The Chicago District Office brought this Title VII suit, alleging that defendant, an operator of several family restaurants in Northern Illinois, tolerated the sexual harassment of waitresses, some of whom were still in high school, during their employment at defendant's Crystal Lake, Illinois restaurant. The women complained that they had been subjected to offensive sexual comments and unwanted touching and kissing by male co-workers. Pursuant to a consent decree, defendant will pay a total of $368,000 to 13 claimants, provide EEO training in English and Spanish to its supervisors and managers, and report complaints of sexual harassment to the EEOC. The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex.
In this Title VII action, the Milwaukee District Office alleged that defendant, a semi-trailer manufacturer, engaged in unlawful discrimination by using a written preemployment test for entry-level assembler positions that had a disparate impact on African-American and female applicants. By a two-year consent decree, defendant is enjoined from using the challenged test or any other pre-employment selection procedure which has or may have a disparate impact on African Americans or women without providing EEOC an opportunity to review information on its validity and raise objections with the court. Defendant is also required to make a total payment of $180,000 to the African American class members and to hire at least 27 otherwise qualified African American class members into assembler positions during the next two years as positions become available. Finally, if defendant begins hiring assemblers from the general public, it must mail to each class member information about the job and, if additional assembler positions become open, contact those qualified class members who respond and express an interest in employment.
In its Title VII lawsuit, the St. Louis District Office alleged that defendant subjected female employees to sex discrimination and retaliation through the conduct of the supervisor of its Pill Room, where employees press various powders into "pills" used as components for thermal batteries. Evidence revealed that the supervisor questioned the women about their sex lives, threatened them, followed them to the bathroom, stalked them after work, refused to train new female employees, held the female employees to a higher work performance standard than their male counterparts, and disciplined and discharged female employees because of their sex. The supervisor also assigned a female employee to work that was inconsistent with her medical restrictions because she complained about his discriminatory conduct. Despite the women's complaints, no corrective action was taken. The case was resolved by a consent decree which provides a total payment of $200,000 (representing back pay and compensatory and punitive damages) for eight charging parties; reinstatement of three charging parties; restoration of another charging party's seniority status; and an injunction against rehiring the supervisor and another culpable manager. The decree also enjoins defendant from discriminating on the basis of sex and from retaliation. Defendant will provide live training on EEO laws for its managerial and supervisory employees and implement a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex or retaliation.
The Memphis District Office filed this ADEA action, alleging that defendant, a manufacturing company, engaged in discriminatory hiring practices based on age when, following the closure of its Camden Arkansas facility, it refused to hire a class of former general mechanics over the age of 50 for open positions in its other facilities despite its agreement with the union to consider all employees laid off from Camden for such positions. Pursuant to a consent decree, defendant agreed to provide six applicants with a total of $260,000 in back pay and $155,000 in other benefits and to conduct ADEA training for its managers. Defendant is also enjoined from discriminating against any applicant with respect to hiring at its Pine Bluff, Arkansas facility because of such individual's age.
The Phoenix District Office filed this Title VII action, alleging that defendants subjected a female charging party to disparate terms and conditions in her employment with the Phoenix Suns basketball team's "Zoo Crew," a sports entertainment group, during the 1998-99 season, and denied charging party and other women positions with the Zoo Crew in following seasons because of their sex. Specifically, the charging party was prohibited from doing certain stunts which were routinely performed by the male members of the crew. During the next season, employment opportunities with the Zoo Crew were limited to men only and advertised as such in job announcements and newspapers because defendants the Phoenix Suns basketball team and an independent corporation that managed the Zoo Crew believed women to be incapable of performing stunts such as trampoline dunks. At bottom, defendants created sex-segregated teams an all-male Zoo Crew and an all-female cheerleading or dance squad. Pursuant to separate consent decrees, defendants agreed to pay a total of $104,500 in damages to charging party and two other female claimants. The Phoenix Suns also will to send a letter of apology to the charging party and provide her with a positive letter of reference. The Phoenix Suns is enjoined from engaging in future gender discrimination or retaliation against any employee and, in resolution of a record keeping claim, is required to preserve all personnel records and all documents relating to its hiring practices until disposition of any charge filed with the EEOC. In addition, the Phoenix Suns will affirmatively recruit women for the Zoo Crew.
In this Title VII action, the Milwaukee District Office alleged that defendant, a school busing company, subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment and black employees from Sudan and other African countries to a hostile environment based on their race and national origin. A supervisor made offensive sexual comments to women and touched them inappropriately, and used racial epithets and other abusive language in speaking to black African employees. Milwaukee also alleged that a female employee was discharged for complaining about the sexual harassment. The case was resolved by a three-year consent decree which requires a total award of $145,000 to nine class members. Defendant is enjoined from engaging in any behavior that harasses or intimidates employees on any basis prohibited by Title VII and is required to enforce its "zero tolerance" policy prohibiting discrimination or harassment based on sex or race. Defendant is further enjoined from retaliating against any current or former employee for exercising Title VII rights.
In this ADEA action, the San Antonio District Office alleged that defendant, a financial services company, failed to hire charging party, age 51, and other individuals age 40 and older, into management trainee (credit manager) positions because of their ages. Despite charging party's extensive credentials, defendant told him that his unstable work history disqualified him and then hired a 21-year-old recent college graduate with no experience. In addition, charging party was more qualified than at least seven new hires under age 40. San Antonio also alleged that defendant violated the EEOC's record keeping regulations by failing to keep the job applications, resumes, and other employment forms of applicants who were not hired. The case was resolved by a two-year consent decree which enjoins defendant from engaging in age discrimination in recruiting or hiring for management trainee positions in seven identified Texas offices and provides that defendant will comply with applicable record keeping provisions of the ADEA. Defendant will pay charging party $75,000 and another rejected PAG applicant $35,000 in backpay.
This page was last modified on January 26, 2004.