Return to Home PageThe New York District Office filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that Supermercados Conchita, a supermarket chain in Puerto Rico, subjected charging party to same-sex sexual harassment, resulting in his constructive discharge. The male owner/general manager of the supermarkets subjected charging party (who had been hired as a bagger but was rapidly moved into management) to sexual comments, inappropriate touching, and sexual invitations. Charging party repeatedly rebuffed the owner's advances and eventually filed a written complaint with Human Resources.
Under the 4-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $142,500 in monetary relief. Defendant agrees to appoint an EEO Officer at its corporate facility who will designate EEO Representatives at each branch office; train the EEO Officer and EEO Representatives in their responsibilities, including investigating discrimination complaints; and create an antidiscrimination policy that explains prohibited conduct, describes the complaint process, provides for prompt and thorough investigations, requires defendant to take prompt and effective corrective action, is confidential to the extent possible, and assures complainants they will not be retaliated against.
In this Title VII suit, the Houston District Office alleged that Pesce, an upscale seafood restaurant in Houston, discharged an Egyptian-born General Manager due to his national origin following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Defendant hired charging party as General Manager in May 2001. In an August 2001 performance review, defendant told charging party that he was doing very well. After the terrorist attacks, one of defendant's co-owners said that charging party's name and appearance might scare customers and might be the reason for a decline in earnings in the weeks following the terrorist attacks. The co-owner repeatedly suggested that charging party could "pass for Hispanic" and should change his name to "something Latin." The co-owner discharged charging party on November 2, 2001, telling him that "things just weren't working out." Defendant claimed that charging party's management style made it difficult for him to supervise and lead others; however, on November 14, 2001, defendant gave charging party a letter of reference stating that charging party "showed great knowledge of his trade, dedication and was diligent in accomplishing all he set out to do," and that he "would be an asset to any service establishment."
Under the 12-month consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $150,000 in monetary relief. Defendant also agrees not to give charging party job references inconsistent with the November 14, 2001, reference letter quoted above.
The Philadelphia District Office alleged that Ernst & Young, a large accounting firm with offices in 140 countries, retaliated against a female employee at its Lyndhurst, New Jersey facility because she complained about offensive sexual conduct by her female supervisor. Charging party was a manager in defendant's technical support services division. After she first complained that her female supervisor was sexually harassing her, defendant gave charging party a significantly lower than usual performance rating and revoked her flexible work schedule. Charging party filed a second internal complaint, calling attention to retaliation she was experiencing, and a few days later was placed on a performance improvement plan. Charging party filed a charge with the EEOC and defendant terminated her less than a week later. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving the case, the charging party will receive $125,000 in monetary relief.
The Milwaukee District Office alleged in this ADEA action that defendant discriminated against a teacher by denying him a cash early retirement incentive based on his age, 60. To qualify for the early retirement incentive an employee's age plus years of service had to equal 90 or the employee had to be between ages 55 and 59 with 15 years of service. The benefit (100% of 1 year's salary) was incrementally reduced for those whose sum of age and years of service was greater than 91, and eliminated entirely for sums over 97. Charging party retired at age 60 with age plus years of service totaling 99, and thus received no benefits. Under the 5-year consent decree resolving the case, the charging party will receive $56,278.42, consisting of $43,000 in backpay and $13,273.42 in interest. The decree prohibits defendant from implementing or administering any retirement incentive plan that reduces benefits based on age or on an employee's continued employment beyond his or her date of first eligibility.
In this Title VII suit, the Dallas District Office alleged that the Bank of Oklahoma, a national banking association, discharged a Sales Manager/Senior Vice President in retaliation for statements supporting a female Regional Manager/Senior Vice President's sexual hostile work environment claim. After defendant terminated the female Regional Manager on April 3, 2002, charging party told his supervisor, an Executive Vice President, that he expected her to file a lawsuit and that if he testified, the bank would not like what he had to say. In late April 2002, Defendant's Director of Human Resources asked charging party about the Regional Manager, and charging party said a lawsuit was possible. The HR Director then asked charging party if believed the Regional Manager had been harassed and charging party said yes. Charging party had received a positive performance evaluation, salary increase, and promise of a promotion in mid- March 2002, but was told on May 7, 2002, that his position was being eliminated immediately and that he was terminated. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $262,500 in monetary relief.
The New York District Office filed a Title VII complaint alleging that defendant, a construction company not currently in operation (but not bankrupt), subjected the three female charging parties to a sexually hostile work environment through remarks by a male supervisor about their menstruation and sexual activity; limited them to cleaning and loading duties while assigning jobs requiring more skill, such as demolition and operating electrical machinery, to male laborers, causing charging parties to receive less work than similarly situated men; and retaliated against them for complaining about discriminatory treatment at the worksite by causing subcontractors to deny them work and refuse to rehire them.
Under the 5-year consent decree resolving the matter, the three charging parties will receive a total of $355,000 in monetary relief. The decree contains a number of injunctive relief provisions that will apply if Trataros (or a successor in interest) resumes operations. One provision requires Trataros or its successor to partner with the National Association of Women in Construction (Greater New York Chapter or Long Island Chapter) or a similar organization that has a stated goal of increasing the number of women in nontraditional industries such as the construction industry. Trataros must submit for EEOC approval a contract or partnership agreement to use the organization for at least 2 years to recruit, train, develop, and retain women in Trataros' workforce.
In this ADEA action based on a directed investigation, the Indianapolis District Office alleged that Protis Executive Innovations, a professional recruitment and placement agency, coded applications by age and denied referrals to applicants age 40 and older because of their ages. EEOC's investigation identified various age-related comments in defendant's database, and a number of defendant's former employees said they had been instructed not to refer older applicants to particular clients.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay $150,000 to affected individuals identified by the Commission; an initial payment of $100,000 is due in July 2005 and a final payment of $50,000 is due on or before December 30, 2007. Defendant is permanently enjoined from engaging in any act or practice in its recruitment and referral processes that has the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of age, including the use of codes to identify applicants' ages. Defendant is also prohibited from engaging in retaliation. The decree requires defendant to update its recruitment database so that it can regularly search the database for age- related references to applicants (such as "old," "long in the tooth," "youthful," "up and coming," and similar terms listed in the decree). Defendant is prohibited from using age-related terms, birth dates, or age codes in its database, except where the applicant has voluntarily provided such information or where age is a bona fide occupational qualification for the position. Defendant must keep records of any age discriminatory requests from clients and report the requests to EEOC within 5 days. Defendant must also inform such clients in writing within 5 days that both the client and Protis are prohibited under federal law from discriminating against job candidates on any protected basis, that Protis will not discriminate against job candidates on any protected basis, and that Protis will cease making referrals to the client unless it receives a written commitment of nondiscrimination from the client. Defendant will provide copies of such correspondence to the District Office within 5 days.
The Philadelphia District Office filed this Title VII suit alleging that the female manager of a Save-A-Lot grocery store located in Rio Grande, New Jersey subjected two male subordinate managers (both charging parties) to sexual harassment, constructively discharged one of them, and terminated the other for resisting the harassment. The Store Manager frequently talked to both men about her sex life, her sexual desires, and her affairs with other male employees, engaged in sexually provocative actions towards them, and propositioned them. After one charging party had rejected her advances a number of times, the Store Manager began subjecting him to increasingly insulting and demeaning behavior. He complained to defendant's District Manager on two occasions, but defendant took no corrective action. When the Store Manager verbally assaulted him again on May 20, 2002, he quit. The day after the first charging party quit, the second charging party told the Store Manager during a heated argument that he would never have a sexual relationship with her. She suspended him immediately and terminated him 3 weeks later. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, the charging parties will share $175,000.
In the ADEA complaint initiating this suit, the Chicago District Office alleged that defendant, a Chicago-based restaurant supply company, terminated charging party based on his age (64). Due to business conditions, defendant eliminated 3 of 17 Sales Representative positions. Defendant told charging party when laying him off that he was selected because it expected him to retire in 8 months when he reached age 65, and it wanted to keep younger sales representatives who had a future with the company. Defendant later claimed that charging party was selected because his sales performance was marginal; however, defendant's records on sales and gross profit margins belied this explanation. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving the suit, charging party will receive $162,000 in monetary relief. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating based on age and prohibited from engaging in retaliation.
The Seattle District Office filed this Title VII sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge case against Hannah Motors, a car dealership in Vancouver, Washington. Defendant's male General Sales Manager subjected charging party (a dealership Finance Manager) and another woman under his direct supervision (a Sales Assistant) to sexual harassment. The charging party worked for defendant from about January 2000 to June 2001, when defendant terminated her. During charging party's employment, the General Sales Manager asked her if she was "sexually frustrated" and inquired why she did not want a romantic relationship with him. In late 2000 or early 2001, the General Sales Manager refused to remove a sexually offensive sales competition poster from his office wall, despite employee complaints. The poster, entitled "G-$pot$," stated "Now go touch a customer. 'Cuz we make you feel sooooo Good." In March 2001 at a sales meeting with 30 or 40 employees present, the General Sales Manager read aloud a magazine article replete with stereotypes about women being subservient to men, including in sexual matters. Charging party and the Sales Assistant were both present at the meeting. Charging party made a series of complaints to upper-level managers over several months, and although the managers agreed that the General Sales Manager's conduct was inappropriate, defendant did not discipline him. Charging party was terminated, ostensibly for poor performance and inability to work with others, in June 2001, based on critical letters that the harasser coerced his subordinate managers into writing.
From June 1999 until early 2003, defendant's General Sales Manager called the female Sales Assistant demeaning pet names ("mama-cakes," "love," and "honey"), and made offensive comments about her body. When she became pregnant, the General Sales Manager expressed his disapproval and intensified his harassment campaign (he said that she was pregnant with his daughter and made crude remarks about her breasts). She did not complain to management until January 2003, just as her maternity leave was running out. She did not return from maternity leave due to the harassment.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay a total of $575,000 in monetary relief, $450,000 to charging party and $125,000 to the other claimant (both of whom intervened). The decree prohibits defendant from retaliating against current or former employees for opposing practices made unlawful under Title VII.
In this ADA suit, the St. Louis District Office charged Apria Healthcare Group, Inc., a provider of home healthcare products and services, with discharging charging party due to her psychiatric disability (bipolar disorder, mixed, rapid cycling). Defendant hired charging party for a temporary position in its St. Louis office and a few months later, in September 2001, converted her to full- time and promoted her to quality assurance coordinator. In late 2001 and early 2002, charging party missed some work because of problems with her medication. On January 9, 2002, charging party's supervisor spoke to her about the absences, and charging party told her she would need an accommodation under the ADA and agreed to obtain a written request from her doctor. The following day, charging party was acutely depressed and suicidal and left the office to go to the hospital. Thereupon her doctor requested a several-week leave of absence. On January 24, 2002, charging party brought her supervisor a release from her psychiatrist. Charging party phoned the supervisor daily, but was not permitted to return to work until February 8. The following week charging party left work early to see her doctor because of her illness (in the release letter, the psychiatrist had explained that his client would need to meet with him once or twice a month as part of her accommodation). Although she called in sick the next day, defendant fired her for "job abandonment."
Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $60,000 in monetary relief ($5,000 in backpay and $55,000 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages). The decree prohibits defendant from engaging in employment practices that violate the ADA or that are retaliatory. Defendant will send charging party an apology letter and a reference letter, both signed by her former supervisor in her current position of Region Infusion Manager. The first will include the statement "Apria . . . regrets the circumstances under which your employment with the Company ended." The second will state in pertinent part, "Her performance was very good and, as a result, we hired her as a regular full-time employee . . . in the position of Quality Assurance Coordinator. . . [She] performed her assignments well."
This page was last modified on May 23, 2006.