Return to Home PageIn this Title VII suit, the New York District Office alleged that defendant, a Buffalo, New York employment agency, unlawfully coded applicants by race and gender and referred applicants for employment by race and gender. The case arose from a Commissioner's Charge, and three clients of defendant, against whom Commissioner Charges had been filed based on their discriminatory requests to defendant, consented to the court's jurisdiction for purposes of the consent decree.
Under the 5-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant EGW will pay $285,000 into a Claim Fund to be distributed among qualified claimants identified by the Commission in accordance with the decree, and the three clients Sorrento Cheese, Inc., Festival Salad Corp., and James Desiderio, Inc. will pay $50,000 in administrative costs. Potential claimants are black or female individuals who received a W2 from EGW at any time from January 1, 1994, through April 30, 1996. The decree provides that EGW will not use race and/or sex in making employment referrals and will comply with Title VII. Throughout the term of the decree, EGW will retain an outside contractor, approved by EEOC, to provide annual training regarding lawful interviewing, screening, and hiring procedures to all employees responsible for such functions. EGW will also publish and implement an antidiscrimination policy and procedure explaining prohibited conduct, describing the internal complaint process, protecting confidentiality of individuals who file complaints, and providing for the prompt, thorough, and effective investigation of complaints.
In this ADA case the Seattle District Office alleged that defendant, a construction company in Snohomish, Washington, failed to hire charging party because of his disability. Charging party's right arm was amputated above the elbow 20 years ago due to an industrial accident. He does not wear a prosthesis, and is substantially limited in caring for himself, performing manual tasks, and lifting. Charging party applied for a heavy equipment operator position with defendant in July 2002 in response to a help-wanted advertisement. Charging party had successfully worked for 10 years as a heavy equipment operator in the construction industry, including 6 years in a job from which he had just been laid off due to lack of work. Defendant's safety director interviewed charging party the day after he applied. When asked about his ability to operate heavy construction equipment with one arm, charging party described his work experience and told the safety director he could operate the machinery with no special adjustments and without any modifications. Later the same day, the safety director left a phone message asking charging party to report to a particular supervisor the following Monday. When he came in as requested, defendant refused to assign him to work. Charging party was more experienced than some of the heavy equipment operators that defendant hired after rejecting him. Under the 4-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay charging party $105,000.
In this Title VII religious discrimination case, the Seattle District Office alleged that defendant, which operates or franchises more than 250 casual dining restaurants in the U.S. and Canada, failed to accommodate charging party's religious practices and discharged him from his food server position at a Bellevue, Washington restaurant because of his religion, an ancient Egyptian faith known as Kemetic or Coptic. Charging party received tattoos circling both wrists as a rite of passage after studying with a minister at a Coptic temple in California. The tattoos, which are ¬-inch wide, are a verse from Egyptian scripture and signify charging party's servitude to the Creator. Charging party covers the tattoos with metal cuffs during the holy month of Mesuda, but believes that covering them at any other time would mean he is putting something above his Creator. In June 2002, 7 months after he started working for defendant, charging party's new manager ordered him to cover his tattoos in conformance with defendant's Uniform/Appearance policy, which prohibits visible body piercings and tattoos. Charging party refused, explaining the religious significance of his tattoos. Defendant fired charging party for violating the Uniform/Appearance policy.
Under the consent decree resolving this case, which will continue in effect until January 15, 2009, charging party will receive $150,000 in monetary relief. Defendant will do the following at all of its restaurants in Washington and Oregon: (1) distribute its discrimination, harassment, and retaliation policy to all managers; (2) post a copy of the policy at every restaurant; (3) post a notice regarding the resolution of this lawsuit, employees' rights under Title VII, and how to contact the EEOC's Seattle District Office; (4) provide all managers with interactive training on discrimination, harassment, and accommodation every 2 years; and (5) report to the EEOC every 6 months on discrimination complaints filed internally or with a government agency.
The Philadelphia District Office claimed that defendant, the nation's largest manufacturer of wooden play sets and outdoor gyms, violated Title VII by (1) discharging charging party, the District Manager of its stores in New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, in retaliation for opposing discrimination; (2) failing to hire and promote blacks and Hispanics into available positions; and (3) subjecting black and Hispanic employees to a hostile work environment. When defendant offered to promote charging party (white) into a new VP position, he recommended his two top performers both black to replace him and fill another anticipated District Manager opening. Defendant's owner and another senior manager refused to consider the two black employees for promotion and fired charging party 3 weeks later. According to charging party, the owner expressed discomfort with minority managers and believed that white customers could not relate to them, and directed charging party to fire a Hispanic employee because she had an accent. Witnesses stated that the owner referred to minorities as "those people," and said that employees should dress, act, and speak white to be successful.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay six claimants $275,000 in monetary relief, divided into three payments over 2 years. The charging party will receive $150,000 and five aggrieved individuals will share the remaining $125,000 (their individual amounts will range from $100,000 to $5,000). The decree enjoins defendant from engaging in violations of Title VII, specifically harassment based on race or national origin, failing to promote qualified minority employees to available positions based on race or national origin, and retaliation. The relief described below applies to nine of defendant's facilities in seven Eastern States. For the duration of the decree, defendant is required to post a notice on bulletin boards used for communicating with employees informing the employees of the resolution of this lawsuit and their rights under Title VII. It will draft nondiscrimination policies (including a ban on retaliation) and complaint procedures (including 24-hour a day access to a toll-free message center for making complaints), distribute the policies and procedures to employees, and insure that they are available in English and Spanish. The decree requires defendant to make and retain records of internal race discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation complaints. Defendant will report annually to the EEOC on the complaints received, the investigative findings, and how the complaints were resolved.
In this Title VII case, the Phoenix District Office alleged that defendant, a small Casa Grande, Arizona health clinic serving an 80% Hispanic clientele, discharged nine administrative and maintenance employees because of their national origin, Hispanic. The clinic owners (husband and wife) and managers were non-Hispanic. On May 14, 2003, the office manager approached three Hispanic employees and asked them to sign an English-only policy. They did so. The following day, defendant discharged those three employees as well as six other Hispanic employees who had not been asked to sign the policy. Defendant retained less senior non- Hispanic employees in some of the same positions. Within a few days, defendant replaced several of the fired Hispanic employees with non-Hispanics. Prior to the discharge, 10 (64%) of defendant's 18 employees were Hispanic. After the discharge, only one Hispanic employee (a phlebotomist) remained on the payroll.
Under the 24-month consent decree resolving this case, the nine charging parties will share $190,00 in monetary relief ($117,411 in backpay and $72,589 in compensatory damages), paid in 24 monthly installments. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating against any employee based on national origin and from retaliation. The decree states that defendant does not have an English-only policy and that the May 13, 2003, memorandum on workplace communication has been rescinded and will not be reinstated.
The Philadelphia District Office brought this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a wholesale distributor of fresh fruits and vegetables headquartered in Springfield, Illinois, permitted a sexually hostile work environment at its Pittsburgh facility and retaliated against charging party, an administrative assistant, for complaining about her male supervisor's unwelcome behavior. After 18 years as an administrative assistant for defendant, charging party was terminated in May 2004. Seven years earlier, the male office manager began engaging in unwelcome sexual conduct toward charging party (touching her breasts, rubbing her shoulders, requesting sex, and commenting on her sexy appearance). She repeatedly asked him to stop, and complained to the CEO. After the CEO warned him about his behavior, the office manager stopped the harassment, but recommenced the behavior 2 years later. Charging party complained numerous time to the CEO, who finally came to Pittsburgh and met with the office manager. The CEO told charging party that his investigation did not reveal any violation of legal standards, but that he had alerted the office manager of charging party's concerns and the need to maintain a professional and legally appropriate work environment. Defendant fired charging party 3 weeks later, ostensibly for insubordinate behavior and "failure to follow company policy." In the days leading up to her termination, she complained to the CEO that the office manager was forcing her to work extra hours without pay and had reprimanded her for being 3 minutes late but had not disciplined a coworker who was frequently late.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $150,000 in monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant from sex discrimination under Title VII, and specifically from creating, fostering, or tolerating a sexually hostile work environment. Defendant is also enjoined from retaliating against any person for engaging in activity protected under Title VII.
The Charlotte District Office alleged that Carmike Cinemas, operator of a chain of movie theaters in 36 states, created a sexually hostile work environment for teenaged male employees (including seven charging parties) who worked at defendant's Raleigh, North Carolina theater, in violation of Title VII. The Concessions Manager of the Raleigh theater was a 29-year-old man who had served more than 2 years in prison after being convicted of two counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor. During the 9 months he worked for defendant in 2003, the Concessions Manager subjected the boys he supervised to offensive verbal and physical sexual conduct. Several of the boys complained either to the Office Manager or to the General Manager of the theater, but defendant failed to take corrective action. Defendant finally terminated the Concessions Manager for violating the company's "no call/no show" rule when he failed to come in to work after the police arrested him for failing to register as a sex offender.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, the 14 claimants (including the charging parties) will share $765,000 in monetary relief. Defendant will also pay all fees and expenses of the mediator that are associated with 2 days of mediation of the suit. The decree provides that defendant will not discriminate against any person based on sex or any other category protected under Title VII and will not retaliate. Defendant will take the following actions at its District 4 Theaters (six theaters located in North Carolina and seven located in southwestern Virginia): revise its sexual harassment policy, provide a copy to all new employees, and post an 11- by 17- inch poster summarizing the policy in a place visible to District 4 employees; provide training to all new employees at the time of hire and to all current managers, supervisors, and employees annually on Title VII's prohibitions against sexual harassment and retaliation and defendant's sexual harassment policy; and report semiannually to the Charlotte District Office on complaints of sexual harassment by employees, including the identity of the complainant and the alleged harasser, and the action taken by defendant.
The Seattle District Office alleged that defendant, a hardware and home improvement company with two stores in the State of Washington, subjected charging party to a sexually hostile work environment that resulted in her constructive discharge. In October 2001, at age 18, charging party began working for defendant as a cashier in its Clinton, Washington store, and also trained in cabinet design under the 40-year-old store manager/co-owner. The store manager initially subjected charging party to sexual jokes and comments, and over a 2-year period the conduct escalated to daily jokes, comments, groping, ogling, vulgarities, and innuendos about having a sexual relationship. He met charging party's resistance (such as vocally objecting or turning or pulling away) with veiled threats to her job security. After a particularly objectionable incident, during which the store manager hugged charging party, kissed her on the lips, and told her he loved her, she told him she was uncomfortable with their working relationship and no longer wanted to work in cabinet design. Although the manager said he would set things up differently, and offered her increased compensation, she resigned in October 2003.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay charging party $120,000 in monetary relief and provide a positive reference to her prospective employers. Defendant's Clinton store will not retaliate against current or former employees.
The Denver District Office alleged that defendant, a nationwide home improvement retailer, engaged in a pattern or practice of hostile work environment discrimination against employees based on sex, race, and national origin and a pattern or practice of retaliation in violation of Title VII at its 30-plus stores in Colorado. Managers subjected female employees to sexually offensive comments and unwelcome sexual advances, and made derogatory comments about the competence and work habits of women, blacks, and Hispanics. The complaint alleged that discrimination against women and minorities in various terms and conditions of employment e.g., assignments, pay, discipline, promotions contributed to the hostile work environment. Employees who complained about the harassment were subjected to adverse terms and conditions of employment, including disparaging comments about their performance, overscrutinization of their work, demotion, and discharge.
Under a 30-month consent decree, defendant will pay up to $5,630,000 to resolve the case. The bulk of the money, $5.5 million, will constitute monetary relief to claimants: $3 million to 38 charging parties and $2.5 million to a Class Settlement Fund for distribution to other claimants (potential claimants are individuals employed at any time since January 1, 2000). The EEOC and defendant will jointly enter into a contract with a Fund Administrator and defendant will pay up to $80,000 of his or her expenses. In addition, defendant will place $50,000 into an escrow account, and if EEOC retains an individual to assist in monitoring the decree, the Fund Administrator may tap the account to pay the decree monitor's reasonable expenses.
The injunctive relief in the decree applies to all Home Depot stores in Colorado. The decree prohibits defendant from creating or tolerating a hostile work environment based on sex, race, and/or national origin and from retaliating against employees who report or complain about what they perceive as unlawful discrimination based on age, race, national origin, sex, religion, and/or disability. Under the decree, defendant will modify its policies and procedures regarding harassment/hostile work environments and retaliation and will distribute and otherwise effectively disseminate the policies to all employees. Written notification of every complaint filed must be sent to human resources and to the Consent Decree Coordinator. Defendant will investigate all complaints filed and will prepare a summary of the investigation and any remedial action taken or proposed. When evaluating managers' performance and setting their compensation, defendant will consider the managers' compliance with EEO policies and procedures.
Defendant will designate a senior level employee with experience in human resources management as the Consent Decree Coordinator, and will inform all Colorado employees about his/her appointment and function. The Consent Decree Coordinator will oversee defendant's implementation of the consent decree and respond to EEOC's questions regarding decree compliance. In addition, the Consent Decree Coordinator will be responsible for answering employees' questions on the company's policies regarding hostile work environment discrimination and retaliation and overseeing the company's investigations of internal complaints.
Defendant will provide annual EEO training to: (a) nonsupervisory employees (2 hours), (b) management and supervisory employees (4 hours), and (c) human resources employees in Colorado and District-level human resources managers with responsibility for Colorado (16 hours). The management, supervisory, and human resources employees delineated above will also receive instructions on the prohibitions of and defendant's obligations under the consent decree and the proper procedures for recording and responding to complaints of discrimination. Finally, defendant will provide the EEOC with quarterly and annual reports regarding its compliance with the decree.
This page was last modified on November 7, 2005.