Return to Home PageThe Miami District Office filed this ADEA action alleging that defendant, a large healthcare company in Florida, promoted charging party, a 64-year-old RN with 40 years of nursing experience, to a clinical supervisor position and then denied her the management-level salary and concomitant benefits that younger supervisors received because of her age. Miami also alleged that although defendant liked CP's skill-level it discharged CP because of her age, retaining her only until it found a younger replacement (age 44) who fit in better with the company's youthful image. The case was resolved by a three-year consent decree that requires defendant to pay $75,000 in liquidated damages to CP. Defendant is enjoined from engaging in any conduct that adversely affects an individual's employment in violation of the ADEA. Further, defendant will develop an EEOC-approved written age discrimination policy and distribute it to all employees in its Orlando and Melbourne, Florida offices. Using a trainer approved by the EEOC, defendant also will conduct a 4-hour EEO training session annually for all of its managers and supervisory personnel in Orlando and Melbourne with specific emphasis on recognizing age discrimination and proper handling of age discrimination complaints.
This Title VII suit was brought by the Houston District Office, alleging that the male owner of defendant, a supplier of imported decorative items to interior decorating and other businesses, subjected male warehouse employees to a sexually hostile work environment. EEOC claimed that defendant's owner took advantage of the vulnerable employment status of young Hispanic males by requiring that they permit him to perform oral sex on them as a condition of keeping their jobs. By a five-year consent decree, defendant is required to pay a total of $190,000 to class members identified by EEOC. Defendant is permanently enjoined from engaging in sexual harassment, making employment decisions for sexual purposes, and making employment decisions on the basis of gender. Defendant is also permanently enjoined from discussing the sexual behaviors of any of its current or former employees, and is prohibited from requiring any employee to enter the home of defendant's owner. Defendant will adopt a written sexual harassment policy, available in English and Spanish, that among other things will provide for a prompt investigation of sexual harassment complaints. The complaint procedure will provide the name and telephone number of the EEOC's representative, and defendant must forward all verbal or written complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation complaints to EEOC within three business days of receiving them. Finally, in addition to extensive reporting by defendant on sexual harassment complaints, EEOC will conduct periodic inspections of defendant's premises at least four times per year and whenever an employee's complaint merits an inspection.
The Denver District Office brought this Title VII class suit alleging that a drywall and steel framing firm headquartered in Fort Collins, Colorado that specializes in large industrial and commercial projects, subjected Mexican workers to ethnic slurs, national origin harassment, and retaliation at the site of a multimillion-dollar hospital construction project. According to the suit, 10 charging parties and a class of similarly situated individuals were called "lazy," "stupid," "motherfucker shit wetbacks," and "damn wetbacks" on a daily basis. Mexican workers also were subjected to discriminatory working conditions. They were not permitted to use the cleaner ground floor restrooms or to use the elevators even when carrying heavy items. Further, they were not permitted to enter the supervisor's trailer to drink water, and were told they must bring their own water to the worksite. Following a one-hour peaceful protest of the discriminatory conduct, held on September 15, 2000, several Mexican workers, including six of the charging parties, were given layoff notices. By a two-year consent decree, defendant will pay a total of $750,000: $600,000 to the 10 charging parties and $150,000 to other workers perceived to be of Mexican national origin who worked on the hospital construction project in 1999 or 2000 and experienced national origin harassment or retaliation. The decree prohibits defendant from engaging in national origin discrimination and requires it to afford all employees the same training and terms and conditions of employment without regard to national origin. Prior to posting a notice about the decree, defendant shall hold an orientation meeting with all of its managers, supervisors, and HR employees in Colorado and Wyoming and advise them of the decree's terms and conditions and that any breach will result in dismissal or other appropriate discipline.
The Seattle District Office filed this Title VII action against a leading company in the North American timeshare resort industry whose headquarters are located in Redmond, Washington. According to the suit, defendant denied promotional opportunities to female employees in its Northwest facilities, based in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska, because of their sex. Charging party, a 47-year-old successful sales representative who started with defendant in 1998, inquired about several supervisory and managerial opportunities but received no encouragement or support and was not selected for such positions. She contended that the men in control of the company would make employment decisions without any public announcement or competition for the vacancies, and had a history of promoting favored males within the company. Other female current and former sales representatives, including a woman who had received an award for the highest sales performance in the company four times, had experiences similar to CP's. By a consent decree that applies to defendant's facilities in the Northwest Region, defendant will pay into a Settlement Pool a total of $475,000 to be disbursed to approximately 25 class members, defined as females employed in the Northwest Region as sales representatives or sales assistant mangers between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2003, who in at least 3 months ranked within the top 25% of compensation of all women working in those positions. Defendant will hire a consultant to review the Northwest Region's promotion and advancement practices in its sales division and adopt and disseminate to its present and future employees and managers a written policy that establishes objective requirements and criteria for advancement opportunities.
In this Title VII/PDA action, the New York District Office alleged that defendant, a restaurant and brewery business operating in nine states, discriminated against charging party because of her pregnancy. Defendant hired CP as a server in June 2000. By May 2001, she had been promoted to a supervisor and elevated to a management career path. Once CP informed defendant of her pregnancy, however, defendant took adverse employment actions against her: discontinuing her management training, removing her from the managerial career track, denying her work assignments, and ultimately terminating her employment. Pursuant to a three-year consent decree, defendant agreed to pay $145,000 to CP and to provide her with a letter of recommendation that described her assumption of supervisory duties and quoted positive language from her last performance appraisal. Additionally, the decree requires defendant to maintain a revised non-discrimination policy and provide each employee requesting leave under the FMLA to be provided a copy of such non-discrimination policy.
The Baltimore District Office filed this Title VII gender discrimination case alleging that a food service distributor in the Baltimore-Washington, DC area refused to hire women as delivery drivers. In 2001, defendant hired 44 men and 1 woman as drivers at its New Windsor, Maryland facility. Defendant's Transportation Manager told the female driver that her performance would determine whether any other women would be hired to drive. The woman had difficulties and ultimately quit in November 2001. That same month, charging party saw the vacancy advertised and applied for the position. Although CP had a commercial drivers license, prior delivery experience, and satisfied other posted criteria associated with the job, the Transportation Manager told her he would not be hiring any women because of a past bad experience with a female driver. Instead, he offered CP a lower-paying position in the warehouse, which she declined. Evidence corroborating this anti-female stance surfaced in the form of an email from the company's president to the Transportation Manager and HR Manager, which stated "I think we have experience that tells us female drivers will not work out. Making an offer (for driver or helper) to a female is not appropriate."
During the course of the lawsuit, defendant extended unconditional job offers to charging party and six other female applicants. The case was resolved by a three-year consent decree that requires defendant to pay a total of $350,000 in back pay and compensatory damages to seven class members. The decree enjoins defendant from refusing to hire female applicants for employment because of their sex and from utilizing disparate qualifications for male and female applicants. Defendant will develop defined, uniform, objective job-related qualifications for the driver and helper positions; implement objective hiring procedures; implement consistent job application, recordkeeping, and record retention procedures, including the development of applicant flow data; and affirmatively recruit qualified females to enhance the number of female driver and helper applicants. Defendant will submit quarterly reports to the EEOC detailing the results of its recruitment and hiring of male and female employees for the driver and helper positions. EEOC in turn can conduct unannounced audits of defendant's facilities and records to monitor compliance with the decree.
The Seattle District Office brought this Title VII suit, alleging that defendant, a fast food chain, subjected five female charging parties working at a location in Everett, Washington (store 8438) to a sexually hostile working environment and retaliated against two of them for their complaints about the discrimination. A male store manager, who directly supervised the CPs, made derogatory and insulting statements, such as constant comments about wanting to get into the women's pants, called the women bitches, sluts and whores, and remarked on the attractiveness of the women's breasts and buttocks. Unwilling to discipline the store manager despite CPs' complaints, defendant's Area Manager transferred one CP, causing her to resign because of the undesirable new location. The store manager was eventually terminated for reasons unrelated to the discrimination complaints, but his replacement retaliated against another CP who had complained by disciplining her for cash shortages for which she was not responsible. The case was resolved by a three-year consent decree that requires defendant to pay a total of $300,000 to the five charging parties. Defendant is enjoined from engaging in personnel practices which discriminate against applicants and employees in violation of Title VII. Defendant will provide mandatory training on sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation to all employees at 8 specific stores, all employees who worked for defendant prior to April 2003 at 7 other identified stores, and all new employees at the 15 stores during their orientation.
The Phoenix District Office filed this Title VII suit against a firm providing payroll services and temporary employment that in 2001 was named the largest minority-owned business in the state of Arizona. The suit was based on charges filed by eight women who alleged that defendant's president/owner sexually harassed and retaliated against female employees. The women alleged that the president grabbed their private parts, used vulgar language, and made sexually explicit demands and harassing telephone calls. Female employees were threatened, demoted, and discharged for opposing the harassment. As a result of the sexual harassment and retaliation a number of women felt forced to resign. In accordance with a three-year consent decree, defendant will pay a total of $450,000 in compensatory damages to 6 plaintiff-intervenors and 11 class members and expunge their personnel files of any negative data. In addition, defendant is enjoined from engaging in sexual harassment or retaliation. Although defendant is not currently operating in the state of Arizona, in the event it resumes business, it is bound by the decree and must institute policies and practices that promote a workplace free from sexual harassment and retaliation. To ensure neutrality in its enforcement of the law and company policies, defendant is required to exclude its former president and his wife from participating in any investigations of discrimination complaints.
The Dallas District Office brought this ADA retaliation suit, alleging that a Fort Worth retirement home and its parent company fired charging party, an assistant nursing director, because she refused to fire a nurse's assistant who tested positive for HIV. According to the suit, CP was hired to supervise certified nurse assistants (CNAs), who attend to residents by helping them groom themselves, make their beds, and feed themselves. When management learned that one of the CNAs was HIV-positive, CP was ordered to fire him. She refused citing her knowledge of the ADA and was fired. Under a three-year consent decree, the defendants will pay $50,000 to CP. Defendants also agree to impose substantial discipline, up to and including suspension without pay, demotion, and termination, upon any supervisor or manager who engages in retaliation because of conduct protected by the ADA.
The Phoenix District Office alleged that a Mesa, Arizona auto dealership and its parent company violated Title VII/PDA when it fired the charging party because she was pregnant. Prior to her termination, CP had been working for Berge Ford for three to four months as a general services technician; her duties included cleaning, picking up trash, monitoring the front desk, and driving Berge's customer shuttle. Phoenix alleged that the defendants had no problems with CP's job performance, but when they learned she was pregnant they fired her in fear that she might become ill (since she had been experiencing morning sickness) while driving Berge vehicles and expose defendants to liability. Through an 18-month consent decree, defendants agreed to pay CP $70,000 and to modify its existing anti-discrimination policy or establish a separate policy expressly prohibiting pregnancy discrimination; the policy shall be subject to EEOC approval.
The Dallas District Office filed this Equal Pay Act and Title VII lawsuit, alleging that defendant discriminated on the basis of gender when it paid charging party, a female Customer Service Engineer, less wages than her male counterparts who held the same position and performed the same duties. Defendant is a leading provider of information technology management and staffing management services to mid-size and Fortune businesses. CP was hired in June 1995 to work as a technical consultant for various clients in the Dallas area. In June 1997, she and three males were selected for the Hewlett Packard project and later in July, three more men were hired. CP and the males all worked as a Customer Engineers whose primary responsibility was to provide technical services to HP's customers on an "as needed" basis, but CP was paid a lower starting salary and given smaller salary increases than at least three of the male employees. By consent decree, defendant agrees to pay $60,000 to CP, who resigned from defendant in March 2002. One year after the decree is entered, defendant will provide EEOC with a spreadsheet containing an assessment of the current wages paid to its hourly workers at its Dallas-Fort Worth area facilities as well as the gender and date of hire of the listed employees.
The Miami District Office filed this Title VII suit against a South Florida heating/air conditioning parts manufacturer (Airguide) and its parent company (PMI) alleging that a supervisor at the manufacturing plant subjected three female employees to sexually explicit comments and that this sexual harassment continued despite their repeated complaints to management. EEOC also alleged that defendant retaliated against two of the women after they complained to management or the EEOC, disciplining both of them and ultimately discharging one and constructively discharging the other, who resigned after being transferred to another department against her will. Finally, EEOC alleged that four male employees were subjected to retaliation in the form of harassment, reprimands, suspensions, other discipline, or termination for providing information in support of the women's sexual harassment claims, filing EEOC charges on their own behalf, or participating in the EEOC's onsite investigations.
The case was resolved by a three-year consent decree that requires defendants to pay a total of $1 million to the seven complainants and to expunge their personnel files of any negative data such as unsatisfactory personnel entries, disciplinary warnings, and termination reports. Defendant PMI further agrees to disseminate its written policy prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation to all of its employees and managers at PMI locations in the state of Florida (19 cities). PMI's president will meet personally with PMI's human resource manager and stress adherence to the federal anti-discrimination laws as well as the company's sexual harassment and retaliation policy. The HR manager also must attend a half day of training on complying with federal anti-discrimination laws, and notations of his meeting with the president and attendance at the training must be entered in his personnel file.
The St. Louis District Office brought this Title VII/PDA case alleging that one of the nation's largest specialty retailers of automotive aftermarket parts, tools, and supplies discharged charging party, an assistant manager at an autoparts store, because she was pregnant. CP's doctor had imposed a 30-pound lifting restriction, and although the store manager and district manager agreed that CP could continue working despite the restriction, defendant's Human Resources staff in its Springfield, Missouri headquarters decided she could not work. After CP exhausted her leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act, she was terminated since she was still pregnant and had lifting restrictions. Defendant had permitted other employees with temporary medical conditions to work even though they had lifting restrictions. Under a two-year consent decree, defendant is required to pay CP $15,000 in lost wages and benefits and $35,000 in compensatory damages, and to provide her with a positive letter of reference. The decree also prohibits defendant from discriminating against its employees on the basis of pregnancy or gender. Defendant must make periodic reports providing details about each female employee who takes a pregnancy-related leave of absence, including whether the leave was voluntary or involuntary, whether the employee was terminated, and, if applicable, the reasons for termination.
The Baltimore District Office filed this ADA action, alleging that defendant, a commercial real estate company specializing in acquiring retail shopping centers, fired an employee with multiple sclerosis because it feared increased insurance costs. Defendant had initially hired charging party through an employment agency as a temporary administrative assistant. One month after she began work, defendant's Vice President offered her a permanent position to occur automatically after she completed 500 hours under the contract with the employment agency. CP accepted the job offer and shortly thereafter informed the Vice President that she had MS. After she completed her 500 hours, CP inquired as to why she did not receive a paycheck directly from defendant. Defendant's CEO told her he was going to wait to hire her permanently and that she should continue submitting her time to the temp agency. Thereafter, she heard a recorded phone conversation in which the CEO commented to an investor about increasing healthcare costs and the fact that he had a decent employee who came as a temp seeking full-time employment but had MS, and the difficult ethical issues this presented for a small company. A week later, the CEO fired CP allegedly because of constant tardiness and a backlog of work. The case was resolved by consent decree that requires defendant to pay CP $61,000 and provide her with a positive letter of reference. Defendant is also enjoined from engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of disability.
This page was last modified on October 5, 2004.