Return to Home PageThe following are brief descriptions of the some of the significant settlements reached by EEOC District Office Legal Units during March of 2003.
In this ADA lawsuit, the Baltimore District Office alleged that defendant, a waste removal company, discriminated against charging party, a boom truck driver and trash compactor repair person, when it fired her because of her disability, Crohn's disease, an inflammatory bowel disorder. Defendant fired charging party because it believed that exposure to waste products was exacerbating her disease. Despite the insistence of both charging party and her doctors that the external environment had no relation to her Crohn's disease and that she could continue to safely and effectively work around waste as she had done throughout her 10-year career with defendant, the company refused to allow her to return to work after a medical leave of absence. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $194,000 to charging party, representing $176,716 in general damages and $17,283 for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating against any qualified individual with a disability with regard to hiring or discharge and specifically from unlawfully discharging and otherwise denying employment opportunities to individuals with Crohn's disease. Defendant also agrees not to retaliate against charging party.
The Miami District Office alleged in this Title VII action that defendant, a freight and cargo shipping agent, retaliated against charging party, an employee in defendant's Processing Department, when it fired her after she complained that she was denied training opportunities because of her sex (female). The Processing Department, which was responsible for distributing merchandise to department stores, had only female employees and the Receiving Department, which was responsible for unloading pallets of merchandise using forklifts, had only male employees. Defendant routinely assigned charging party and other women to assist in the Receiving Department, and charging party asked to receive the same training and certification as a forklift operator that the men received. Defendant denied her request, and after charging party objected to what she believed was sex discrimination, she was fired. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $100,000 to charging party. Defendant agrees not to retaliate against any individual who objects to unlawful conduct under Title VII based upon a reasonable belief or who files a charge with or cooperates with EEOC during the investigation of an alleged violation.
In this ADEA lawsuit, the Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant discriminated against charging party, age 50, when it failed to hire him for a Ph.D. Research Statistician position in defendant's Statistics Research Group and instead hired a substantially younger and less qualified individual. Defendant hired a 28-year-old person for the position because, as reflected in an email written by the recruiting official, the company "really wanted a younger person." The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $75,000 in monetary relief to charging party, representing $45,000 in back pay and $30,000 in liquidated damages.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the St. Louis District Office alleged that defendant, an interstate tank truck carrier, retaliated against charging party, a Chemical Dispatcher, by firing her after she complained that she was being sexually harassed by the Terminal Manager. Charging party complained to defendant's Regional Director and a V.P. of Human Resources that she found some of her supervisor's actions offensive, including his appearing partially undressed in her presence, commenting on her body and making sexual comments. After investigating the allegations, defendant determined that charging party and her supervisor had a personality conflict, that her supervisor was doing a good job, and that she had no option but to resign. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $150,000 to charging party, representing $66,715 in back pay and $88,284 in compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant agrees not to discriminate or retaliate against any employee who complains of discrimination, and will place a memorandum in the Terminal Manager's personnel file memorializing charging party's sexual harassment allegations.
The Dallas District Office alleged in this ADA lawsuit that defendant, a distributor of commercial lighting products, discriminated against charging party, a long-term sales employee, when it fired him because of his disability, bipolar disorder. Charging party's psychiatric disability severely impaired a number of his major life activities, including thinking, interacting and communicating with others, and the ability to take care of himself. After he asked for medical leave to receive inpatient treatment for his bipolar disorder, defendant discharged him by taping a termination letter to the front door of his home. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $91,250 in compensatory damages to charging party. Defendant agrees not to discriminate on the basis of disability, perceived disability or record of disability in any employment action and further agrees not to retaliate against any person who opposes an unlawful employment practice or files a charge of discrimination.
The Dallas District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a Houston-based computer parts company, subjected two female warehouse employees to a sexually hostile working environment. The women were subjected to pornographic magazines and computer images and constant lewd and vulgar language. As a result of the harassment, the women were forced to quit their jobs. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $175,000 to the two claimants ($87,500 each). For the duration of the decree, defendant agrees to conduct written evaluations of all of its warehouse managers, supervisors and salaried associates twice per year to assess their knowledge with regard to preventing discrimination at the workplace, including their obligation to report sexual harassment and perceived sexual harassment.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the San Francisco District Office alleged that defendant, a steel fabrication plant, denied equal employment opportunities to and subjected four Pakistani-American and Muslim employees to a hostile working environment based on their national origin (Pakistani) and religion (Islam). Over an extended period of time, the employees, who were primarily machine operators, were hassled during their daily Muslim prayer obligations, mocked because of their traditional dress and repeatedly called "camel jockey" and "raghead." The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $1.11 million to the four claimants (two of whom intervened in EEOC's suit) representing compensatory damages. The monetary relief was divided among the four claimants according to the severity and length of harassment suffered (payments ranged from $25,000 to $760,000). Pursuant to the decree, which covers the facility where the claimants were employed, defendant and its officers, supervisors, successors and assigns, agree that they will not discriminate in the terms and conditions of employment nor engage in harassment of any employee on the basis of national origin or religion. The defendant also agreed to make policy changes to establish a more effective complaint and investigation procedure and to provide for supervisor accountability for national origin or religious harassment.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the St. Louis District Office alleged that defendant, a provider of news and traffic reports to radio stations, subjected charging party, a Desk, Traffic and News reporter, to a hostile working environment and fired him because of his race (black). A white management official allegedly used racial epithets and told charging party that people of his race are "stupid" and should not be working at the station. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $150,000 to charging party. Defendant agrees that it shall not discriminate based on race in the hiring, firing, work assignments, pay, evaluation, promotion or any other term or condition of employment at defendant's St. Louis office. Defendant also agrees that it shall not discriminate against or harass African-American employees and that it shall not retaliate against any employee who opposes unlawful conduct. Defendant will require the harasser to receive 20 hours of racial sensitivity training from a trainer approved by EEOC. Defendant also will issue a letter of reprimand to the harasser, put him on probation, and make him ineligible for pay raises, increases in benefits, transfers to better jobs and promotions for one year. Defendant will issue a letter of apology to charging party and provide him with a signed letter of reference stating that his attendance and job performance as a reporter were excellent in all respects.
The Los Angeles District Office alleged in this ADEA lawsuit that defendant, which provides engineering and construction services for public and private projects in Nevada, harassed and ultimately fired charging party, a 53-year-old receptionist, because of her age. Defendant's office manager and owner routinely insulted her at work by calling her "old bag" and "old dog," and telling her she was "too old" and "too dumb to do anything but clean floors." Defendant eventually fired charging party because of her age. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $130,000 in monetary relief to charging party. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating against or harassing any employee or applicant because of age, and agrees not to retaliate against any employee for cooperating with EEOC. Defendant further agrees to retain an EEO Consultant to implement the consent decree and monitor defendant's compliance with the ADEA and the decree, including developing policies and procedures for handling complaints of harassment and retaliation, and conducting harassment investigations where the harasser is the president, vice president, or a manager.
The New York District Office alleged in this breach of contract action that defendants failed to pay charging party the settlement amount the parties had agreed upon pursuant to an agreement negotiated through EEOC's mediation program. Charging party filed an EEOC charge alleging that she had been sexually harassed and discriminated against on the basis of sex (pregnancy) during her employment with defendants. Through mediation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided that defendants pay charging party $45,000 within 21 days after it received her executed release. Defendants received charging party's executed release but failed to pay the settlement amount. The case was resolved through a consent decree and judgment which provides that defendants pay charging party $45,000 in compensation for non-wage related claims plus interest accruing from the date payment should have been made under the original settlement agreement and $70 for costs associated with filing her complaint-in-intervention.
The San Francisco District Office alleged in this Title VII case that defendant, a small waste management transportation company, subjected female office workers (one of whom was 19 years old at the time) to a sexually hostile working environment. The company's founder (who officially retired in 1988 but whose wife remained president and CEO) verbally and physically harassed the women during regular visits to their office. He propositioned them for sex and, on one occasion, placed one of the women's hands on his crotch. The harassment took place in front of the company's president who failed to take action to stop it. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $85,000 to two female claimants ($42,500 each). Pursuant to the decree, defendant will hire an independent consultant to investigate sexual harassment complaints and enforce its EEO and sexual harassment policies.
In this Title VII case, the Milwaukee District Office alleged that defendant, a jewelry retailer, subjected three female store employees to a sexually hostile working environment and transferred one of them to a store farther away from her home in retaliation for complaining of the harassment. The harassment included inappropriate sexual banter and touching by the assistant manager. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $155,000 to the three claimants. Defendant and its successors are permanently enjoined from engaging in sexual harassment and shall not discriminate or retaliate against any person for opposing unlawful practices under Title VII, filing a charge, or participating in a proceeding under Title VII.
This page was last modified on April 21, 2003.