Return to Home PageThe San Antonio District Office alleged that Pass & Seymour (P&S) (an electrical products manufacturing subsidiary of Legrand, a French multinational company) and Kennmark Group (a staffing agency) engaged in a pattern-or-practice of discrimination against men in hiring for positions as assemblers at P&S's San Antonio facility. In December 1997, P&S contracted with Kennmark Group to provide about 130 temporary assemblers and an onsite manager to hire and supervise the temporary workers. P&S's Human Resources Manager instructed the first onsite manager to hire primarily women, restricting men to about 25% of the assembler positions even though men constituted about half of the applicant pool. She instructed a subsequent onsite manager not to hire men because women were more dexterous. P&S hired permanent assemblers from the pool of temporary assemblers who had worked for at least 90 days.
The EEOC entered into a 3-year consent decree with P&S and a 5-year consent decree with Kennmark Group. Under the June 2, 2005, decree with P&S, defendant will distribute $475,000 pro rata to those of the 216 class members identified in the decree who execute timely releases. P&S will pay any residual amount (resulting from failure of check delivery or uncashed checks) to Equal Rights Advocates in San Francisco. The decree also enjoins P&S from discriminating based on sex in recruiting and hiring for Assembler positions at any of its facilities. In addition, each P&S facility that employs Assemblers will: (a) post a notice on bulletin boards regarding Title VII's requirements; (b) adopt a statement reflecting its commitment to nondiscriminatory hiring; and (c) provide 6 hours of EEO training to human resources and management employees involved in recruiting and hiring Assemblers.
Under the June 24, 2005, decree with Kennmark Group, Kennmark will make a total payment of $25,056 (in 72 monthly installments of $348 each) to Equal Rights Advocates. Kennmark is enjoined from engaging in gender discrimination in recruiting, hiring, and referring individuals to fill any position.
The Phoenix District Office alleged in this Title VII case that Blockbuster, a video rental chain, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for a 17-year-old part-time customer service representative who consistent with his Jewish religious beliefs wore a yarmulke. Charging party was hired at a Blockbuster store in Phoenix in November 2002. On his second day of work, defendant's Regional Manager told him that wearing the yarmulke violated defendant's dress code, which prohibits headwear, and that he had to remove the yarmulke or leave. Charging party was forced to compromise his religious beliefs by working without his yarmulke for approximately 2 months. Upon receiving charging party's EEOC charge, defendant told him he could resume wearing his yarmulke.
Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $50,000 in monetary relief. A Blockbuster senior human resources official will send a letter to charging party expressing regret for any failure to accommodate his request for a religious accommodation. All of the injunctive relief provisions in the decree apply to defendant's Phoenix-area facilities and some also apply to facilities in Scottsdale, Arizona. The decree prohibits defendant from discriminating against Phoenix- area employees based their religious beliefs and requires it to accommodate those employees' religious beliefs. The decree also requires defendant to train its Phoenix employees, as well as other employees with direct human resources responsibilities for Phoenix and Scottsdale employees, regarding the duty to provide religious accommodation. Finally, at each of its Scottsdale and Phoenix facilities defendant will: (1) post a notice informing employees that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on religion as well as retaliation and advising them of the right to file a discrimination charge; and (2) amend its Employee Handbook and Standard Operating Procedures to provide for exceptions to the Dress and Grooming Standards to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.
The New York District Office alleged in this Title VII suit that defendants subjected employees at The Plaza, a luxury hotel located in Manhattan, to a hostile work environment based on religion (Muslim) and/or national origin (Arab or South Asian). After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, managers at The Plaza, began calling claimants names such as "Osama," "Al Qaeda," and "Taliban" several times a day and also gave them keys in holders labeled "bin Laden," etc., in place of their names. Coworkers directed similar comments at the claimants. Although defendants had promulgated an employee handbook containing an antidiscrimination policy, most of the claimants had not received the handbook and were not aware of the policy. Defendants ignored some of complaints about the harassment and failed to adequately investigate others.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant Plaza Operating Partners will provide $525,000 to 12 claimants. Defendants will not discriminate against employees because of national origin or religion or retaliate against employees for asserting rights under federal employment discrimination laws. The bulk of the decree applies to the 14 Fairmont Hotels nationwide that defendant Fairmont Hotels and Resorts and its affiliates (collectively "Fairmont") manage, as well as to The Plaza Hotel (currently under renovation) if it reopens and Fairmont, which managed The Plaza at the time of the discrimination, manages it again. These provisions include the following: Fairmont will implement an antidiscrimination/antiharassment policy at its hotels. Fairmont will provide training on the policy to all managers and supervisors (8 hours), to all nonmanagerial employees (4 hours), and to all HR staff responsible for conducting harassment and discrimination training (3 days). Fairmont will also post a summary of the policy on employee bulletin boards at each hotel, distribute the summary to all employees, and translate the summary into languages other than English upon request. Fairmont will provide new employees with a 30-minute oral presentation on the policy as well as a copy of it during initial orientation.
In this Title VII action, the Denver District Office alleged that The Denver Publishing Co., owned by E.W. Scripps Co., subjected black pressroom employees at The Rocky Mountain News, a Denver newspaper, to a racially hostile work environment. A white pressman directed racial epithets at his African-American coworkers daily, often in the presence of managers. Charging party complained to his supervisor, but the supervisor did not follow the company policy requiring that he report the harassment to HR for investigation; consequently defendant did not investigate. In settlement of EEOC's suit, The Rocky Mountain News will pay $375,000 into a Settlement Fund, to be distributed among 10 identified individuals.
In this Title VII suit, the Los Angeles District Office alleged that Rivera Vineyards one of the largest vineyards in Coachella Valley, California and its affiliates engaged in a pattern or practice of sexually harassing female workers and making job assignments based on sex; defendants also retaliated against women who complained about harassment. A Rivera Vineyard supervisor, assistant supervisor, and some of the crew leaders (male) harassed female migrant workers, most of whom were Spanish- speaking (although one crew leader targeted women who spoke neither English nor Spanish, only their indigenous languages). The harassment consisted of sexual comments, unwelcome rubbing and touching, offers of better assignments in exchange for sex, and in at least one case, forced submission to sexual intercourse. Also, Rivera Vineyard admitted that only men had been hired into the more desirable year-round positions (including pruning, girdling, irrigation, and vine tying). Women were employed only in seasonal positions (including picking and packing) available from about February to June or July.
Rivera Vineyard retaliated against women who resisted or reported sexual harassment. For instance, two charging parties (a crew leader and a woman on the crew) complained to the owner that the assistant supervisor had grabbed one of the women's breasts and had engaged in other objectionable conduct. The same day, the assistant supervisor sent the whole crew home. He laid off the two women in May 2000 before the end of the harvest season and in subsequent seasons refused to recall them. The female crew leader had worked for defendant for 14 seasons and received a positive letter of reference from the harasser.
Under the consent decree resolving this case, defendants will pay $1,050,000 into a "class fund" in installments to be distributed to eligible claimants determined by EEOC. If defendants resume farming operations, the decree requires them to offer to rehire claimants who had been offered reinstatement in April 2001. The decree provides that defendants will hire women into all positions including the positions that defendants had traditionally segregated based on sex. Defendants will make good faith efforts to hire women into at least 50% of pruning, vine tying, and irrigation positions and at least 10% of girdling and swamping positions. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the class fund. Owner Blas Rivera is also personally liable for it. Defendants will create a lien against all their real and personal property, including Blas Rivera, and will execute a deed creating a lien against all agricultural real and personal property. The decree provides for accelerated payment of the remaining balance due upon the sale of or refinancing debt against defendants' agricultural real property.
In this nationwide Title VII action, the Cleveland District Office alleged that defendants used a written test for skilled trades apprentice positions (electrical, millwright, plumber-pipefitter, machine repair, and tool and die) that had a disparate impact on African-American applicants. The case was consolidated with a private class action filed in conjunction with EEOC's suit, and was resolved through a settlement agreement approved by the court through a consent order entered following a fairness hearing. The class consists of current and former Ford employees of African descent who took the Apprentice Training Selection System test between January 1, 1997, and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement (Feb. 9, 2005), and were not placed on a Ford apprenticeship eligibility list. Ford ceased using the test in August 2004.
The settlement, which was reached during conciliation of 13 charges, provides that an industrial organizational psychologist selected by the parties will design and validate an apprenticeship selection instrument(s) consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and professional standards within the field of industrial organizational psychology. If after reviewing the expert's validation report any party believes the proposed selection instrument(s) does not comply with applicable law or professional standards, the parties will attempt to resolve the dispute through a procedure established in the settlement agreement, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement if voluntary resolution efforts fail.
The settlement also provides that Ford will select 280 class members for apprentice positions: 50% within 6 months of final approval of the settlement; an additional 25% no later than 6 months thereafter; and the final 25% no later than 12 months thereafter. The 13 charging parties will receive $30,000 each in monetary relief, and approximately 3,400 additional class members will receive $2,400 each, for a total recovery to the class of approximately $8.55 million. In addition, counsel for the private class will receive $1.1 million in fees and expenses for work through final approval of the settlement and $567,000 in fees and expenses for work to be performed in implementing and monitoring the settlement.
The Philadelphia District Office filed this ADEA case alleging that Union County, New Jersey denied the job of county superintendent of weights and measures to charging party, based on his age (53). Charging party was one of the three assistant superintendents of weights and measures. All three applied for the superintendent job. Charging party was the oldest and most senior of the three, had acted in the position when the prior superintendent had been absent, and had trained the other two. In addition, the New Jersey Department of Personnel ranked charging party first for the position. Defendant selected the youngest assistant superintendent, age 33, although he lacked the requisite 5 years of experience listed in the job description. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party is to receive $150,000 in monetary relief. The decree prohibits defendant from discriminating on the basis of age and from retaliation.
The Seattle District Office alleged in this Title VII suit that defendant, a linen supply company with nearly 200 facilities throughout the United States and Canada, discriminated against female applicants in hiring for Customer Service Representative/Route Sales Driver (CSR) positions in the Twin Falls, Idaho area. Defendant advertised for applicants for a CSR position in Twin Falls and stated that a Class B commercial drivers license was required. The Service Area Manager selected charging party, who had a Class B license and 6 years of commercial driving experience, along with four other applicants for a second interview. During the second interview, charging party also spoke with the Area Manager, who discouraged her from pursuing the position, mentioning that all the drivers were male and had a tendency to use foul language. The Area Manager told charging party she looked more like a secretary and said she should consider applying for a secretarial position that would be opening soon. The Area Manager hired a man for the position who did not have a Class B license or commercial driving experience. Two other female applicants also possessed superior qualifications to the man hired. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay $110,000 in monetary relief, allocated between the charging party ($82,500) and another rejected female applicant ($27,500).
This page was last modified on October 11, 2005.