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.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Los Angeles District Office alleged that defendant subjected four current and two former female employees at its manufacturing plant in Henderson, Nevada to a sexually hostile working environment and retaliated against some of the women for complaining about the harassment. The harassment included groping and sexual advances by male supervisors and co-workers and the circulation of pornographic pictures, dirty jokes and e-mails. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement which provides for a total payment of $217,500, representing $170,000 to be divided among the six claimants and $47,500 in fees paid to the private attorney of one of the women.
In this ADA lawsuit, the Cleveland District Office alleged that defendant, a nationwide package delivery service, refused to provide a reasonable accommodation to charging party, a driver who suffered from severe allergies, in the form of a job transfer. Charging party worked for defendant in Texas and developed allergies, unique to the local air quality, which made it difficult for him to live, work and breathe. He requested that defendant transfer him to a driver position in Ohio. Defendant refused to transfer him but advised him that he could quit his job in Texas and apply for rehire in Ohio. Relying upon the information defendant provided, charging party quit his job and sought rehire in Ohio but UPS refused to rehire him because of its policy of not hiring individuals who have quit their employment. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant in September 1999, but the sixth circuit reversed and remanded the case in May 2001. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement which provides for payment of $75,000 to charging party, representing $37,500 in back pay and $37,500 in compensatory damages.
The Chicago District Office alleged in this ADEA lawsuit that defendant, a chain of videotape rental stores, refused to hire charging party, a 45-year-old, for a cashier position at its Downers Grove, Illinois store because of her age. Instead, Respondent hired a 30-year-old with significantly less prior work experience. The lawsuit also alleged that defendant failed to hire other age 40 and over applicants at the store because of their age. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $117,000 to the claimants ($17,000 to the charging party and $100,000 to be distributed to other aggrieved individuals). Defendant is enjoined from discriminating on the basis of age in violation of the ADEA and shall not engage in any form of retaliation against any person who opposes unlawful employment practices. In addition, defendant will notify in writing those claimants who remain interested in employment of any vacancies that arise at the Downers Grove store, and will report to EEOC the basis for any decision not to hire a claimant who responds to a vacancy notice.
In this ADEA and Title VII lawsuit, the Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant, a manufacturer of metal products, subjected charging party, a 62-year-old Polish welder, to harassment based on his national origin and age. On a daily basis, co-workers called him "old man immigrant motherfucker" and "mother fucking immigrant." Charging party repeatedly reported the harassment but defendant took no action to stop it. Within a couple of days of complaining about a harassment incident and leaving work early because of it, charging party was terminated. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $130,000 to charging party.
The Denver District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a casino located in Black Hawk, Colorado, subjected a group of Hispanic employees working in its housekeeping department to a hostile working environment based on their national origin and imposed unlawful English-only rules on Hispanic workers. In 1998, defendant's Human Resources Director instructed the Chief of Engineering, the Housekeeping Manager and other housekeeping supervisors to implement a blanket English-only language policy in the housekeeping department and to discipline any housekeeping employee, some of whom only spoke Spanish, who violated the policy. Managers chastised employees for speaking Spanish at any time and would shout "English-English-English" or "English-only" at them in the halls. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement for a total payment of $1,516,000 ($1,201,000 to the 9 plaintiff-intervenors and $315,000 to 24 additional claimants). The agreement also provides that defendant will not maintain any English-only policy or policy that restricts the use of any language other than English.
The Philadelphia District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that charging party, a 16- year-old female food service worker, was raped by a male shift supervisor while working at a Taco Bell restaurant in Glenolden, Pennsylvania. After charging party reported the sexual assault to the police, the supervisor pled guilty to a "corruption of minor" charge. The day after filing the police report, charging party and her mother reported the rape to the Assistant Manager, who laughed and said she did not believe the allegations. Charging party never returned to work. Only after defendant learned of the harasser's guilty plea, did it terminate him. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $150,000 to charging party. Defendant will also pay $1,500 to the EEOC's San Francisco-based project to create a training tool for minors about sexual harassment.
This page was last modified on January 9, 2004.