Return to Home PageThe San Francisco District Office filed this Title VII action against defendants, the current and former owners of the Dai-Ichi Hotel, Saipan, alleging that the former owner terminated over 40 employees in 1998 and 1999, following a union organizing campaign, due to their Filipino national origin. The former owner had replaced the Filipino workers with employees from countries other than the Phillippines because it believed they would be less likely to support unions. The complaint further alleged that the former owner denied promotions to Assistant Executive Chef to non-Japanese employees, and retaliated against charging party, a Filipino hotel cook, by terminating him because he filed a charge with EEOC.
The case was resolved by a consent decree in which the former owner agreed to make a total payment of $400,000 to be divided among the charging party and class members. Although the current owner (Asia Pacific Hotel, Inc.) was dismissed from the suit, it agreed to a court order enjoining it from failing or refusing to renew the one-year employment contracts of 23 current and former Filipino employees, and requiring it to pay travel costs to Saipan for any such person not on Saipan, to apply for necessary entry permits and work authorizations for nonresident persons covered by the order, and to offer nonresident persons housing and meals at the hotel on the same terms as other hotel employees.
The San Francisco District Office filed this Title VII action alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation against defendant joint employers Sega, a major video game developer, and Spherion, the temporary staffing agency that provided personnel to Sega. EEOC alleged that Sega retaliatorily discharged five video game testers because they were friends of a non-Filipino individual who was fired after complaining about preferences being given to Filipino employees. EEOC also alleged that Sega terminated 13 Filipino video game testers because of their national origin. The complaint alleged that Spherion was liable for the terminations directed by Sega because it did not protest or attempt to remedy the unlawful termination decisions.
The case was settled by separate consent decrees with Spherion and Sega. Under these decrees, Sega is required to pay $456,000 in compensatory damages to 18 claimants and Spherion is required to pay $14,400 in back pay and $129,600 in compensatory damages to 16 claimants, for a total of $600,000. Further, upon receipt of information indicating that a client has discriminated against any of its employees, Spherion must immediately notify the client, investigate the matter, and take corrective action consistent with EEOC's enforcement guidance on contingent workers. At least once each calendar quarter for one year, Spherion will actively recruit Filipino employees to its San Francisco Bay Area offices by placing advertisements in Filipino newspapers. Finally, both Sega and Spherion are required to use outside consultants to train their management and supervisory staffs on national origin discrimination and retaliation.
In this Title VII sexual harassment case, the Seattle District Office alleged that a male supervisor who worked for defendant, a car dealership in Bellingham, Washington, subjected a female salesperson to unwelcome touching and offensive sexual innuendoes. Witnesses confirmed that the supervisor sexually harassed women and that despite their complaints, nothing was done. Further, when CP complained to management about the sexual harassment, the supervisor retaliated by crediting her male coworker for a four-car deal that had the effect of displacing CP as salesperson of the month and disqualifying her for a monetary award. This displacement, combined with the unabated sexual harassment despite her complaints, compelled CP to quit. By a four-year consent decree, defendant agrees to pay $70,000 to charging party. The decree enjoins defendant from engaging in personnel practices which discriminate against applicants and employees in violation of Title VII. Using an independent consultant, defendant also agrees to implement an EEO policy specifically prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation and will adopt practices to promote supervisor accountability regarding compliance with the anti-discrimination policy. Further, defendant will provide annual mandatory training on sex discrimination and sexual harassment to its managers, supervisors, and employees, and will require its President and General Manager to undergo one-on-one EEO training with an EEOC-approved trainer every six months for one year.
The St. Louis District Office alleged that the Overland Park, Kansas facility of defendant, a general merchandise chain that is one of the 10 largest employers nationwide, violated Title I of the ADA by rejecting a qualified job applicant with mild retardation for a stocker position because of his mental disability. Although charging party is substantially limited in the major life activities of thinking and learning, he had prior stocker experience with a large retailer and was recommended for hire by defendant's human resources interviewer and by virtue of the high score he obtained on the pre-employment questionnaire. However, defendant's operations manager, who also interviewed CP, declined to hire CP, saying he was concerned about CP's inability to answer simple questions without consulting his job coach, who accompanied him on the interview. The operations manager said this limitation caused him to believe that CP could not fulfill the stocker duties involving assisting or interacting with customers and other employees. Ultimately, defendant claimed that CP was rejected because it did not need a stocker, but evidence revealed that several stockers were hired in the months following CP's rejection. The case settled by a consent decree with defendant agreeing to pay a sum total of $60,000 in back pay, compensatory and punitive damages to a special needs trust for charging party.
The Detroit District Office alleged that an automobile parts manufacturer with facilities in Holland, Michigan, violated the ADA when it failed to reasonably accommodate and then discharged charging party, a line worker with cystic kidney disease who had to take a lengthy medical of leave of absence due to his disability. Specifically, EEOC alleged that CP had been on medical leave for a year and throughout that time had been repeatedly assured by defendant that his job would be waiting for him when he returned to work. However, one week after CP's leave expired and after his wife informed defendant's HR staff that CP was scheduled to receive a needed kidney transplant in one month, defendant terminated CP. While defendant said that company policy only required it to grant CP medical leave for a year, it never contended that an extension of such leave would present an undue hardship or challenged CP's contention that he was able to return to work three months after the transplant. Pursuant to a consent decree, defendant is to pay $55,000 in back wages to charging party. Defendant also agrees to conduct an individualized assessment of the ability to return to work of any disabled employee whose medical leave has expired, and will determine whether an extension of leave would be a reasonable accommodation under the circumstances.
The Philadelphia District Office brought this Title VII action alleging that charging party, a Hispanic general manager, was retaliated against because he complained of national origin discrimination, and that the retaliatory conduct caused his constructive discharge. According to the lawsuit, defendant, a nationwide corporation that provides a variety of support services to healthcare facilities in 17 countries, considered charging party to be an exemplary employee. In 1998, CP was named "Manager of the Year" and received the "Unit of the Year" award. Shortly thereafter, he applied for several high-level promotions with no success. After learning in December 1999 that he would not receive a district manager position he sought, CP complained to defendant's officials of national origin discrimination. Beginning in January 2000, defendant's managers subjected charging party to increased scrutiny of his work, placed him on a performance improvement plan, removed him from a multi-site account, and denied him leadership training and placement into other management positions, thus forcing him to quit. The case was resolved by a consent decree that requires defendant to pay $90,000 in damages to charging party.
The Philadelphia District Office alleged in this ADA action that defendant subjected charging party to a hostile work environment because of his disability, Down's Syndrome, causing charging party's constructive discharge. Charging party is moderately mentally retarded and is limited in learning, communicating, and caring for himself. The Commission alleged that management staff and coworkers at the Wendy's restaurant where charging party worked repeatedly harassed him because of his disability. Coworkers screamed profanities at charging party and called him "stupid." Charging party was subjected to physical assaults including pushing, shoving, placing a knife against his stomach, putting ice down his clothes, and throwing water in his face. As a result of this harassment charging party was forced to resign. The case was resolved through a consent decree providing $90,000 to charging party, which (less $9,000 in attorney's fees) shall be used to fund a special needs trust established for charging party by his mother. Creation of the trust allows charging party to remain eligible for needs-based government benefits notwithstanding receipt of the monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant from violating the ADA and specifically from creating or tolerating a disability-based hostile work environment and from retaliation.
The St. Louis District Office filed this Title VII action against a family-owned motel, alleging that one of defendant's managers, who is also the owner's brother, made sexual comments to and fondled three female front desk workers. The Commission further alleged that defendant retaliated against the two victims who complained by verbally harassing one at home and on the job and reducing the work hours and eliminating the supervisory duties of the other. Finally, the Commission alleged that the women were constructively discharged. (The manager was found guilty in a state court of criminal charges stemming from his touching of the women.) The motel did not have a sexual harassment policy. In accordance with a four-year consent decree, defendant has agreed to pay the three women a total of $180,000 in damages for emotional distress and to provide positive employment references. In addition, the company agreed to issue a sexual harassment policy and, within 60 days, to provide mandatory 3-hour EEO training to its entire workforce, which shall emphasize the prohibitions against sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation.
The Seattle District Office brought this ADEA action, alleging that defendant, a French corporation that designs, manufactures and markets microscopic machines and structures and has a small North American subsidiary headquartered in San Jose, terminated two charging parties because of their ages. CP Michael Tavares (50) and CP Robert Miller (52) were hired for management positions in February and March 2002, respectively, after they had face-to-face interviews with the subsidiary's employees in the San Jose office and a phone interview with defendant's head of sales in North America and its President/CEO. Charging parties first met defendant's management during their training in Grenoble, France the week of March 15, 2002, and a month later they received identical e-mails informing them of their dismissals. The explanation offered by the North American head of sales was that the President/CEO thought charging parties were "too seasoned," and the head of sales agreed with one of the CPs that this meant too old. Further, charging parties were told that their jobs had been eliminated but evidence revealed that defendant sought to fill their jobs immediately after their dismissals.
The case was resolved by a three-year consent decree that requires defendant to pay a total of $125,000 to the charging parties. In addition, defendant agrees to adopt, with the assistance of an independent consultant, a new written EEO policy that specifically sets forth federal requirements prohibiting age discrimination, and to provide annual EEO training to all HR staff, managers, and employees with an emphasis on defendant's anti-discrimination policies and complaint procedures. Finally, every six months defendant will submit a report to the EEOC detailing all complaints of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation and their resolutions.
The Milwaukee District Office filed this action, alleging that a foreman of defendant, a producer of metal castings for small engines, harassed charging party, a Russian immigrant born in 1936, because of his national origin and age in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. For nearly four years, the foreman regularly made derogatory remarks about CP's age, such as "old m f " and "old fart," and his heavy Russian accent. CP complained to management about the foreman's harassment but nothing was done until a particularly egregious incident lead to the foreman's "resignation." The case settled by a consent decree that requires defendant to pay $46,000 in emotional distress damages and fees to CP and to refrain from engaging in national origin or age harassment and retaliation. Additionally, defendant shall implement confidential and reliable complaint procedures for reporting incidents of age and national origin harassment.
In this Title VII action, the Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant subjected charging party, a female life skills instructor and house counselor, to same-sex sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. Defendant is a large, diversified social service organization located in Philadelphia, PA that sponsors programs in nine states for people with mental disabilities. According to the charging party and employee witnesses, a female site manager, who had transferred and become CP's supervisor, frequently made sexual advances and sexually derogatory remarks to CP such as "I can lick your p sy better than your husband." Although CP repeatedly informed her supervisor that she was not interested, the harassment continued. Following CP's complaint to human resources, she was removed from the supervision of the harasser, but the harasser continued to monitor CP's work and treated her with hostility. Suffering acute depression and anxiety, CP applied for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and attached her doctor's certification indicating that CP's condition was the result of the sexual harassment at work. Defendant denied her leave request and ordered CP to have her doctor delete any references to the sexual harassment in his report. CP refused and after being out of work for several weeks without pay was discharged. Through a consent decree, defendant will pay $3,000 in back pay and $87,000 in compensatory damages to CP. Defendant is enjoined from sexually harassing or retaliating against any employee and agrees to draft and distribute policies and procedures in English and Spanish addressing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and to revise its EEO policy to advise employees of their right to file charges with the EEOC.
In this Title VII action against a nationwide roofing supply distributor, the Charlotte District Office alleged that defendant subjected charging party, a Puerto Rican truck driver/crane operator, to harassment based on his race (Hispanic) and his national origin (Puerto Rican). From February 2001 until July 2003, a white coworker called the charging party offensive names such as "taco," "burrito," "enchilada," and "retarded Mexican" on a daily basis. Although CP reported the slurs to the facility's general manager, nothing was done and the harassment continued until the EEOC investigator conducted an onsite inspection.
The case was resolved by a consent decree that requires defendant to pay $100,000 to charging party. The decree prohibits defendant from discriminating on the basis of race or national origin and specifically from harassment on the basis of race or national origin and from retaliation. In addition, defendant agrees to implement and enforce an anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure and to provide annual training on Title VII prohibitions regarding discrimination and harassment based on race and national origin to its managers, supervisors, and employees. Finally, defendant will provide the EEOC with semi-annual reports regarding any complaints about race or national origin discrimination or harassment, including a detailed statement of each complaint and any action taken in response.
The Philadelphia District Office brought this Title VII action, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge against defendant, a New Jersey division of an international company headquartered in Italy that produces and distributes snacks, bread, pasta and similar products. Charging party, a sales division manager and the only woman in an office of four male executives, was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, sexually explicit comments, the showing of a pornographic video, and unwelcome touching by her supervisor and other male executives during her employment at the New Jersey facility. Her supervisor asked her to attend sales meetings at his apartment, a topless bar, and a swingers club, invitations which she refused, and required her to attend work-related dinners at Hooters and a transvestite karaoke bar where the entertainment included lap dances and strip tease contests. While charging party initially did not complain about the harassment because she believed her supervisor and the human resources manager condoned it, she eventually complained to her supervisor about a coworker slapping her on the buttocks. In response, her supervisor told her if she reported the incident, he would fire her. CP complained anyway to the vice president of sales and vice president of human resources, and her supervisor instructed her peers to ostracize her. He also threatened to suspend her, and made derogatory comments about her performance and gave her a low rating. Suffering from post-traumatic stress and depression, CP took a leave of absence and never returned.
The case was resolved by a consent decree that requires defendant to pay a total of $300,000 to charging party. In addition, the decree provides that defendant will not retaliate against individuals who engage in protected activities, and will provide training on sexual harassment and retaliation by an EEOC-approved vendor for its managers, supervisors, and employees at the New Jersey facility.
The Miami District Office brought this Title VII action, alleging post-9/11 national origin discrimination against charging party, a Palestinian who was born in Israel but at the age of three moved to the United States with his parents and became a naturalized American citizen. Defendant, a manufacturer of precision investment castings for both commercial and military applications serving the aerospace industry, fired the charging party from his job as a dewaxer eight days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Prior to his termination and immediately after the terrorist attacks, CP was made a target of hostility by his angry coworkers because of his Palestinian origin. Coworkers openly expressed their dislike of Middle Easterners, while others reported to defendant's Human Resource Manager that charging party had made "threatening and inflammatory remarks at work in support of the terrorist attacks." Although charging party denied these accusations, one or more employees reported their suspicions to the FBI, who interviewed CP but took no further action. Three days after the 9/11 attacks, the HR Manager suspended charging party with full pay and benefits pending an investigation of the allegations. Defendant's investigation as to whether CP made alleged pro-terrorist remarks was inconclusive, but defendant discharged charging party upon his return to work, allegedly because of attendance problems. Evidence revealed, however, that all of CP's absences were excused and that non-Palestinian employees with worse attendance records were not terminated. Further, CP's supervisor and coworkers stated that CP was a good performer. Pursuant to a three-year consent decree, defendant agrees to pay $49,000 in compensatory damages and $3,000 in lost wages to the charging party. In addition, defendant agrees to provide a positive job reference, and to remove from CP's personnel file any reference to pro-terrorist remarks he allegedly made or to his September 2001 discharge.
This page was last modified on May 17, 2004.