The Dallas District Office filed this ADA action, alleging that defendant failed to hire charging party, a high school student, for a part-time position at an ice cream store in a mall in Madill, Oklahoma because it regarded her as substantially limited in working as a result of her cleft palate, a visible cosmetic disfigurement. CP inquired about a job in early November 1997 and was given an employment application but was told the store was not hiring. When she returned a few weeks later with a completed application, the store manager again reiterated that the store "was not hiring, had not been hiring, and would not be hiring." Three days later, CP and her mother were dining at defendant's store when CP's classmate stopped by their table and informed them that she was there to apply for a part-time job. CP's mother told the classmate that defendant was not hiring, but the classmate insisted that she had heard otherwise. A few minutes later, the same store manager that rejected CP took the classmate's application, interviewed her, and hired her on the spot. In addition, evidence revealed that the store manager had hired another applicant the same day she rejected CP's application. A total of 13 persons were hired between October 1997 and January 1998 and several were high school students with little or no prior work experience. Pursuant to a two-year consent decree, defendant agrees to pay $55,000 to CP. Every 3 months for the first 18 months of the decree, defendant will provide the EEOC with the name and date of hire for each person hired at the store as well as all application materials, interview notes, and reasons for the non-selection of any applicant.
In this Title VII case, the Los Angeles District Office alleged that defendant, a Jiffy Lube franchisee, subjected CP and two other female employees, recent high school teenage graduates, to sexual harassment and gender discrimination at its Lynwood, California facility. Los Angeles also alleged that defendant subjected CP to unwarranted discipline and then terminated her in retaliation after she filed a discrimination complaint with the company. Specifically, a male assistant manager made offensive comments and repeated requests for dates to CP, a married cashier. When she rejected his advances, he threatened her job security and called her derogatory names in front of customers. The assistant manager also mistreated other female employees by calling them "bitches" and other perjorative terms in English and Spanish, propositioning them for dates or sex, groping them, and making lewd comments about their bodies and appearance. After CP filed a complaint with HR, defendant suspended the manager for three days without pay, but permitted him to work with pay at another facility during that period. Thereafter, CP was subjected to heightened scrutiny by the area manager who often sent her home early and cut her hours. Three weeks after filing her complaint, CP was terminated for alleged attendance issues.
Pursuant to a two-year consent decree, defendant must pay a total of $299,000 to CP and the two class members in amounts to be determined by the EEOC. Defendant sold its assets shortly after EEOC's complaint was filed and the purchaser, Alamitos Enterprises, LLC, is a party to the decree. Alamitos must establish and maintain effective policies and procedures (detailed in the decree) for receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination and retaliation. Alamitos also will provide annual training to all current and new personnel on employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Further, supervisors and managers will be apprized of their obligation to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination policies in their work areas and among their subordinate employees.
The Denver District Office filed this Title VII lawsuit, alleging that defendant refused to provide charging party a reasonable accommodation for her Christian belief that she could not provide technical support to violent computer games, and then discharged her because of this religious belief. CP had worked for defendant a little over two years when she was assigned to a customer account, GTI, that required her to provide support services for video games with violent depictions that she considered vile and pornographic. CP told her supervisor that the "trash" in the computer was an abomination in the eyes of God and that for moral and ethical reasons she could not support the account. Defendant told CP there were no opening for technicians on other accounts and that she had to work on the GTI account or be fired. Defendant then fired CP for refusing to work on the account. The case was resolved by a settlement agreement that requires defendant to pay CP $80,000. Defendant also agrees to expunge CP's personnel file of all negative references to her employment, including written warnings and documents describing her separation as an involuntary termination. The agreement provides that defendant has implemented and agrees to continue to maintain a policy addressing religious accommodation.
In this Title VII class suit, the Indianapolis District Office alleged that an Indianapolis restaurant, which is part of a chain that operates restaurants with big screen TVs, video games, billiards, and live music, unlawfully refused to hire men as food servers. The restaurant's general manager told male applicants that the company did not hire men for server positions, and said during the Commission's investigation that its patrons preferred female servers and that therefore male applicants were steered to door host, bar, and kitchen positions. The district office amended its complaint to allege discrimination against men at Jillian's restaurants nationwide, but in June 2003, the district court dismissed claims against all but the Indianapolis restaurant, finding that the nationwide allegation had not been investigated or conciliated.
The case was resolved by a three-year consent decree, which is contingent on Jillian's, which has filed a reorganization plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, obtaining an order from the bankruptcy court approving the use of funds from its employment practices liability insurance policy to pay $350,000 in compensatory damages to the class members and $10,000 in administrative expenses to advertise for and locate class members. Class members include male applicants and former and current male employees who were denied server positions at the Indianapolis restaurant in 1999 or were deterred from applying for such positions, and all males employed as servers in 1999 or 2000 who were afforded less favorable server shifts, areas, and/or parties than female servers. The amounts of the class member awards shall be determined by EEOC and can be disputed in a fairness hearing.
The injunctive provisions of the decree apply at all Jillian's locations until Jillian's bankruptcy confirmation, with the exception of facilities sold prior to the confirmation. The decree provides that Jillian's will hire for all positions without regard to sex, and will maintain applicant flow logs and applications at all facilities for the duration of the decree. The decree requires Jillian's to post prominently a non-discrimination notice on the front door of and employee bulletin board at each of its facilities for the duration of the decree. In addition, Jillian's must include the statement that "Jillian's is an equal opportunity employer" in its advertisements to recruit or locate employees and append to its application forms a statement advising applicants of defendant's commitment to EEO hiring and the procedures to follow if they believe they have been discriminated against. Jillian's shall also revise to make sex neutral the job descriptions for the positions of server, door host, and beer tub girl (including changing "girl" to "server").
The Denver District Office brought this Title VII retaliation case, alleging that defendant, an international engineering firm with a regional distribution center in Englewood, Colorado, terminated charging party, a 20-year employee, because she complained about sex discrimination. Defendant hired a new manager of the distribution center whose conduct caused female employees to believe he was biased against women; for example, he hired three male supervisors instead of selecting more qualified and senior female candidates for the positions. Although there were numerous anonymous complaints about the new manager's gender discrimination, defendant's management staff believed CP was the sole source. CP eventually met with an HR manager to report an offensive sexist remark made by the manager. Two months later, she was fired despite her history of good performance. In accordance with a three-year consent decree, defendant is required to pay $175,000 to CP in damages and fees. The decree prohibits defendant from engaging in sex discrimination and retaliation, and requires defendant to afford all employees the same training and terms and conditions of employment without regard to gender. Defendant must conduct orientation meetings to advise all supervisors, managers, and human resources employees with authority over employees in Colorado of the terms and conditions of the decree, with an emphasis on the anti-retaliation provisions.
In this Title VII race discrimination suit, the Miami District Office alleged that defendant, a nightclub, fired two charging parties, African American bartenders, because the owner wanted to change the image of the club and they did not fit the new image. Defendant contended that it laid off bartenders due to lack of work; however, six white bartenders remained employed after CPs were laid off, and no black bartenders were employed. Further, defendant hired five additional white bartenders during the next five months. By a three-year consent decree, defendant agrees to pay $36,500 in compensatory and punitive damages and $3,500 in lost wages to each of the charging parties for a sum total of $80,000. Defendant is also enjoined from discriminating against employees in the terms and conditions of their employment because of their race. Defendant will report annually to EEOC on race discrimination complaints it receives and the actions it takes in response.
The Denver District Office filed this ADA suit against a meat processing facility in Mitchell, South Dakota and a now-defunct staffing services company that provided temporary workers to the facility in 1999 and 2000. The district office alleged that both defendants refused to hire CP, a deaf applicant with prior meat processing experience, because of her disability. CP applied directly to both defendants for employment at Dakota Pork, and although defendants hired a number of workers during the time CP was applying, she was never hired. In fact, less than an hour after defendant Mitchell told CP there were no jobs available, Mitchell hired CP's non- disabled brother to work at Dakota Pork. Defendant Mitchell, which cross-sued defendant Dakota, claimed that it attempted to place CP with Dakota Pork but Dakota Pork refused the placement.
The case was resolved by two separate three-year consent decrees. Dakota Pork will pay CP $100,000 and Mitchell Temporary, a partnership, will pay her $25,000. Defendant Dakota's decree applies to all of its facilities in South Dakota. Even though defendant Mitchell Temporary is no longer in business, the terms of the Mitchell decree apply to the former business, its two principals, and any employee-placement business in which either principal has an ownership interest during the term of the decree. Both defendants are enjoined from engaging in disability discrimination, reprisal, or retaliation. They must adopt and/or maintain policies prohibiting disability discrimination and retaliation and each policy must address reasonable accommodation procedures. In consultation with the South Dakota Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, defendants shall adopt goals for hiring employees who are deaf or hearing-impaired and seek to hire a specified number of such employees. Finally, both defendants shall maintain all records concerning implementation of the decrees and make semi-annual compliance reports detailing discrimination complaints, processing of reasonable accommodation requests, and efforts to meet their goals for hiring hearing-impaired workers.
The Los Angeles District Office filed this Title VII class suit, alleging race discrimination and retaliation at defendant's San Diego-area auto paint and body shop stores. Defendant operates 122 auto paint and body shops in more than 100 cities nationwide, including 50 shops in Southern California. The district office asserted that two black charging parties endured racial harassment by white coworkers, including the wife of a white district manager. Los Angeles alleged that another white district manager used racial slurs such as "nigger" and "boy" when referring to African American employees and led a campaign of race-based discrimination and retaliation, that included disparate discipline, placement in less desirable stores, and forced demotions and reassignments, especially after the two charging parties filed complaints with the EEOC. One of the charging parties was discharged and the other was constructively discharged. Lastly, the district office alleged that defendant retaliated against a white store manager and an Hispanic employee by disciplining them, demoting them, cutting the Hispanic employee's wages, and then forcing them out because they complained about or refused to participate in the racial harassment and discrimination directed at black employees.
The case was resolved by a three-year consent decree, applicable to defendant's San Diego County facilities, that requires defendant to pay a total of $375,000: $295,000 to five former employees and $80,000 to a class fund for individuals employed from September 1, 2000, to December 31, 2003, who were subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, African American, or to unlawful retaliation. Using an outside EEO consultant, defendant is to develop procedures for handling and tracking complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; revise and implement anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies; and train managerial and hourly employees about their rights and responsibilities under Title VII on annual basis.
The Dallas District Office filed this Title VII sexual harassment case alleging that women employed in the Customer Information Center of an Oklahoma City Coca Cola bottling plant were subjected to a broad array of sexual comments, innuendos, solicitations, name-calling, and sexually oriented physical touching by supervisors and coworkers over a period of several years. Defendant, a privately held company with approximately 1,175 employees, owns and operates Coca-Cola bottling plants in Oklahoma and supplies Coca-Cola products across Oklahoma and Arkansas. Female employees contended that their day-to-day manager put their hands in his pockets, told them to call him "Big Daddy," and bragged about his sexual prowess, and that some of his male subordinates engaged in similar verbal and physical harassment, including sexual propositioning. Defendant acknowledged that it had received complaints from at least five employees beginning in 2000 and claimed to have acted promptly. EEOC alleged that the company had had notice of the hostile environment considerably before 2000 and had not taken effective remedial action. The case was resolved by a consent decree which provides that the company will pay a total of $535,000 to six current and former female employees.
This page was last modified on November 19, 2004.