be advertised externally, defendant failed to internally post the VP-Enrollment position. CP nevertheless applied to the external announcement. In September 2004, university President Aidan Dunleavy told CP that none of the applicants had been qualified and he was going to bring in a consultant (male). CP confronted Dunleavy with two instances in which he had expressed an intention to hire men for management positions, including the VP- Enrollment position, and told him she knew filling the VP-Enrollment job would "come down to gender." CP then filed a sex discrimination charge with the EEOC. Six days after the EEOC mailed the charge to defendant, the male consultant began work as the Interim VP-Enrollment. Three days later, on October 14, 2004, defendant changed CP's title to Director of U.S. Admissions and reduced her duties from handling four departments financial aid, admissions, visitors center, and admissions recruiters to handling only admissions recruiters. CP resigned the following day.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, CP will receive $182,000 in monetary relief. The decree prohibits defendant from discriminating against applicants or employees and from engaging in retaliation or reprisal under Title VII. Defendant will place copies of CP's discrimination charge and the consent decree in former President Dunleavy's permanent personnel file. (Dunleavy's resignation was announced in December 2005, 3 months after EEOC's suit was filed.) In addition, defendant will revise its antidiscrimination policy to include multiple avenues for reporting allegations of discrimination (including reporting complaints against the President directly to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees), and will require managers to report all instances of discrimination.
In its Title VII complaint, the Chicago District Office alleged that defendant, the owner and operator of nearly 400 Cracker Barrel restaurant/gift stores throughout the U.S., subjected employees in three Illinois stores (in Matteson, Bloomington, and Mattoon) to sex and race discrimination and retaliation, and that the discrimination and retaliation caused the constructive discharge of some employees. Defendant subjected female employees to a hostile work environment through offensive sexual comments and touching by managers and coworkers; black employees to a hostile work environment through the use of racially derogatory language, and to adverse terms and conditions of employment such as requiring them to wait on customers that white employees refused to serve and to work in the smoking section; and a white employee to racially offensive language because of her association with a black employee. Employees were subjected to adverse terms and conditions of employment for complaining about the discriminatory conduct. Management officials at the three Illinois stores failed to take effective corrective action to stop the sex- and race-based harassment and other discrimination. The company took no action in response to complaints that a number of the claimants called in to the company's complaint hotline.
Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay $2 million into a Settlement Fund to be used to make payments of compensatory damages to individuals identified as class members. The decree states that subject to court approval EEOC apportioned the Settlement Fund among class members in accordance with criteria set out in the decree. Fifty-one individuals are eligible to receive checks from the Settlement Fund, in amounts ranging from $7,500 to $300,000. Nine months after the decree's entry, defendant will donate an amount equal to any undistributed payments and/or accrued interest remaining in the account to a nonprofit organization, jointly selected by the EEOC and defendant, that benefits women's and/or minority workplace interests in one or more of the communities in which the stores covered by the decree are located. The decree enjoins defendant at the three stores named in the complaint from discriminating against employees based on sex or race, subjecting employees to a racially or sexually harassing work environment, or retaliating against anyone under Title VII. Defendant must provide annual training, approved by EEOC, to managers on sexual and racial discrimination, including harassment and retaliation issues, and to all employees on workplace harassment.
The Baltimore District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a nursing and assisted living facility for the elderly located in Lynchburg, Virginia, retaliated against charging party, the administrator of the facility, for supporting another employee's discrimination charge. CP worked for defendant from March 2000 until April 2004, when defendant terminated her. In about February 2002, a nursing assistant complained to CP of sexual harassment by the President of the Odd Fellows Board. CP immediately informed the Board's Vice President, who promised to investigate. Pursuant to a charge filed by the nursing assistant, the EEOC subpoenaed defendant in May 2003 seeking testimony from the President and Vice President of its Board as well as CP. At her EEOC interview in June 2003, CP stated that the nursing assistant had made several complaints about sexual harassment to her, that CP had informed the Vice President, and that the Vice President had represented that she would investigate. CP was under consideration for a raise in May 2003, but the Board never acted on it. CP was denied a raise in November 2003 and filed an EEOC charge alleging retaliation for supporting the nursing assistant's charge. In May 2004, several days after the Board learned that the nursing assistant had settled her charge with defendant, the Vice President of the Board told CP that the Board wanted to sever all ties with her. The following day the Board discharged CP, ostensibly for performance problems and insubordination.
The Charlotte District Office resolved this case through a 3-year consent decree under which CP will receive $70,000, consisting of $25,000 in backpay, frontpay, and benefits, and $45,000 in compensatory damages. Defendant is enjoined from engaging in reprisal or retaliation under Title VII.
In this ADA lawsuit, the Detroit District Office alleged that defendant bank laid off charging party from his web marketing position in Flint, Michigan because of his disability. CP has had a long history of ulcerative colitis, a digestive disease which causes persistent inflammation and sores in the lining of the large intestine, and substantially limits CP in eating, waste removal, and caring for himself. Charging party has severe abdominal pain, frequent and unexpected bowel movements (10 to 12 times per day), diarrhea, and rectal bleeding. The rectal bleeding causes chronic anemia and extreme fatigue. He receives blood transfusions every 2 to 3 weeks and has been hospitalized several times a year for flareups. In addition, charging party is subject to frequent and unexpected bowel movements, and must avoid foods containing any roughage.
Defendant hired CP as a temporary employee in 1997, converted him to regular status in 1998, and transferred him to the Marketing Services Department as a "Web Marketing Specialist" in 1999. When defendant downsized the department in 2003 and transferred the Internet functions to the Information Technology Department, it combined CP's job duties with that of the Call Center Internet Representative to create a new position, "E Commercial Analyst." Defendant selected the incumbent of the Internet Representative position, who was not disabled, for the new position and laid off CP. The CP and the selectee had received nearly identical ratings in their performance appraisals, but CP had all of the required skills for the new position, while the selectee lacked some of them. Several months before the reorganization, CP's supervisor told him that if the company reorganized "he would be the first to go because of his frequent illness related absences."
The Indianapolis District Office resolved the case through a 1-year consent decree providing CP with $70,000 in monetary relief. Defendant will comply with the ADA and ensure that all employees are permitted to work in an environment free from discrimination because of disability. Defendant also is prohibited from making layoff decisions based on an employee's disability-related absences.
The Houston District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a Conroe, Texas company that coats pipes and provides other services in the oil industry, subjected charging party a sandblaster to harassment and constructively discharged him because of his race, African-American, and color, black. Defendant hired CP as a temporary laborer in May 2002 and promoted him to permanent status in September 2002. He worked for several months on a crew with no other blacks. His supervisor and coworkers subjected him to racial slurs, including regularly calling him "nigger." CP complained about his treatment to his supervisor and asked to be referred to by his first name, but the supervisor took no corrective action and the conduct continued. Thereafter, CP asked to transfer to another crew. Although defendant routinely approved transfer requests by non-African-American employees without delay, CP's request was put on hold. On October 17, 2002, a white coworker, removed a noose made out of heavy shop rope and hanging on an equipment hook in plain view - and threw it around CP's neck when he entered the restroom. The noose tightened in the scuffle that ensued. CP's supervisor broke up scuffle, and cautioned CP and the white coworker about "horseplay." He took no corrective action and made no written report at the time. On October 24, 2002, the production manager, who had learned about the noose incident, instructed CP's supervisor to write a report about the incident and allowed him to backdate it to October 17. The production manager also terminated the white coworker for violating defendant's safety policy. (The coworker subsequently served 9 months in jail for misdemeanor assault.) CP quit his job on October 31, after being unsatisfied with defendant's response to his harassment complaint.
CP, who intervened in EEOC's suit, will receive $1 million in monetary relief and a written apology from defendant's President or CEO under the 4-year consent decree resolving this lawsuit. Defendant also will plant or designate a tree on its property in Conroe, Texas, in honor of CP's employment. Defendant cannot reveal any information about CP to potential employers except for his date of hire, separation, job title, compensation, and "a recommendation letter that shall honestly detail [CP's] work performance and his work ethic." Defendant is required to discipline the supervisors and foremen who harassed CP or were aware of the harassment and failed to take corrective action. Defendant is prohibited from employing four identified individuals and from allowing them to remain on its premises. The decree permanently enjoins defendant from engaging in race discrimination or racial harassment or intimidation. The decree also requires defendant to make good faith efforts to recruit qualified black applicants, and it must report annually to EEOC on the racial breakdown of its employees and on how it has improved its recruitment of black applicants. Defendant is required to maintain a procedure for reporting racial harassment and retaliation complaints consisting of: (1) a simple and reliable reporting mechanism; (2) prompt investigation; (3) written findings and recommendations; (4) prompt communication of the findings and recommendations to the complainant; (5) appropriate remedial action; and (6) assurances that complainants will not be subjected to intimidation, harassment, or retaliation.
The New York District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendants subjected two Hispanic charging parties (both managers) and other Hispanic managers and employees at The Melrose Hotel New York in Manhattan to discrimination based on their national origin (harassment, English-only rule, other terms and conditions of employment, and discharge) and to retaliation (terms and conditions and discharge). At the time of suit, defendant Melrose Hotel Company owned The Melrose NY (and luxury hotels in Dallas and Washington, DC) and Berwind Property Group (BPG) managed The Melrose NY through its local affiliate MHC Barbizon. In July 2005, The Melrose Hotel NY closed and Barbizon became defunct.
When BPG, which manages property nationwide, began managing The Melrose NY in May 2001, it brought in a new Senior Vice President of Operations, Mark Lahood. Lahood regularly made demeaning comments about Hispanic employees, mocked their accents, and told employees speaking Spanish on break in the cafeteria "this is an English country." Similarly, the new Rooms Manager made derogatory comments about Hispanics, told them not to speak Spanish (including during breaks), and said she couldn't wait until all the Hispanic employees were fired. One charging party was the General Manager of The Melrose NY. In this position she was a conduit for complaints from other Hispanic managers and employees concerning the conduct of Lahood and the Rooms Manager. Lahood also harassed the CP/General Manager. In the early summer of 2002, CP forwarded complaints about Lahood and the Rooms Manager to the Senior VP for Human Resources. Lahood then began criticizing CP's performance, and fired her on August 8, 2002, despite 7 years of positive evaluations under previous management. The second CP was promoted to Assistant Director of Housekeeping in May 2002. She resigned in October 2002, after defendant failed to address her frequent complaints about Lahood harassing her and about the Rooms Manager speaking derogatorily about Hispanic employees. Defendant retaliated against other Hispanics who complained about discrimination and harassment, including the English-only rule, either terminating them or subjecting them to abusive treatment that forced them to resign.
Under the 4-year consent decree resolving this case, the 2 CPs and 11 other claimants will share $800,000 in backpay and compensatory damages. The affirmative relief provisions of the decree apply to BPG. BPG must maintain comprehensive policies prohibiting employment discrimination and maintain effective procedures for receiving and processing internal discrimination complaints. To implement these requirements, BPG will adopt a nondiscrimination policy, issue it to all employees within 10 days of the decree's effective date (along with a letter signed by BPG's President affirming BGP's commitment to maintaining a discrimination-free workplace), insert the policy in employee handbooks, and make it available on company websites. In addition to other training requirements, BPG must provide Mark Lahood with 3 hours of one-on-one EEO training within 30 days of entry of the decree and must document the training requirement and content in Lahood's personnel file. If BPG purchases or begins to operate or manage any hotels in New York City during the term of the decree, all of the decree's terms will apply to such hotels.
The Seattle District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant U.S. West, which merged with defendant Qwest in 2000 to form a broadband communications network serving 29 million customers (collectively "defendant"), discriminated against Hispanic employees in Portland, Oregon because of their national origin by failing to promote or grant job transfers to them, and retaliated against the two charging parties for filing discrimination charges. The CPs had held various positions with defendant and were employed as service representatives when they filed EEOC charges in 1999. One CP had worked for U.S. West for 18 years and the other for 23 years and neither had ever been promoted, despite qualifications equal to or superior to non-Hispanics who received promotions. Supervisors applied defendant's promotion and job transfer policies inconsistently, so as to exclude Hispanics from the pool of eligible candidates, and when Hispanics were in the pool, they selected less qualified non-Hispanic candidates over more qualified Hispanics. Following the CPs' charges, defendant: (1) diverted sales calls away from them and to other, newer employees, (2) warned them about deficiencies in their sales goals, and (3) placed them on disciplinary status for failing to meet sales goals. As a result, one CP went from the top 15% of office sales before filing her charge to the bottom 5% shortly afterwards. The other CP accepted a lower-paid nonsales position to avoid termination for failure to meet sales goals. The San Francisco District Office resolved this case through a 2-year consent decree providing $400,000 in monetary relief to the class ($320,000 to the two intervening CPs and two class members represented by CPs' counsel, and $80,000 to be shared among four other individuals).
The Seattle District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that Global Imaging Systems (GBS), a national provider of digital office imaging equipment, and Quality Business Systems (QBS), GBS's Washington State subsidiary, subjected charging party, a female sales representative at QBS's Woodinville, Washington facility, to sexual harassment and retaliated against her for complaining about the harassment.
Defendant QBS hired CP and a man as sales representatives in August and December 2003, respectively. Between early December 2003 and January 30, 2004, when CP resigned, the new male sales representative subjected her to unwelcome physical contact and sexual comments. CP complained more than once to her immediate supervisor, who had witnessed some of the incidents, and told him she was not comfortable continuing to work with the male sales representative. In response to CP's first complaint, her boss characterized the sales representative as "young and stupid" but took no corrective action. In response to an incident he witnessed shortly thereafter (on December 29), CP's boss told the male sales representative that his behavior was "inappropriate" and ordered him to apologize to CP. However, CP's boss failed to report incidents he witnessed to HR, as required under defendant's sexual harassment policy. CP and a male colleague reported the harassment to upper level management. After a meeting between CP and QBS's HR Director on January 8, 2004, QBS issued a written warning to the male sales representative and reassigned him to another facility (he was permitted to continue working in the Woodinville facility for 3 weeks). After the meeting with the HR Director, CP's boss took two major sales accounts away from her, began unfairly criticizing her work performance, and cautioned her not to say anything else about the harassment because she was ruining the male sales representative's reputation. Another sales manager accused her of having invited the harassment with flirtatious behavior. CP quit to take a position with a competitor. She was forced to leave that position within a month because several QBS employees made disparaging statements about her to her new employer and QBS threatened to sue her for breaching a noncompetition covenant even though she had complied with the plain language of the covenant.
The San Francisco District Office and defendants entered into a 2-year amended consent decree providing CP with $125,000 in monetary relief. The decree's injunctive and affirmative relief provisions apply to QBS's three facilities in Washington. QBS is prohibited from discriminating against applicants and employees based on sex and from engaging in retaliation. It will provide all managers, supervisors, and employees with 2 hours of live EEO training regarding sexual harassment and retaliation within 120 days of entry of the decree and with an additional 2 hours of EEO training annually thereafter. Defendant also will post a notice at each facility for the duration of the decree referencing the lawsuit and stating the company's nondiscrimination obligations under Title VII, the ADEA, the EPA, and the ADEA.
In its Title VII complaint, the Baltimore District Office alleged that defendant, a small masonry company doing business in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, racially harassed black employees; discriminated against a charging party in the terms and conditions of his employment based on race (black); and terminated him and another CP in retaliation for complaining about racial harassment. Defendant hired one CP as a forklift operator in April 2002 and the second as a laborer in June 2003; they were defendant's only black employees. Both CPs experienced a racially hostile work environment, consisting of frequent racial epithets, slurs, comments, and jokes by white supervisors and coworkers. Defendant also subjected one CP (the forklift operator) to less favorable terms and conditions of employment than whites by not assigning him a helper. Both men complained to management about the racial insults, but to no avail. Defendant terminated them within a few days of one another in June 2004, ostensibly for absenteeism.
The Philadelphia District Office resolved this case through a 4-year consent decree. The two CPs will equally share $60,000 in compensatory damages. Defendant's owner will serve as guarantor of the payments. Defendant will provide each CP with an unconditional written offer of reinstatement into the position he held at the time of discharge with retroactive seniority, at the current pay rate, and with all benefits. Defendant will make two job offers to each CP. Should either man decline the reinstatement offers, defendant is required to provide him with a positive letter of reference agreed upon with EEOC. The consent decree, which applies to all of defendant's facilities and worksites, enjoins defendant from violating Title VII: prohibited conduct includes harassment or other discrimination based on race and color and conduct protected under Section 704(a) of Title VII. The decree also requires defendant to comply with Title VII's recordkeeping requirements. Defendant must adopt an antiharassment/antidiscrimination policy and distribute it to all owners, supervisors, independent contractors, and employees. The decree requires defendant to post a notice at each facility and worksite regarding the consent decree, harassment, how to report harassment, the consequences for engaging in it, and supervisory responsibility for stopping harassment.
This page was last modified on May 19, 2006.