In the Title VII complaint in this case, the Los Angeles District Office alleged that defendant, a Riverside County, California property owners' association which operates various recreational facilities, subjected two female dishwashers and other female employees in its restaurant to a sexually hostile work environment and retaliated against the charging party after she complained. The restaurant manager and a cook perpetrated the harassment, which consisted of offensive sexually-oriented comments and unwelcome physical contact. Charging party and another woman complained to the Human Resources Department in early September and again on October 28, 2002. Shortly after the first complaint, the restaurant manager reduced charging party's hours. Shortly after the second complaint, the restaurant manager issued charging party a warning letter for an incident that had occurred in July 2002, and then discharged her on November 3, 2002.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this suit, defendant will pay $285,000 in monetary relief, consisting of $45,000 ($42,000 in compensatory damages and $3,000 in backpay) for charging party, $30,000 (compensatory damages) for another female dishwasher, and $210,000 (compensatory damages) into a "Class Fund." After a notice and claims procedure, the EEOC will designate the individuals eligible for the Class Fund and the amounts they are to receive. Defendant will retain an outside EEO Consultant to monitor its compliance with Title VII and the provisions of the decree.
In this ADA complaint, the Phoenix District Office alleged that defendant, a subsidiary of Autoliv, Inc. (a global holding company headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden) that manufactures air bag components, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to charging party and other similarly- situated employees who attempted to return to work after taking medical leave for disabilities. After about 5 years in a production job at defendant's Ogden, Utah facility, charging party sustained work-related injuries affecting her cervical spine and both elbows. Between August 2000 and September 2001, she underwent multiple surgeries on her cervical spine and elbows. Based on her doctor's restrictions (lifting limited to 10 pounds, no heavy use of right arm, and no overhead work) defendant reassigned her to light duty work, where she remained for about 15 months. In May 2001, defendant adopted a policy that limited light duty assignments to 120 days. The Human Resources Manager told charging party that she could not work in a light duty assignment permanently, but that she could apply for other jobs during the 120-day period. Charging party applied for several vacant jobs for which she was qualified, but was not selected, and was terminated after 120 days, in September 2001. Defendant made no efforts to assist charging party in obtaining a reassignment, and Human Resources managers admitted that employees on light duty were never hired into vacant positions.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $70,000 in monetary relief, consisting of $20,000 in backpay and $50,000 in compensatory damages. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating against employees or applicants on the basis of disability, and is prohibited from retaliation. The decree requires defendant to review, revise, and implement its policies and procedures regarding its obligations under the ADA, including the obligation to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities. Such policies will not set fixed cutoff dates for QUIDs to return to their positions after entering a light- or transitional-duty program. Reasonable accommodations will include reassignment of a QUID from his/her position into an existing vacant position that he/she desires and is qualified to perform with or without an accommodation.
In this Title VII action, the Los Angeles District Office alleged that defendant, a national clothing retailer with over 700 stores, engaged in a pattern or practice of race, color, national origin, and sex discrimination in the recruitment, hiring, assignment, promotion, and discharge of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. The suit, developed jointly by the Chicago and Los Angeles District Offices, was based upon evidence that defendant, which centered its marketing efforts around an "image" or "look" that it called "Classic All-American," targeted its recruitment efforts at primarily white high schools and colleges (and at primarily white fraternities and sororities at the colleges); channeled minority hires to stock and night crew positions rather than sales associate positions; maintained a 60%/40% ratio of male to female employees; failed to hire and promote minorities and women into management positions; and discharged minorities and women when corporate representatives believed they were "overrepresented" at particular stores.
The case, which was consolidated with two private class actions, was resolved through a consent decree filed contemporaneously with the complaint and approved following a fairness hearing. The decree, which has a term of 6 years, enjoins defendant from discriminating against African Americans, Asian Americans, or Latinos on the basis of race, color, or national origin; from discriminating against women on the basis of gender; and from retaliation. The decree provides that defendant's marketing materials (taken as a whole) will reflect diversity as reflected by the major racial/ethnic minority populations of the United States. Defendant will create an Office of Diversity headed by a Vice President who will report directly to defendant's Chief Executive Officer or Chief Operating Officer. Defendant will hire 10 full-time diversity recruiters within the first 6 months of the decree and 15 additional full-time diversity recruiters within 12 months.
In consultation with an industrial organizational psychologist, defendant will develop a recruitment and hiring protocol requiring that it affirmatively seek applications from qualified African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos of both genders. Defendant will advertise for in-store employment opportunities in periodicals or other media that target African Americans, Asian Americans, and/or Latinos of both genders; attend minority job fairs and recruiting events; and use a diversity consultant to aid in identifying sources of qualified minority candidates. The decree establishes percentage benchmarks for the selection of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and women into sales associate (brand representative), manager-in-training, assistant manager, and store manager/general manager positions. The decree provides for court appointment of a monitor who will prepare annual reports on defendant's compliance with the terms and objectives of the decree.
Defendant will establish a settlement fund of $40 million to provide monetary awards (15% backpay and 85% compensatory damages) to a settlement class consisting of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and women who applied or were discouraged from applying for positions with defendant since February 24, 1999, and were not hired, or who were employed in one of defendant's stores for any length of time since that date. Defendant also will pay attorneys for the private classes $7.25 million for fees, expenses, and costs incurred prior to the decree approval date and $600,000 for fees, expenses, and costs related to monitoring and defending the decree.
In this Title VII case, the Seattle District Office alleged that defendant, a railroad, subjected a woman who worked as an intermodal operator (loader) at its ARGO yard in Seattle, Washington to a sexually hostile work environment. The charging party was the only female loader at the facility. She complained about the harassment which included pornographic materials throughout the facility, a drawing of male genitalia posted in a common area, ads for escort services, foul language, sexual comments, and a male coworker exposing himself to her to management and to the Union Pacific Police. The defendant took some ameliorative action, but did not correct the hostile environment or discipline the man who exposed himself to charging party.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $260,000 in monetary relief. Defendant will not retaliate against current or former employees for opposing practices made unlawful under Title VII. The following decree requirements apply to all of defendant's Intermodal facilities in Washington State: (1) reissuing defendant's antidiscrimination policy to all employees and posting a copy of it on a centrally located bulletin board at each location; (2) providing all employees with 3 hours of employment discrimination training, including training on sexual harassment, annually throughout the term of the consent decree; and (3) reporting to the EEOC every 6 months on complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation, internal investigations of the complaints, and resolutions thereof.
The Dallas District Office alleged in this Title VII suit that defendant, a Montreal-based aerospace company that manufactures Lear jets, discriminated against charging party (one of the company's 17 regional sales directors) due to his religion, Mormon, and then fired him in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. Charging party was hired in May 2001 and received a positive annual performance appraisal in June 2002. In late June or early July 2002, charging party's supervisor learned that he was a Mormon. On July 17, 2002, the head of sales (to whom both charging party and his supervisor reported) told charging party that his Mormon faith hurt his ability to sell jets because he could not drink and smoke with customers. On August 4, 2002, charging party notified the Human Resources Department about the head of sales' comments. Defendant terminated charging party on August 12, 2002, without giving any explanation. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving the case, defendant will pay charging party $159,000 in monetary relief, including $16,138 in backpay. Defendant will also provide charging party with a positive letter of reference.
The Baltimore District Office filed this Title VII suit alleging that defendant, a network telecommunications business serving customers in 26 states, discharged charging party (a senior network technician and the only black employee in Alltel's 11-employee Richmond, Virginia facility) in retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination. In November 2003, charging party and defendant entered into a mediation agreement resolving an earlier race discrimination charge. The mediation agreement required charging party's (white) supervisor to interact with him directly and required defendant to provide charging party with training. In January 2004, charging party complained to the Human Resources Department that defendant was not complying with these terms and was continuing to discriminate. A month later, defendant laid him off in a reduction-in-force. Charging party's supervisor selected him for the layoff. Although charging party performed at least as well as other technicians and was more senior than most of them, he was the only employee laid off. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $137,000 in monetary relief. The decree requires that defendant comply with Title VII's retaliation provisions, and specifically enjoins defendant's Virginia-based managers and employees in the Engineering Network Operations Group from engaging in retaliation in violation of Title VII.
This page was last modified on May 24, 2005.