Return to Home PageThe following are brief descriptions of the some of the significant settlements reached by EEOC District Office Legal Units during February of 2003.
The Milwaukee District Office alleged in this ADA lawsuit that defendant, a nationwide retailer, discriminated against charging party, a Guest Service Team Leader, based on her disability (multiple sclerosis) when it refused to provide a reasonable accommodation in the form of reduced walking requirements and/or a job transfer. As a result of her disability, charging party experienced a loss of physical strength which interfered with her ability to perform her job. Defendant refused to provide a reasonable accommodation which would have reduced the amount of walking she was required to do in the Guest Service Team Leader position and also refused to transfer her to her former Executive Team Leader position, which was vacant and less physically demanding. Due to defendant's failure to accommodate, charging party was forced to accept a demotion to a non-executive position with less pay. The complaint also alleged that one of defendant's supervisors disclosed information regarding charging party's disability to a prospective employer during a reference check. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $95,000 to charging party, representing $25,000 in back pay and $70,000 in compensatory damages. Defendant also agrees to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities as required by the ADA and to maintain the confidentiality of its employees' medical information as required by the statute.
The Philadelphia District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a manufacturer of ductile iron pipe and fittings, failed to promote black employees from labor to management positions because of their race. Vacancies were not posted and black employees were denied the opportunity to compete for such promotions. Instead, defendant promoted white employees who were similarly or less qualified than the black employees. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $100,000 to 22 claimants. In addition, defendant will conduct an analysis of each salaried position at its manufacturing facility which involves the supervision of union workers and provide job validations to EEOC, establish validated minimum qualifications for each position, amend the job descriptions to reflect the minimum qualifications and clearly state the minimum qualifications on the job postings. Defendant agrees to develop interview questions that are linked to the knowledge, skill or ability required for the job in question, train its interviewers in interviewing techniques and rating and conduct a meeting with the union employees to explain the new system during which qualifications for promotions, pay, overtime and incentives will be discussed.
The New York District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendants subjected female employees to egregious sexual harassment, including sexual advances by managers, offensive comments and gestures, displays of sexually suggestive materials, and solicitation of female employees to dress up in sexually provocative outfits. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a payment of $1.79 million in monetary relief. Five women will share a total of $1.14 million, their private attorneys will receive $100,000 in fees, and a fund of $550,000 will compensate other women subjected to sexual harassment since January 1, 1997. The decree also provides for the revision of antiharassment and antiretaliation policies and continued training on these issues. PepsiCo acquired a majority ownership position in SoBe, which sells herbal and other nutrient enhanced beverages, in January 2001 and subsequently moved the majority of SoBe's operations to a PepsiCo owned facility.
In this ADA lawsuit, the Denver District Office alleged that defendant failed to hire charging party, a female teenager who is deaf, for several positions for which she applied and was qualified, including bussing tables in the restaurant, serving banquets, or delivering room service. Charging party communicates by signing, reading lips, writing notes, and speaking, and has won awards for her exceptional communication skills. During charging party's interview with defendant, the Hotel Manager told her that she was not qualified for the room service position because of her hearing loss. The Manager offered her a job bussing tables and she was referred to the H.R. Manager to complete paperwork and arrange for an orientation. The H.R. Manager, however, told her she would have to check with "corporate" to see if the hotel had a policy against hiring deaf people. Charging party was never contacted about employment again.
The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $75,000 to charging party. Further, defendant is enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability and from retaliation. Defendant agrees to adopt and maintain a written policy, distributed to all managers involved in the hiring process, setting forth its policies and procedures relating to disabled applicants or employees and agrees to conduct annual employment discrimination training for its employees. The terms of the three-year decree apply to all of Respondent's hotels located in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska (the six-state region covered by the Denver District Office).
The New York District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant Simat, Helliesen & Eichner (SH&E), an airline consulting firm and a former affiliate of defendant Reed Elsevier, a multinational publishing company, subjected five female employees working in clerical and professional jobs to a sexually hostile work environment at its Manhattan headquarters. Four of the claimants contended that they were harassed by SH&E's former president when he put his hand in his crotch while talking to female employees, stared at women's breasts and initiated conversations of a sexual nature. The former president's secretary was discharged in retaliation for complaining of the harassment and SH&E's Finance Director was force to quit her job because she could no longer tolerate the working conditions. A fifth female employee was harassed primarily by a male co-worker who referred to her as a "stupid bitch" and "fucking moron" and discussed his sexual prowess.
To finally resolve EEOC's lawsuit and a related private suit filed by the claimants, defendant agreed to a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $2.3 million, including attorneys' fees and costs, to the four women harassed by SH&E's former president. (EEOC resolved the co-worker harassment claim of the fifth claimant for $150,000 through a separate consent decree entered in June 2002.) Pursuant to the decree, defendants will not discriminate against any individual because of sex or subject any employee to sexual harassment, and will not retaliate against any individual who asserts rights under Title VII. Defendants agree to adopt appropriate measures to ensure compliance with Title VII, including implementing a sexual harassment training program for all U.S. management personnel. SH&E's former president (now Chairman and CEO) will attend the management training as well as an additional training program relating to sexual harassment and retaliation. SH&E also agreed to make reasonable efforts to actively seek qualified female candidates for professional positions.
The Phoenix District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a car dealership, subjected employees to a hostile working environment based upon their national origin (Middle- Eastern and Hispanic) and religion (Jewish) and retaliated against those employees who opposed discrimination. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $361,451 to seven claimants (ranging from $168,000 to $6,667) plus an additional $159,549 in fees and costs to the attorney representing three claimants who intervened. Pursuant to the decree, defendant agrees that it will not discriminate based on national origin or religion or retaliate against any employee who opposes discriminatory practices. Defendant will evaluate managerial personnel on their performance in responding to employee discrimination complaints and for their compliance with EEO laws and will discipline any manager who fails to enforce defendant's anti-discriminatory policies and EEO laws. Defendant also agrees to hire an Ombudsperson, who will report directly to defendant's president, to review its anti-discrimination policies, establish a diversity awareness program and investigate complaints of discrimination.
The Baltimore District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, an accounting firm, retaliated against charging party, an accountant, when it denied her severance benefits after she filed a charge of discrimination alleging that the firm had discriminated against her on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and race when it selected her for discharge during a reduction in force (RIF). Shortly after she filed the EEOC charge, defendant advised charging party that she was no longer eligible to receive severance benefits in the RIF because she had filed a charge. The general release form in the severance package included a waiver of the right: (1) to file a charge and (2) to "cause or permit [a charge] to be filed on his/her behalf." The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $125,000 ($25,000 in severance benefits and $100,000 for compensatory damages) to charging party. Pursuant to the decree, defendant also agreed to revise its Severance Benefits Plan and accompanying paperwork.
In this ADEA lawsuit, the Los Angeles District Office alleged that defendant, which owns and operates a luxury hotel, discriminated against applicants over the age of 40 by failing to hire them for server positions in the hotel's "fine dining" restaurant, the Coconut Club, because of their age. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $200,000 to approximately 15 applicants over the age of 40 who were denied hire based on age. The Coconut Club closed in July 2001.
This page was last modified on April 21, 2003.