Return to Home PageThe following are brief descriptions of the some of the significant settlements reached by EEOC District Office Legal Units during January of 2003.
The Houston District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant discriminated against charging party, a female sales clerk, based on her sex by failing to promote her to an assistant store manager position. Two less qualified male co-workers were promoted instead of charging party and she was not even interviewed for the position. In addition, there were further instances where white males whom charging party had trained were promoted over her. The case was resolved through a consent decree providing $125,000 in monetary relief to charging party. The defendant is enjoined from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment based on sex and agrees that it will not discriminate or retaliate against any individual who filed a charge of discrimination or participated in the investigation of this case. Defendant further agreed that when recruiting for the position of assistant store manager at schools and colleges and when placing job advertisements, it will state that it is an equal opportunity employer. The decree also requires that defendant provide to EEOC hiring and promotion data for the positions of store manager and assistant store manager in Houston area stores for the two-year duration of the decree.
The New York District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a distributor of pet care products, subjected several Honduran female employees to a hostile working environment based upon their sex and national origin. Two of the employees' managers touched the employees' buttocks and breasts, hugged and kissed the women, used sexually explicit language and gestures, made demands for sexual favors, used demeaning language, and demanded that two of the women submit to sexual intercourse as a condition for keeping their jobs. Derogatory remarks about the women's national origin were also made. The claimants spoke only Spanish and were unable to complain of the harassment. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $150,000 to six claimants, representing payments of $2,500 to $65,000 to the individual claimants. Defendant also agreed to distribute its sexual harassment policy in both English and Spanish, to provide training to new employees in both languages, and to designate one or more individuals to whom employees whose native language is Spanish can communicate sexual harassment complaints in Spanish.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Memphis District Office alleged that defendant, which owns and operates hotels in the Eastern and Southern United States, discriminated against charging party, a black female sales manager, and black employees in its accounting, catering, and reservations departments because of their race. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement which provides for a total payment of $197,000 ($5,000 in backpay and $192,000 in compensatory damages) to six claimants. (The settlement does not contain a provision for injunctive relief because the defendant sold the hotel where the discrimination occurred and no longer holds any interest in it.)
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant subjected charging party, an 18-year-old male sales clerk, to a hostile working environment because of his sex. Throughout his employment, charging party was the target of daily unwelcome and derogatory comments (such as "fag," "faggot" and "happy pants") that mocked him because he did not conform to societal stereotypes of how a male should appear or behave. He was also grabbed and held by co-workers and had his pants forcibly removed. Despite knowledge by defendant's supervisors of the verbal and physical harassment, no action was taken to stop the unlawful conduct. As a result of the ongoing harassment, charging party was forced to quit his job. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $205,000 to charging party representing $30,000 in backpay and $175,000 in compensatory damages. Among other relief, defendant is also enjoined from any employment practice which violates Title VII and specifically from creating or tolerating a sexually hostile work environment and from retaliation.
The Charlotte District Office alleged in this ADA lawsuit that defendant discriminated against charging party, who is blind, by failing to provide work equipment that would accommodate his disability. Charging party was hired as a credit collections specialist, a job that involved using a computer while contacting customers by phone; however, he was unable to begin work because defendant refused to provide the adaptive equipment he needed to perform the job, a refreshable braille display and adaptive software. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $125,000 to charging party and enjoins defendant from discriminating against any job applicant on the basis of disability during the hiring process and from failing to provide reasonable accommodations as required by the ADA. Defendant is also enjoined from retaliating against any individual who opposes discrimination. Defendant further agreed to designate a manager at the site where the discrimination occurred who will oversee disability related issues including requests for reasonable accommodation. Defendant will also make good faith efforts to recruit qualified visually impaired applicants.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Miami District Office alleged that defendant subjected two female employees to a hostile working environment based on sex. Defendant's Vice President made sexual remarks to the women about their bodies, threw wads of paper at their breasts, and touched their thighs. The women complained to defendant's human resources department, but no action was taken by the bank to curtail the harassment. Thereafter, the Vice President's conduct worsened, resulting in the termination of one of the charging parties and the constructive discharge of the other. The case was resolved through a consent decree which resulted in a total payment of $220,236 to the two claimants. Defendant is also enjoined from adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any individual's employment because of sex and from retaliation.
The Detroit District Office alleged in this Title VII/EPA action that defendant, a manufacturer and distributor of publication, commercial and packaging inks, paid two female employees working in the Printing Research Laboratory lower wages than it paid male laboratory employees although the workers performed substantially equal work. Despite having more relevant work experience, the two female claimants were paid less than three similarly situated male comparators. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $120,000 to the two women.
The San Francisco District Office intervened in this ADEA action alleging that defendant paid state and local public safety officers age 40 and older lower disability retirement benefits because of their age. The private action was filed in 1995, and in January 2000 the Supreme Court held in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents that state entities are protected by sovereign immunity from ADEA suits by private individuals for monetary relief. Because state entities are not protected by sovereign immunity from suits by the federal government for violations of federal law, EEOC intervened following the Kimel decision.
In 1980, California abolished its age-30 cap on hiring for public safety officers, but at the same time established a method for determining benefits for industrial disability retirement retirement resulting from incapacity due to a job-related illness or injury that reduced such benefits from the prior level of 50% of an employee's final compensation by approximately 2% for each year of age over 30 at which an employee was hired. In August 2001, the parties entered into a partial consent decree providing that industrial disability retirement benefits from July 1, 2001, forward would be calculated without the age-based reductions. In a supplemental consent decree, defendant has agreed to provide retroactive benefits for approximately 1,700 public safety officers who commenced industrial disability retirement between October 16, 1992 (the date the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act became applicable to employee benefit plans of public employers) and July 1, 2001. These retroactive benefits will total approximately $50 million. Estimated future additional benefits for these 1,700 individuals will total approximately $200 million.
In this ADA lawsuit, the Denver District Office alleged that defendant, an organization which provides vocational and residential services to developmentally disabled adults, discriminated against charging party by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation for her disability and by discharging her. Charging Party has a full-scale IQ of 66. She completed the ninth grade of high school and has been unable to pass the GED test despite 10 years of studying. Charging party worked for defendant as a community living instructor/certified nursing assistant. She is licensed by the state as a certified nursing assistant based on her years of experience in the field and favorable job references. Nearly four years into her employment, defendant notified charging party that she would be terminated unless she obtained her GED within 90 days. Charging party's GED instructor contacted defendant's Executive Director to discuss alternative measures of job skills, and offered, at no cost, to perform alternative testing to measure employee literacy skills. Defendant refused to consider any alternatives and fired charging party because she was unable to pass the GED. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $80,000 to charging party.
This page was last modified on May 28, 2003.