Return to Home PageThe following are brief descriptions of the some of the significant settlements reached by EEOC District Office Legal Units during December of 2002.
The Charlotte District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, an owner/operator of a chain of retail stores which sell beachwear and accessories, subjected four female summer sales associates, ages 16 to 18, to a sexually hostile working environment and discharged one of them because of her sex. The Store Manager and the Assistant Manager repeatedly made comments about the claimants' bodies, questioned them about their sexual activities, touched their legs and buttocks and propositioned them for sex. Two of the claimants quit their jobs after only four days of work due to the harassment and a third was discharged on her fourth day of work. The fourth claimant was employed for less than two months and quit after she was sexually assaulted by the Store Manager. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $115,000 to the four female claimants ($40,000 to one of the claimants and $25,000 to each of the other three claimants).
The Phoenix District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a security firm, discriminated against charging party, a female employee, when it failed to promote her to an Assistant Branch Manager position because of her sex and instead selected a less qualified male for the promotion. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a payment of $58,750 in compensatory damages to charging party. Among other relief, defendant also agreed not to discriminate or retaliate against any individual and to provide a letter of recommendation for charging party.
The Miami District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a clothing retailer, retaliated against charging party, a Store Manager, by terminating her after she reported to her District Manager that several of her female subordinates complained that they were being sexually harassed by another (male) Store Manager. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides a payment of $250,000 in monetary relief to charging party. Defendant also agreed not to retaliate against any employee who opposes conduct which violates Title VII.
The Chicago District Office alleged in this ADA lawsuit that defendant, a large commercial printing company, refused to accommodate and fired charging party, a paraplegic graphics technician who uses a wheelchair, because of his disability. Defendant hired charging party through an employment agency for a temporary position in its on-line services division. A few hours after charging party arrived for his first day of work, he encountered a rare incontinence problem and was permitted to return home to take care of it. That afternoon, his supervisor at R.R. Donnelley called the employment agency who had placed charging party and stated that charging party could not come back to work. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a payment of $150,000 to charging party and requires defendant to revise its anti-discrimination policies to explicitly include coverage of temporary employees. Additionally, given the strength of the case, the district office insisted that the decree contain no disclaimer of liability by defendant.
The St. Louis District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, an owner/operator of fast food franchises, subjected charging party, a 14-year-old female employee, to a sexually hostile work environment. In July 2000, one of defendant's Store Managers sexually assaulted charging party. He was later convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and sentenced to eight years in prison. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a payment of $150,000 to the charging party. The decree also requires defendant to issue a letter of apology to charging party, provide sexual harassment training to all employees, and post notices at its four restaurants informing employees of their right to be free from sexual harassment.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Chicago District Office alleged that defendant, a manufacturer and distributor of various types of containers and laminated foam boards, subjected four black female production workers to harassment based on sex and race. Both supervisors and co-workers participated in the harassment, including exposing their buttocks and genitalia, referring to women as "bitches" and "black hairy dog" and, on two occasions, opening the restroom door when a female worker was using the toilet and throwing water on her. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a payment of $155,000 to the four claimants representing $110,000 to charging party ($5,000 in back pay, $68,333 in damages and $36,666 in attorneys fees) and $15,000 each to the other three claimants. The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating on the basis of sex and race and requires training of all employees regarding sexual and racial harassment.
The Phoenix District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit, filed in 1994, that defendant refused to rehire charging party, a former clothing clerk, because she told the interviewer that she was pregnant. After interviewing for the job in November 1991, an assistant manager at the Tucson-area store told charging party to "come back after she had the baby." In 1997, a jury found that Wal-Mart had intentionally discriminated against charging party and awarded her $1,700 in back pay but the judge refused to allow the issue of punitive damages to go to the jury. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit in 1998 found that evidence could have supported a conclusion that defendant's managers had sought to cover up their discriminatory conduct, and remanded the case to be retried on the punitive damages issue. A second trial ended without the jury being able to reach a verdict. In July 2000, the case was tried before a third jury, which found for defendant, but the judge made erroneous evidential rulings and, following a second Commission appeal, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case with instructions that the jury be told that Wal-Mart fabricated a number of facts during the investigation and initial trial, i.e., that charging party had withdrawn her application and expressed doubt about her ability or desire to perform the job. Rather than try the case a fourth time, Wal-Mart agreed to enter into a consent decree to resolve the lawsuit. The decree provides for a payment of $220,000 to charging party.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Dallas District Office alleged that a female assistant manager subjected a male crew member to offensive touching and sexually suggestive comments. When the company failed to remedy the harassment, the employee resigned. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a payment of $187,000 in damages and attorney's fees to charging party. The defendant also agreed to impose a zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy and to terminate the harasser's employment.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Chicago District Office alleged that defendant, a nationwide retailer of golfing products, subjected charging party, a Customer Service Manager, to a sexually hostile work environment and to retaliation after she complained about the harassment. The General Sales Manager of the store where charging party worked made sexually explicit comments and used sexually derogatory language, propositioned charging party for sex and dates, and inappropriately touched her. When charging party complained, defendant retaliated against her by forcing her to take an unpaid leave of absence, interviewing people to replace her and allowing the harasser to require her to perform menial tasks when she returned from leave. As a result of the harassment and retaliation, charging party quit her job. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a payment of $80,000 to charging party, representing $10,000 in backpay and $70,000 in damages. Defendant also agreed to create and distribute a new sexual harassment policy and to train all of its managers nationwide and its Chicago area employees on sexual harassment and retaliation.
The Chicago District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a security firm, terminated charging party, a practicing Pentecostal Christian, when she refused to wear pants because of her religious beliefs. Hired as a uniformed relief messenger and assigned to an armored car crew, the charging party suggested that she wear culottes instead of pants and even offered to buy the uniform material and make the culottes. Nonetheless, the company rejected this accommodation and fired her. After charging party filed a discrimination charge, the company rehired her and allowed her to wear culottes. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a payment of $30,000 in monetary relief to charging party and $9,500 for her attorneys' fees.
In this Title VII case, the Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant, a car dealership (which is now closed), subjected charging party, a black salesman, and other black employees, to a racially hostile working environment. The harassment included racially derogatory comments made by co-workers and managers, racially motivated pranks and the distribution of KKK literature at the worksite. As a result of the harassment, charging party quit his job. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $534,000 in back pay and compensatory damages ($272,000 to charging party and $262,000 to another claimant). With respect to the car dealerships he currently owns and operates, defendant's owner agreed not to engage in any employment practice which violates Title VII and agreed not to retaliate against the two claimants or any other individual.
This page was last modified on April 7, 2003.