Return to Home PageIn this Title VII suit, the Chicago District Office alleged that a white supervisor at the Hanover Park, Illinois facility of defendant, a major container manufacturer, subjected African-American employees under his supervision (including a machine operator, a stacker operator, and two roll stock technicians) to racial harassment. The conduct consisted of hostile and offensive racial remarks and oppressive and intimidating supervision of black employees. The African-American employees complained about the supervisor's conduct from at least December 2000 until defendant finally terminated the harasser in June 30, 2003. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving the case, four individuals will receive a total of $120,000 in monetary relief. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating against employees at its Hanover Park, Illinois facility because of race and is prohibited from engaging in retaliation under Title VII.
The Seattle District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a fruit packing and distribution company, subjected women who worked as fruit sorters and packers at its Yakima, Washington facility to sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliatory demotion and termination. A male supervisor created a sexually hostile work environment by making sexual comments about the women and asking them for sex. He coerced one of the women to have a sexual relationship with him, and when she ended the relationship, he demoted and then terminated her. The supervisor terminated another woman because she complained to management about his behavior. One woman quit because of the hostile work environment and another refused to return to work following a seasonal layoff. Defendant had no sexual harassment policy and took no corrective action in response to complaints by the women.
Under the 4-year consent decree resolving the case, four individuals will receive a total of $150,000. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating against applicants and employees in violation of Title VII and is prohibited from retaliation. Defendant will provide the four women with reference letters confirming dates of employment, positions held, and final pay rate, and containing a statement that the employee "performed satisfactorily." Defendant will retain a consultant to conduct an internal audit of its antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies and practices. The consultant will help prepare a new antidiscrimination and antiharassment policy and a reporting mechanism. Defendant will distribute the policy to employees in both English and Spanish.
The Milwaukee District Office filed this Title VII suit alleging that defendant, a national retailer of building materials and home improvement products, discharged charging party because of her sex and in retaliation for complaints about a coworker's offensive comments. Charging party worked at defendant's Waukesha, Wisconsin store. She reported a coworker who had previously been disciplined for sexual harassment for making inappropriate racial and sexual comments and threatening to get her in trouble if she went to management. Defendant interviewed the coworker, who denied making the comments, and took no further action. A week later, the same coworker complained that charging party had grabbed him and made sexual comments. This time, defendant interviewed two of the coworker's friends, but did not interview charging party or her supporting witness. Defendant discharged charging party 2 weeks later.
Charging party will receive $100,000 in monetary relief under the1-year consent decree resolving the case. Defendant is enjoined for the term of the decree from discriminating based on gender, or retaliating, against employees at the Waukesha, Wisconsin store. Defendant will remove from charging party's personnel file any reference to her termination and the reason(s) for it, and charging party will be permitted to place a letter of resignation in her personnel file.
The Philadelphia District Office filed this individual Title VII case alleging that defendant Dan Lepore & Sons Co., a Philadelphia area masonry contractor, subjected charging party to a sexually hostile work environment and retaliated against her for complaining of the harassment, and that L.F. Driscoll Co., which manages construction projects in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, disciplined charging party because of her sex. From July to November 2001, charging party, the only female stone mason in her local bricklayers' union, worked at defendant Lepore's University of Pennsylvania construction site. At that site, charging party's male coworkers subjected her to unwelcome and sexually offensive comments, which she asked them to stop. In November 2001 defendant Lepore transferred charging party to its Kimmel Center site. At this job site, charging party's male supervisor and coworkers subjected her to pervasive offensive sexual comments. On November 27 charging party told the supervisor to stop making the comments. Two days later, a safety inspector employed by defendant Driscoll evicted charging party from the job site for a safety violation (failure to wear safety goggles). Men who engaged in the same infraction were not warned or disciplined. After being evicted from the site, charging party complained to Lepore's president about the sexual harassment she had experienced. She thereafter applied to Lepore for work on numerous other projects, but was hired only once and was laid off after 9 days.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendants will pay $75,000 to charging party: Defendant Lepore will pay $45,000 and defendant Driscoll will pay $30,000. Defendant Lepore will reinstate charging party into a stone mason position on a Princeton, New Jersey project starting in spring 2005, and will guarantee her at least 1 year's work as a stone mason on that project or, if the project lasts less than 1 year, on other projects.
This page was last modified on May 24, 2005.