Return to Home PageThe Seattle District Office filed this Title VII lawsuit against Eldorado Stone Operations, an architectural stone veneer manufacturing company headquartered in San Marcos, California, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliatory termination. The six charging parties worked in the repair department at defendant's Carnation, Washington plant. The District Office alleged that the repair department supervisor sexually harassed two of the female charging parties. One complained about the harassment and then quit when defendant did not act on her complaints. The other filed a police report and then reported the supervisor to the company after he sexually assaulted her. At a repair department meeting called by management, four other charging parties two male and two female made statements supporting the sexual harassment allegations. Shortly thereafter, defendant fired all four.
The parties resolved the suit through a 3-year consent decree under which defendant will pay a lump sum of $475,000 to the charging parties and provide them with reference letters stating that each performed satisfactorily. Defendant is enjoined from engaging in employment practices that discriminate in violation of Title VII. Under the decree, defendant adopted new procedures for employee complaints of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. Key provisions include: (1) posting the names, job titles, work locations, and telephone numbers of the management employees responsible for investigating complaints; (2) maintaining a "complaint box" in an employee area of the premises (such as the cafeteria); (3) investigating complaints without singling out complaining parties; (4) completing investigations within 3 weeks; (5) preparing the written report within 7 days of completing the investigation; and (6) taking remedial action including discipline up to and including termination.
The St. Louis District Office filed this Title VII lawsuit against Midamerica Hotels Corp., alleging that defendant subjected female employees to a sexually hostile working environment. Based in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, defendant owns and operates several hotels and 37 Burger King restaurants in Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois and Kentucky. The District Office alleged that over a 6-month period the restaurant manager at defendant's Burger King in Peerless Park, Missouri, subjected female employees, most of them teenagers, to repeated groping, sexual comments, and demands for sex. The women complained to their first line supervisors and to a district manager, but no action was taken until they learned how to contact the corporate office.
The parties resolved the case through a 2-year consent decree. Defendant will pay a total of $400,000 in monetary relief to the seven claimants and prepare a reference letter for each woman stating that her "performance was satisfactory in all respects." The decree prohibits defendant from subjecting employees at any of its restaurants to sex discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation under Title VII. Defendant will distribute its sexual harassment policy, complaint procedure, and hotline information to all current employees and new hires. Defendant will also place the hotline number and an explanation of the sexual harassment policy on all employee paychecks. Defendant will develop and display in all of its restaurants a new poster containing information about its sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure, which will include a conspicuous explanation of the hotline. In addition to requiring all of defendant's managers (including individuals hired or promoted into management positions during the term of the decree) to attend 2 hours of sexual harassment training, three identified managers must attend 8 hours of sexual harassment training. The defendant is prohibited from rehiring the harasser.
The Philadelphia District Office filed this Title VII national origin hostile work environment and retaliatory discharge lawsuit against Northwestern Human Services, a large Philadelphia social service organization. Charging party, who is from Ghana, speaks accented English. When defendant terminated charging party in December 2001, he had 9 years of experience with defendant and was a Program Manager responsible for several programs for the mentally disabled. In early 2001 charging party was placed on a performance improvement plan for a medication error, over the objection of his immediate supervisor who argued that he had not been trained in that area, which was a responsibility of the nurses. Charging party's supervisor left a few months later, and was replaced by a close friend of the manager who had put charging party on the PIP. Charging party's new supervisor constantly made negative comments about his and other Africans' accents and ability to speak English. In October 2001, charging party complained to upper management about the harassment; about a month later he received two disciplinary warnings, and 2 weeks after he complained again he was terminated. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving the case charging party will receive $86,000 in monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant from harassment on the basis of national origin and from engaging in practices that constitute retaliation under Title VII.
The Philadelphia District Office filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging that Bechtel, an international construction company, subjected charging party to a hostile work environment and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment because of his Iraqi national origin, and discharged him because of his national origin. Defendant hired charging party into a Site Acquisition Specialist position in June 2001 and he worked at construction projects in Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. The Commission alleged that following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks charging party was harassed by coworkers (including physical attacks and offensive and degrading comments about his national origin), excluded from meetings, isolated, and denied work assignments. Charging party's complaints were ignored and he was discharged in June 2002.
The parties resolved the case through a 3-year consent decree providing $90,000 to charging party ($25,000 in backpay and $65,000 in compensatory damages). In addition, defendant agreed to take the following steps at its Hackensack, New Jersey, Melville, Long Island, and Chicago, Illinois, facilities: (1) post a notice on all bulletin boards used for communicating with employees; (2) provide annual training regarding discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII for all managers and supervisors; and (3) retain records of all employee complaints of harassment or discrimination based on national origin and summarize those complaints and the actions taken by defendant in semiannual reports to EEOC.
The Milwaukee District Office filed this lawsuit alleging that Johnson International, a global financial services company, violated Title VII when it failed to hire a woman for an executive vice president position after learning of her pregnancy. Charging party and defendant signed a written employment contract, subject to a drug test and credit and criminal record background checks. After charging party disclosed her pregnancy to her new boss, defendant conducted a number of additional reference checks and ultimately revoked the job offer. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving the case, charging party will receive $450,000 in backpay. Defendant is prohibited from discriminating in any employment decision based on pregnancy.
The San Antonio District Office filed this Title VII lawsuit charging U.S. Contractors, a staffing firm supplying temporary and long-term employees to chemical manufacturers in the Gulf Coast Region of Texas, with sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. Defendant assigned the six female claimants to a construction project adding new production units to a Formosa Plastics plant in Point Comfort, Texas. The women who were assigned to positions such as crew foreman, runner, boilermaker, and boilermaker helper were subjected to hostile environment sexual harassment, disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment (e.g., having their breaks interrupted and being required to work late to finish projects), and discharge because of their sex and in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment. Neither defendant nor Formosa Plastics took corrective action after the women complained about their treatment. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, defendant will pay a total of $530,000 to six claimants, in amounts ranging from $40,000 to $124,000. The decree enjoins defendant from engaging in sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII.
The Memphis District Office alleged in this Title VII/ADEA action that defendant, which sells property and casualty insurance and is a division of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, failed to promote charging party from his senior claims representative position into a property unit leader position in its Nashville, Tennessee office because of his age (49) and race (black). Instead, defendant promoted a less qualified 28-year- old white employee. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving the case, charging party will receive $178,065 ($156,993 in damages and $21,072 in backpay, interest, and accrued vacation pay). Defendant is enjoined from discriminating on the basis of race, age, or opposition to discrimination on the basis of race or age.
This page was last modified on February 23, 2005.