Return to Home PageThe Denver District Office filed this ADA case alleging that United Personnel, a job placement company which employs individuals to work for client businesses on a temporary-to-hire basis, and its client Protocol Communications, a telemarketing company, failed to provide the charging party with a reasonable accommodation and terminated him based on his disability, blindness.
United Personnel interviewed charging party for a Customer Service Representative (CSR) position and then referred him to Protocol for approval and training. Protocol's Project Manager asked charging party how he could do the job without seeing the prompts on the computer screen. Charging party explained that "JAWS" (Job Access With Speech) software, which he had used in previous CSR jobs and was available on the Internet, would allow him to do the job. Protocol's IT director was consulted and reported that JAWS could not read a customer's name in time for charging party to greet the customer without losing the call. Protocol then told United Personnel that it had decided not to retain charging party, but neither entity told charging party, who showed up the next day ready for work. Charging party told Protocol's Project Manager that he had arranged for his vocational rehabilitation counselor to be available throughout the day to assist with any questions about JAWS, but the manager, without giving any reason, simply told him that Protocol had decided not to download JAWS. Charging party says that in using JAWS in CSR positions both before and after applying with defendants there has never been a time lag in the computer reading the information off the screen. This was confirmed by an expert for Beyond Sight, who said that Protocol should have contacted a specialist instead of relying on an IT person with no experience installing or using the software.
Under the 2-year consent decree, which applies to all seven Protocol call centers in the continental United States, Protocol will pay charging party $50,900 in monetary relief. The decree prohibits Protocol from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of disability and from engaging in retaliation under the ADA, Title VII, the ADEA, or the EPA. Protocol will designate a senior-level employee to discuss employee complaints or concerns about discrimination and retaliation, guide the company in making determinations on reasonable accommodation requests, and oversee implementation of the consent decree. Further, in consultation with state vocational rehabilitation services professionals Protocol will make its best efforts to hire qualified blind or visually impaired CSRs at each of its call centers, and in its semiannual reports to EEOC will describe its recruiting efforts and identify the state vocational rehabilitation employees with whom it has worked.
The San Francisco District Office filed this ADEA case alleging that Raley's, a supermarket chain with over 150 stores in California, Nevada, and New Mexico, discharged charging party because of her age, 74. Charging party had worked as a part-time Deli Clerk in defendant's Yreka, California supermarket since 1994. Defendant terminated her in April 2003 for violating its policy against consuming the company's food while working. Other employees, including the Deli Manager, sampled food frequently while working but were not disciplined. Charging party will receive $45,023.55 under the 1-year consent decree resolving the case. Defendant reinstated charging party after the EEOC began its investigation and will restore the health plan benefits, seniority, and sick leave she lost as a result of her termination. Defendant will provide a workplace free of age discrimination.
In this individual Title VII lawsuit, the Phoenix District Office alleged that JPI Partners, a company that builds and manages apartment complexes, disciplined and terminated charging party because she was pregnant. Charging party was hired in August 1999 as the Regional Property Manager for four of defendant's Phoenix apartment complexes. Defendant gave her a merit raise within her first 4 months of employment, and she earned performance bonuses in June and August 2000 for meeting her occupancy and move-in goals. Following a July 2000 reorganization, charging party reported to a new manager. Charging party informed the new manager in early August 2000 that she was pregnant, and within a week the manager gave her a verbal performance warning and wrote a memorandum to the Divisional President and Vice President criticizing charging party and setting forth a plan to force her out within 30 days. Defendant terminated charging party a month later without following its progressive discipline system.
The parties resolved the case through a 2-year consent decree, providing the charging party with $135,000 in monetary relief. Defendant is prohibited from discriminating against applicants or employees based on sex, from disciplining or terminating employees because of pregnancy, and from retaliation. Defendant will post a notice in a prominent place at all of its facilities in Arizona regarding the requirements of Title VII and explaining how to file a discrimination complaint internally, with the Arizona Civil Rights Division, and with the EEOC. In addition, defendant will provide 2 hours of EEO training to all employees at each Arizona property as well as the next two levels of supervisors within charging party's region.
The Milwaukee District Office filed this nationwide ADA action alleging that Northwest Airlines excluded applicants with insulin dependent diabetes and with seizure disorders requiring antiseizure medication from equipment service employee (ESE) and aircraft cleaner positions because of their disabilities. EEOC alleged that Northwest applied an unwritten "zero tolerance" policy to such applicants because it believed they were at risk of a sudden loss of consciousness and thus posed a safety hazard because the positions sometimes require driving vehicles on airport ramps and working at unprotected heights.
The case was resolved through a 2-year agreed order that prohibits Northwest from applying a zero tolerance policy to applicants for ESE and aircraft cleaner positions who have a diagnoses of diabetes requiring insulin or an epilepsy/seizure disorder requiring antiseizure medication. The order further requires Northwest to examine work restrictions (e.g., regarding working at heights, driving, working alone) recommended for such applicants by contract physicians and prohibits Northwest from giving conclusive weight to such recommendations; requires that Northwest individually assess recommended restrictions, applying the ADA and other applicable law, and disqualify only applicants who cannot perform the essential functions of the positions with or without a reasonable accommodation or who pose a direct threat to the health or safety of themselves or others; requires Northwest in conducting individual assessments to consider input offered by applicants, including an applicant's experience in prior comparable positions; and requires that before disqualifying an applicant, Northwest will inform the applicant of the essential job function(s) that Northwest believes the applicant cannot safely or adequately perform and give the applicant 15 days to provide additional information regarding his or her ability to safely and adequately perform the essential job functions, with or without an accommodation, including information from treating physicians. Northwest will pay a total of $510,000 to 28 claimants denied ESE or aircraft cleaner positions since January 1, 1996, in individual amounts to be determined by EEOC.
In this Title VII case, the San Francisco District Office alleged that the charging party was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and then laid her off in retaliation for resisting the sexual harassment. In March 2001, defendant, which provides hospitality services worldwide, hired charging party as a Sales Executive, responsible for selling timeshares at one of its beach clubs in Oahu, Hawaii. During charging party's first week of work and training, the Project Director (her boss and the highest- ranking official onsite) began sexually harassing her. The harassment included comments about charging party's appearance, unwelcome physical contact, offensive sexual remarks and inquiries, and requests for dates and sex. Charging party consistently refused the Project Director's advances and told him to stop harassing her. In August 2001, the Project Director told charging party how unhappy he was that she wouldn't go out with him, and a month later he laid her off along with six other Sales Executives. The only Sales Executive retained had been employed just 2 months and had a sales record inferior to charging party, who was the volume leader in sales.
The parties resolved the case through a 3-year consent decree under which charging party will receive $190,000 in monetary relief. Under the decree, the defendant will adopt a complaint procedure that allows employees to make confidential reports of harassment and retaliation and will identify managers locally and at Human Resources in corporate headquarters in Orlando, Florida responsible for handling such complaints. Defendant, through an independent consultant, will provide 4 hours of anti-harassment training to its corporate Human Resources managers in Orlando and to all employees (including managers and supervisors) in Hawaii. The defendant must also report annually to EEOC on sexual harassment complaints and action taken by defendant.
The Milwaukee District Office alleged in this ADEA action that from June 1998 through at least June 2000, defendant discriminated against employees age 55 and older by reducing benefits under its teacher early retirement incentive plan based on the age at which an employee retired. Teachers became eligible for the early retirement incentive upon reaching age 55. Benefits were calculated by a formula based on accumulated years of service (5 days of pay for each year of service to a maximum of 50 days) and sick days (50% of pay for each unused sick day to a maximum of 50 days). Benefits were reduced by 5% for each year after age 55 that a teacher worked; at age 65 the reduction was 50% and teachers retiring after that age received no retirement incentive. Under the 5-year consent judgment resolving the case, 10 former teachers will receive a total of $110,315.32 in backpay and interest, with individual amounts ranging from $18,785.49 to $1,893.78. The judgment prohibits defendant from implementing or administering any retirement incentive plan that reduces benefits based on age or on an employee's continued employment beyond his or her date of first eligibility. The judgment also prohibits defendant from retaliation as defined in the ADEA.
The St. Louis District Office filed this Title VII case against Bob Evans Farms, a nationwide restaurant chain, alleging that the general manager of defendant's Bridgeton, Missouri restaurant subjected female food servers to a sexually hostile work environment that caused some of them to resign. The harassment included vulgar sexual comments and conduct. Three of the affected employees were teenagers. The parties resolved the case through a 2-year consent decree under which defendant will pay a total a total of $250,000 in monetary relief to eight individuals affected by the sexual harassment. The decree prohibits defendant from discriminating against employees because of sex. In addition, the decree prohibits defendant from rehiring the general manager and an assistant manager who failed to respond to complaints about the general manager, at any restaurant defendant owns or operates. The defendant must post its sexual harassment policy at six Missouri restaurants in locations visible to all employees, and must provide sexual harassment training to all employees at these restaurants, including the Area Director for the six restaurants.
The New York District Office filed this ADEA case alleging that defendant, which operates eight hospitals and a number of other medical facilities, terminated charging party from her position as Manager of the Cardiology Department and Physician Liaison at St. Joseph's Hospital because of her age, 74. Charging party, who had worked for defendant for 14 years, routinely parked her car in defendant's lot, but one day stopped at a store about a block from the hospital and then walked to work, leaving her car parked in front of the store. When charging party could not find the car in defendant's lot at the end of the day she reported it stolen to internal security and the police. Defendant discharged charging party for filing a false incident report on the car. One of defendant's security officers made a statement indicating that someone charging party's age who could not remember where she had parked her car should not be practicing medicine. The parties resolved the case through a 2-year consent decree providing $157,500 in monetary relief to charging party.
The St. Louis District Office filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that Consolidated Freightways, formerly one of the largest freight carriers in North America, subjected black employees at its Kansas City, Missouri facility to a hostile work environment because of their race. The affected employees were a loading dock supervisor and 11 dockworkers. The harassment included the presence of nooses and racist graffiti in the workplace, physical assaults of black workers by white coworkers, threats of violence toward black workers, vandalism of black employees' property, and disparate discipline of black employees. Defendant failed to investigate reported incidents of harassment and took no meaningful remedial action. Defendant filed for bankruptcy and is now in the process of liquidation. The parties resolved the case through a consent decree providing a total of $2,750,000 in monetary relief to the 12 aggrieved individual in amounts ranging from $200,000 to $400,000. The claims will be treated as Class 4 unsecured claims in defendant's bankruptcy proceeding, and based on information from the bankruptcy trustee, the District Office expects to receive 13% to 20% of the face value of the claims.
The Houston District Office filed this Title VII retaliation case against W- Industries, a Houston-based company which manufactures and installs control and safety shutdown systems for the energy industry. Charging party worked for the defendant as an electrician's helper from August 1998 until he was terminated in May 2003. Throughout his employment, charging party was subjected to unwelcome touching and demeaning sexual comments by male managers and coworkers. The most egregious conduct occurred at a temporary worksite in Corpus Christi, Texas, between January and May 2003. In an April 2003 meeting with the Superintendent responsible for much of the unwelcome sexual conduct charging party indicated he had hired a lawyer and intended to sue the company. Within a few days, defendant issued a directive demanding close scrutiny of charging party's work and termination for any mistakes. Shortly thereafter defendant transferred charging party to Houston and then fired him several days later.
The parties resolved the case through a 3-year consent decree providing $175,000 in monetary relief to charging party. Defendant is required to counsel the Superintendent and another supervisor on avoiding retaliation against employees who complain about conduct that the employees believe discriminates in violation of Title VII. For the term of the decree, defendant must post a notice regarding the requirements of the decree at each of its facilities and must provide annual retaliation training to all mangers at each facility.
The Charlotte District Office filed this Title VII sexual harassment and constructive discharge case against the operator of a chain of about 300 restaurants. The District Office alleged that starting in about December 1998, a manager at defendant's steakhouse in Shelby, North Carolina subjected charging party and several other female cashiers and servers to hostile environment sexual harassment. The harassment included sexually offensive verbal conduct, physical conduct (exposing himself to charging party), and intrusive physical contact, including sexual assaults of charging party. Defendant did nothing about the harassment for about a year, despite complaints by women to several managers. Defendant finally discharged the manager, but because it allowed him to continue frequenting the restaurant and he had threatened to harm charging party for complaining, charging party felt forced to resign.
The parties resolved the case through a 3-year consent decree providing charging party and two other claimants a total of $150,000 in damages. Charging party will receive $110,000 and the other two claimants will each receive $20,000. The decree prohibits defendant from engaging in discrimination or harassment because of sex and from retaliation. The decree requires defendant to provide all employees, including those hired while the decree is in effect, with a copy of its revised anti-discrimination policy and with annual training on federal EEO laws. At the Shelby restaurant and other restaurants supervised by a particular District Manager defendant must also: (1) post a notice regarding settlement of the instant lawsuit and defendant's EEO requirements, and (2) provide detailed semiannual reports to EEOC regarding employees' complaints of discrimination and defendant's actions taken in response.
The Seattle District Office filed this ADEA case alleging that defendant, an electronics research and development firm wholly-owned by a Japanese corporation, failed to hire charging party into an integrated circuit design engineer position in its Kirkland, Washington office because of his age, 50. Charging party had much more than the stated minimum qualifications for the position, but defendant excluded him from the initial screening. One of the hiring officials told him that defendant was seeking a younger candidate. Defendant selected a 38-year-old who did not meet all of the minimum qualifications for the position. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving the case, the charging party will receive $82,750, representing backpay plus interest, liquidated damages, and frontpay. The decree provides that defendant will not unlawfully discriminate against applicants or employees based on age.
This page was last modified on April 28, 2005.