Return to Home PageThe following are brief descriptions of some of the significant settlements reached by EEOC District Office Legal Units during June of 2003.
The New York District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant UIA, one of the largest labor unions in Puerto Rico, discriminated against charging party, a Seventh Day Adventist and an employee of Rule 19 defendant AAA, Puerto Rico's aqueduct and sewer authority, because of his religion by insisting that he become a union member despite his religious beliefs which forbid membership in a labor union. The complaint also alleged that UIA failed to provide charging party a reasonable accommodation for his religious practices. When charging party refused to join UIA, the union caused his termination from AAA. After EEOC prevailed on summary judgment, defendants appealed and the case was remanded to the district court for trial. The litigation was resolved through a two-year consent decree which provides for payment by UIA of $75,000 in back pay to charging party and an agreement by defendants that charging party (who was reinstated in January 2001 while the case was on appeal) can work in a bargaining unit position at AAA without joining the union and can pay an amount equal to the union dues to a nonreligious charitable organization. Defendants also agree that they will not discriminate based on religion or retaliate against any individual and further agree to provide religious accommodations to employees and union members as required by Title VII. Defendant UIA agrees to include a statement in its collective bargaining agreement regarding its responsibility to provide union members religious accommodations and agrees to provide a clearly identified process for requesting accommodations.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Chicago District Office alleged that defendant Gurtz, an electrical subcontractor, and defendant Pickus, a general construction contractor, subjected female workers to a sexually hostile work environment. The complaint alleged that Pickus and Gurtz permitted sexually explicit and offensive graffiti about women in portable toilets and in other areas of the construction site and ignored sexually offensive remarks made to charging party, a female electrician employed by Gurtz, who was an explicit target of some of the graffiti. In March 2003, the claims against Gurtz were resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $50,000 in compensatory damages to the charging party. Gurtz also agreed that it will not engage in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. In June, Pickus agreed to a consent decree which provides for payment of $29,750 in compensatory damages to two female claimants ($23,750 to charging party and $6,000 to another female claimant) and permanently enjoins the company from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. Gurtz and Pickus also agreed to adopt revised sexual harassment policies that specifically prohibit sexual graffiti and Pickus agreed to provide a copy of the revised policy to each of its subcontractors at the time it signs a subcontracting agreement.
The Seattle District Office alleged in this Title VII action that defendant, an umbrella corporation for a number of insurance and financial businesses, retaliated against charging party, a black female Lead Programmer/Analyst in the Information Systems Group, when it fired her after learning that she had contacted EEOC to file a charge alleging race discrimination. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $200,000 to charging party.
The San Antonio District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a cable television provider and distributor, subjected charging party, a construction foreman, to a hostile working environment based on his national origin (Puerto Rican). From summer 1999 until he filed an EEOC charge in February 2001, charging party was called derogatory names such as "dirty Puerto Rican," "mother fucking spic," and "nigger" by a white coworker. The harasser also physically threatened charging party by picking up a metal pipe and gesturing at him. After filing his EEOC charge, charging party was told by defendant's General Manager that he would be fired if he followed through with his complaint. The General Manager also verbally harassed charging party, disciplined him more severely than coworkers who had not filed discrimination charges, and closely scrutinized his work. As a result of the harassment and retaliation, charging party quit his job. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $99,000 to charging party. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating on the basis of national origin or color and from engaging in any form of retaliation.
The Los Angeles District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a national restaurant chain, subjected four female employees to a sexually hostile working environment. The harassment included sexual touching and groping by a coworker at a Pizza Hut restaurant in Diamond Bar, California. The women were forced to quit their jobs because of the harassment. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $360,000 ($35,209 in back pay and $324,791 in compensatory damages) to the four female claimants.
The Philadelphia District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a nationwide chain of lingerie stores, subjected charging party, a black comanager of a Victoria's Secret store in Langhorne, Pennsylvania, to a hostile working environment because of her race and religion (Baptist) and failed to accommodate her need to attend religious services. The white store manager, white comanagers, and white sales associates repeatedly made offensive remarks and insulted charging party's race and religion. The complaint further alleged that defendant failed to cooperate in scheduling Sunday work so that she could attend church services. The District Manager failed to take steps to remedy the harassment and discouraged charging party from bringing her complaints to higher-level managers. As a result of the hostile working environment, charging party quit her job. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $179,300 to charging party.
The Atlanta District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendants, related businesses that provide an internet-based customer relationship management system designed for real estate professionals, retaliated against charging party, an Area Sales Manager, when they demoted her, suspended her and discharged her shortly after she complained about inappropriate sexual language being used by a manager during an employee training session. The case was resolved through a stipulated final judgment and order which provides for a payment of $112,000 to charging party. Defendants are enjoined from retaliating against any person who opposes unlawful conduct under Title VII.
This page was last modified on September 16, 2003.