Return to Home PageThe New York District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that Highland Hospital, an acute care hospital in Rochester, New York, and Strong Health, a hospital network in which Highland Hospital participates, imposed an English-only policy upon members of the environmental services (housekeeping) department and disciplined employees of Puerto Rican and Cuban national origin for violating it. Highland Hospital imposed the blanket English-only policy colloquially referred to as the "no Spanish" rule on the housekeeping department employees in 2003. At the time, defendant knew that some of the housekeeping employees were fluent only in Spanish. When three of the charging parties had interviewed with defendant, the housekeeping supervisor, also a CP, translated for them because she was bilingual in English and Spanish. The "no Spanish" rule made it difficult for the Spanish-speaking housekeeping employees to understand instructions, such as which rooms to clean. Defendant issued a written warning to the housekeeping supervisor for saying goodbye to employees in Spanish when she was clocking out for the day. It also gave written warnings to the three CPs on her staff for speaking Spanish in front of employees who did not understand Spanish. The fifth CP, a lab assistant whose primary language was Spanish and who was married to the housekeeping supervisor, had to obey the "no Spanish" rule when he visited his wife during breaks.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving the case, the five CPs and three additional claimants will share $200,000 in monetary relief. The decree prohibits defendants from discriminating against any of their employees because of national origin and enjoins them from instituting any English-only or other restrictive language policy for the duration of the decree. The decree requires defendants to rescind and remove any disciplinary notices given to employees in the housekeeping department which relate to speaking Spanish at work.
The San Antonio District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, the leading distributor of wallboard and related construction materials in Texas, with facilities in 5 major Texas cities, subjected charging party, a sales representative at its San Antonio facility, to a sexually hostile work environment and discharged her in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. Three male employees at the San Antonio facility where CP worked subjected CP to sexual harassment. The primary harasser was a male sales representative, who on a daily basis yelled filthy sexual epithets at CP. He also brushed up against her breasts, massaged her shoulders, and asked to see her breasts. The dispatcher supervisor offered CP money to have sex with him, asked her for sexual favors in exchange for delivering her orders, and on several occasions followed her into the women's bathroom, closed and blocked the door, and undid his pants. The computer on both men's desks constantly displayed pornography. The branch manager also occasionally engaged in inappropriate conduct toward CP, such as massaging her shoulders or telling her to dress more provocatively to get more business. CP complained to the branch manager on a number of occasions about the sales representative and the dispatch supervisor, but he failed to take corrective action. Instead, the branch manager transferred some of CP's accounts to the sales representative and wrote her up for being tardy when similarly situated men did not receive writeups. Defendant fired CP, ostensibly for a unexcused absence, about 2 weeks after she threatened to report the continuing harassment to defendant's owner.
The Dallas District Office and defendant resolved the case with a 4-year consent decree under which CP will receive $200,000 in monetary relief. The decree states that it does not include the claims raised in the CP's complaint-in-intervention. The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against female employees on the basis of sex, creating or permitting a sexually hostile work environment, and retaliating under Title VII.
The New York District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that Nine West, which manufacturers and sells shoes, and its parent company Jones Apparel Group, subjected charging party and other women employed at Nine West's Esprit division headquarters in White Plains, New York to a hostile work environment based on sex and national origin (Hispanic), resulting in the constructive discharge of some of them, and retaliated against CP for complaining about the hostile work environment. A top manager in the Baci-Esprit division, the President of Design, propositioned female employees for sex, made unwelcome sexual advances, made sexually explicit jokes and comments, and groped women's bodies. A Vice President also joined in some of the harassment. The two men also made derogatory remarks about the intelligence and sexual prowess of Hispanic women.
For more than a year, the Human Resources department ignored and attempted to discourage CP's and the other women's verbal complaints (for example, the Vice President of Human Resources told CP to "get used to" and "work around" the harassment). The President's reaction to CP's resistance to his conduct and her complaints was to threaten to fire her, throw shoes at her, curse at her, yell at her, and intensify his pattern of harassment. Nine West finally investigated after it received two separate written complaints, one from CP and the other from an anonymous group of women. After its investigation, defendant accepted the Design President's voluntary resignation and advised the Vice President that his conduct violated company policy. The Vice President resumed harassing CP he told her graphic details of his dream of having oral sex with her and when the company failed to take effective corrective action, she resigned. Previously, another woman had resigned because she found the harassment intolerable.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay $600,000 into a Claims Fund, to be distributed to female employees subjected by defendants to sexual harassment, national origin harassment, and/or retaliation, as determined by EEOC (based on criteria set out in the decree) after a notice and claims procedure. The court will conduct a fairness hearing to resolve any objections to EEOC's eligibility determinations. Any funds remaining after distributions to the claimants will be donated to one or more 501(c)(3) organizations selected by the EEOC. The decree states that it does not resolve CP's individual claims and that defendant agrees that the decree in no way prohibits her from proceeding with those claims.
The decree enjoins defendants from discriminating against any individual based on sex or national origin. Defendants will adopt procedures for reporting discrimination internally to include: multiple persons to whom complaints may be made; acceptance of oral or written complaints (including complaints made on an optional complaint form); prompt, thorough, confidential, and well-documented investigations; and prompt communication of the results of the investigation to complainants. Defendant will report to EEOC quarterly on internal discrimination complaints filed by employees, including any remedial action taken.
In its complaint in this Title VII suit, the Seattle District Office alleged that a teacher's union, the National Education Association, and its local affiliate NEA-Alaska, subjected three female employees in NEA-Alaska's Anchorage office (a trainer/organizer and two office support staff) to a sexually hostile work environment and constructively discharged one of them. National NEA helped place Thomas Harvey into a high-level management position at NEA-Alaska, despite his record of targeting female employees for abuse when he worked at two other NEA affiliates. Harvey was part of NEA's Unified State Executive Director Program (USEDP), through which NEA helps small affiliates pay the cost of employing executive directors. Harvey regularly subjected women at NEA-Alaska to verbal abuse and intimidation (including screaming and shaking his fist in their faces), though he rarely raised his voice to male employees. The federal district court for Alaska dismissed the case on the grounds that Harvey's behavior was not overtly sexual and thus not unlawful sexual harassment. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the suit, ruling that harassing conduct does not have to be motivated by lust or misogyny to be illegal sex discrimination.
The San Francisco District Office resolved the case with a 3-year consent decree under which the three charging party/plaintiff-intervenors will receive $750,000 in monetary relief. The decree contains a number of provisions designed to promote information-sharing between NEA and its state affiliates regarding complaints made against USEDP participants. NEA will require each state affiliate that participates in the USEDP program to include USEDP participants in the antiharassment training that the state affiliate provides to its supervisors and managers. For the term of the decree, National NEA must report annually to the EEOC regarding discrimination complaints made by employees of NEA or its state affiliates and any action taken to resolve those complaints. NEA-Alaska must file similar reports with EEOC.
The Miami District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a retail furniture store chain, subjected two female charging parties at its Seffner, Florida Clearance Center to sexual harassment and one of them to racial harassment (race black). The store manager subjected both CPs to sexually offensive comments (e.g., calling them "whore" and "bitch") and unwanted touching. He requested sexual favors in exchange for approving sales that the CPs had negotiated. He also subjected the black CP to racially offensive remarks (calling her his "black bitch" and his "token" black salesperson), referred to blacks as "you people," disparaged CP for marrying a white man, and referred to racially mixed couples as "Oreos" or "Zebras." The store's assistant manager also made sexually and racially offensive comments to the black CP. Both CPs complained initially to the store manager and subsequently to the corporate Human Resources Director, but defendant took no corrective action.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, the two CPs will share $275,000 in monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant's Clearance Centers in Florida from creating a hostile work environment based on sex or race and from retaliating against employees who oppose or file charges regarding a hostile work environment based on sex or race. With respect to each store manager and regional manager who supervised the CPs at the Seffner Clearance Center, defendant will: (1) give him a copy of defendant's antiharassment policy within 30 days of execution of the decree; (2) require him to sign a written acknowledgment that he has received the policy, agrees to abide by it, and understands that any violation of the policy could result in discipline up to and including termination; and (3) place the written acknowledgment in his personnel file. Affirmative relief which applies to all of defendant's Florida Clearance Centers -includes: (1) distributing defendant's antiharassment policy to all employees; (2) conducting annual 4-hour training sessions for defendant's managers and supervisors on preventing sex and race discrimination; (3) posting a notice regarding resolution of the suit, the requirements of Title VII, and contact information for the EEOC; and (4) retaining a monitor who will report to the EEOC every 6 months regarding internal complaints of sexual or racial harassment filed by employees and actions taken in response.
The Denver District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a convenience store chain that is part of the Kroger Company, subjected several women to sexual harassment and discharged two of them for complaining about the harassment. The charging parties, a restaurant manager trainee and a 17-year-old store clerk, worked at defendant's Littleton, Colorado store. On February 14, 2003, defendant brought in a new store manager, who began regularly fondling the CPs and other female employees and making offensive sexual comments to them. He physically intimidated women who discouraged his attention. One of the CPs warned the store manager that the store's surveillance cameras had probably captured his actions, and threatened to contact the police if the conduct continued. A week after the CPs complained to the district manager about the harassment, the district manager and another defendant manager visited the Littleton store. When the CPs went to the back of the store to ask about their complaint, they found the two visiting managers destroying the surveillance tapes. Defendant replaced the store manager later that day, February 27, 2003, and the same day the district manager told CPs that all of the employees at the store were going to be fired. One CP was fired the next day and the other a few days later.
The Phoenix District Office entered into a 3-year consent decree under which three claimants will receive $225,000 in monetary relief ($100,000 to each CP and $25,000 to an additional claimant). Defendant will provide each CP with a written apology and will change each CP's personnel record to reflect resignation instead of discharge. The decree enjoins defendant from discrimination based on sex and from retaliation under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and the EPA. The injunctions and affirmative relief apply at all Mini Mart facilities in District No. 11 during the first year of the decree and at all Mini Mart facilities in Colorado for the remainder of the decree. The affirmative relief includes: (1) posting defendant's antidiscrimination policy and distributing a copy to every employee; (2) conducting employment discrimination training for human resources employees (20 hours per year), managerial and supervisory employees (8 hours a year), and nonmanagerial employees (2 hours a year); (3) posting a notice explaining the resolution of the lawsuit, Title VII's requirements, and how to reach the EEOC; and (4) reporting to EEOC semiannually on written or verbal sex discrimination complaints made by employees, including any resolution reached.
This page was last modified on August 14, 2006.