Return to Home PageIn this ADA lawsuit, the Chicago District Office alleged that defendant, a nationwide delivery service, discriminated against charging party, a feeder driver, based on his disability (insulin-dependent diabetes) by failing to transfer him to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation. Charging party, who had worked for defendant as a tractor-trailer driver for approximately 15 years, was first diagnosed with Type II diabetes in 1998. In July 1998 he suffered a hypoglycemic episode while driving which caused him to become disoriented and to crash his truck. Thereafter, he was removed from driving duties and placed on short-term disability leave. Despite repeated attempts, charging party was unable to obtain a non-driving position with defendant. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement for payment of $149,999 ($74,999.50 in back pay and $74,999.50 in non-wage damages) to charging party. Defendant agrees to provide a positive letter of reference to charging party and to not contest his application for state unemployment benefits.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Miami District Office alleged that defendant, a car dealership, subjected a group of employees to a hostile working environment on the basis of national origin (Hispanic), race (black) and religion (Jewish). The harassment consisted of derogatory comments ("America is for whites only") and name-calling ("spic," "nigger") made by the Director of Fixed Operations and the son of the dealership's owner. One of the charging parties was forced to quit his job due to the harassment. The case was resolved through a four-year consent decree which provides for a total payment of $700,000 ($600,000 in compensatory damages to be distributed among the four charging parties and $100,000 in compensatories to be distributed among currently unidentified black employees who were subjected to harassment based on race between January 1998 and December 2002). The consent decree also requires Lexus of Kendall to hire a presenter approved by the EEOC to provide annual training to all of its managers and supervisory personnel on all aspects of Title VII, and to undergo monitoring which will include submitting semi-annual reports to the EEOC throughout the duration of the consent decree on harassment complaints and the manner in which it addressed the complaints. The decree enjoins Lexus of Kendall from discriminating against any employee who opposes unlawful employment practices under Title VII.
The Birmingham District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant subjected charging party, a bus driver for special needs passengers, to a sexually hostile working environment through the actions of her supervisor. The harassment consisted of offensive sexual comments and sexual touching. Despite receiving a complaint about the harasser's conduct in January 1999, defendant did not discipline/discharge him until July 1999. During that intervening period, charging party was forced to transfer out of a higher paying bus route to her original route because the new position required more frequent contact with the harasser. In addition to the sexual harassment claims brought by the Commission, charging party, who intervened, alleged that she was discharged in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge about the harassment. The case (including the discharge claim) was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $85,000 to charging party. Defendant also agrees to reinstate charging party to her position as a bus driver, with seniority, effective August 2003.
The Philadelphia District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a cleaning contractor, subjected two female maintenance employees to a hostile working environment based on their sex and national origin (Polish), and that the women were given extra cleaning assignments in retaliation for rejecting their supervisor's sexual advances. The supervisor repeatedly called the two women derogatory names which emphasized their Polish heritage and requested sexual intercourse and other sexual acts with them. On one occasion, the supervisor pushed one of the woman to the floor and kicked her after she rejected his sexual advances. One of the female claimants was forced to quit her job due to the harassment. In addition to the sexual harassment, a male maintenance employee was harassed because of his national origin (Peruvian) and race (dark-skinned Hispanic). The case was resolved through a consent decree for a total payment of $575,000 to the three claimants. Defendant is enjoined from harassment based on sex or national origin and from retaliation. The company agrees to draft an anti-discrimination and harassment policy which will be translated into Polish and Spanish and will include a translation assistance provision for non-English speaking employees who file a discrimination or harassment complaint. Distribution of the policy and training of managers is required at defendant's facilities in New Jersey and in New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County, New York.
In this ADEA lawsuit, the Dallas District Office alleged that defendant, a resort comprised of a lodge, several restaurants, conference/meeting centers, and a country club with two 18 hole golf courses, discriminated against charging party, a 58-year-old bartender/cashier, when it denied her a transfer/promotion to a more lucrative bartender/supervisor position (which she had worked on the same seasonal basis in past years) because of her age. Before the denial of the transfer, defendant's General Manager stated that charging party was "too old and grumpy" to work in the bartender/supervisor position and he and another supervisor made other ageist statements. As a result of the discriminatory treatment, charging party was forced to quit her job. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $75,000 to charging party.
The Dallas District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, the nationwide retail chain, subjected charging party, a female Bakery Department employee, to a sexually hostile working environment through the actions of the Bakery Manager. The harassment included unwelcome sexual comments and touching. After charging party complained about the harassment, she was transferred to a position in the hardware department that required heavy lifting and was ultimately forced to quit her job. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $150,000 to charging party, representing $10,000 in back pay and $140,000 in damages. The decree also requires defendant to prepare a memo stating that it has received two sexual harassment complaints against the Bakery Manager and that any further complaints will be fully investigated and appropriate disciplinary action taken, and to place the memo in the Bakery Manager's permanent investigative file and reference it in his permanent personnel file.
The New York District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a hotel, subjected charging party, a minor, and at least nine other female housekeepers to a sexually hostile working environment through the actions of at least two male employees. The harassment, which included sexual touching and daily sexual propositions, occurred in guest rooms and throughout the Housekeeping Department. Charging party and at least one other victim were high school students who worked part-time, and one of the harassers worked in a supervisory capacity. Several of the claimants quit their jobs due to the harassment. Defendant also retaliated against a claimant by cutting her work hours after she filed a criminal complaint of sexual harassment against one of the harassers. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $625,000 to the female claimants ($275,000 to the charging party pursuant to a separate settlement agreement acknowledged in the decree and $350,000 to be distributed among nine identified female claimants and any other claimants who are later identified by EEOC as victims of sexual harassment). Defendants are enjoined from discriminating against any employee working in the hotel's Housekeeping Department because of the employee's sex (including sexual harassment) and from retaliation.
The Dallas District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a restaurant chain with 22 locations in Texas and Oklahoma and over 500 employees, subjected charging party, a waitress, to a sexually hostile working environment through the actions of restaurant managers at its Idabel, Oklahoma location. The harassment included unwelcome sexual touching and the use of sexually demeaning language to refer to female employees. Despite repeated complaints to company executives, the harassment continued. The case was resolved through a consent decree for a payment of $81,000 to charging party. Defendant agrees not to discriminate on the basis of sex in any employment action and not to retaliate against any person who opposes an unlawful employment practice. Defendant also agrees to provide a written sexual harassment policy to all employees which will include an 800 number to register employee complaints of sexual harassment.
The Philadelphia District Office alleged in this ADA lawsuit that defendant Daimler, an auto manufacturing plant, discriminated against charging party (who has severely restricted mobility in her right arm and hand) and other qualified individuals with disabilities through its practice of denying job transfers to employees with medical work restrictions (characterized as "PQX" - people with qualified exceptions). Daimler's no-transfer practice extended to persons with both temporary and permanent medical conditions. Daimler claimed that the "no PQX transfers" policy had been abolished but charging party and other employees alleged that the practice still existed. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $100,000 to be distributed equally among 10 class members. Defendant Daimler agrees to inform employees through Notice posting and through direct mailing of the Notice to each employee's residence that transfers will not be denied based solely on an individual having a PQX code, and that to the extent Daimler's Kokomo, Indiana Transmission and Casting Facilities ever had a policy of denying transfers on this basis, that policy no longer exists. UAW Local 685, a Rule 19 defendant, agrees to conduct a meeting to explain the change in policy to its union members at the plant. Daimler and the union also agree to provide training on the ADA to managers, supervisors and grievance representatives.
This page was last modified on October 30, 2003.