Return to Home PageThe Phoenix District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a radiology benefits management service with headquarters in Houston, terminated three charging parties from the Quality Assurance Department in Phoenix for opposing discriminatory practices. Defendant set up a new Quality Assurance (QA) Department in Phoenix, headed by a Vice President for Quality Assessment and Provider Education (VP-QA) hired in October 2000, and staffed by two managers hired in January 2001. Before the VP-QA started her job, defendant sent her a letter stating that if defendant found it necessary to move the QA Department to Houston, it would pay her relocation expenses. In May 2001, defendant's Executive Director of Corporate Development directed the two QA managers not to hire "blacks or Jews" for an Oregon client. They relayed the directive to the VP-QA, who in turn told the HR Director/VP that neither she nor her staff would participate in discriminatory practices. Defendant terminated all three employees the following month, telling them their jobs were being eliminated. Defendant then started a new QA Department in Houston, but did not offer to relocate the VP-QA to Houston. Under the 24-month consent decree resolving this case, the three CPs will share $450,000 in monetary relief. Defendant is enjoined for the duration of the decree from retaliating against any employee in violation of Title VII.
The Phoenix District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, which operates five radio stations in Roswell, New Mexico, subjected three female charging parties to a sexually hostile work environment, subjected one of the CPs to harassment based on her pregnancy, constructively discharged two CPs due to the sexual and pregnancy harassment, and discharged the third CP for opposing sexual harassment and participating in the first CP's EEOC charge.
The President, owner, and operator of Roswell Radio directed crude sexual comments at the three CPs and also frequently looked at pornography on the computer in his office, which employees could see when they came into the office. After he learned that one of the CPs (an Account/Executive Salesperson) was pregnant, the President began making derogatory comments about her pregnancy to her (for example, "Since you went and got knocked up, you've been nothing but lazy") and also in front of customers. These comments increased as the employee's pregnancy progressed, and in April 2003, he significantly reduced her compensation. The employee resigned in May 2003 due to the reduced compensation and continuing harassment. A second CP (a Sales Manager) resigned in August 2003 due to the President's lewd sexual comments. In September 2003, the president accused the third CP (an Office Manager/Human Resources Director) of putting the first CP up to filing an EEOC charge, which he had just received; he discharged several days later, allegedly because of her "belligerent" attitude and bookkeeping errors.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, the three CPs will receive $280,000 in monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant at its New Mexico facilities, for the duration of the decree, from subjecting any employee to sex discrimination (including harassment based on sex or on pregnancy) and from retaliating under Title VII. All owners, stockholders, managers, supervisors, and employees at defendant's New Mexico facilities must attend annual 2-hour training sessions on sex discrimination, sexual harassment, pregnancy harassment, and retaliation. In addition to attending the sexual harassment training required for all employees, defendant's President will attend at least six individual counseling sessions with a qualified counselor, therapist, or psychologist to acquaint him with the effects of actual or perceived sexual harassment upon the victim.
The New York District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, an international manufacturer and distributer of industrial containers based in Ohio, subjected charging party, a riveter at its Tonawanda, New York facility, to sexual harassment and constructively discharged him based on his sex (male). Shortly after CP started working for defendant in November 1998, his male coworkers noticed that he wore an earring in his left ear. Also, CP was unwilling to participate in the coworkers' daily banter about male and female sexual anatomy and about sexual acts with female employees. CP's coworkers taunted him daily, using homosexual epithets ("fag," homo," "fudge packer," and "queer"), asking if his male roommate was his boyfriend, and singing crude songs coupling the CP's first name and oral sex. CP complained to management about the harassment, but management's response (telling the men to stop kidding around) only exacerbated the situation. CP's coworkers began calling him a "cry baby" and a "kiss ass." They also made work more difficult for him by ceasing communication, withholding work-related information, and manipulating resources and materials. CP resigned in April 1999 because he was suffering from multiple stress-related problems (such as loss of sleep and appetite) and no one in management would take his harassment complaints seriously.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, CP will receive $100,000 in monetary relief, consisting of $48,109.18 for backpay and lost overtime earnings, $26,849 for lost medical benefits, and $25,041.82 for nonpecuniary compensatory damages. The decree enjoins defendant from subjecting employees to sex discrimination (including different terms and conditions of employment because of sex), sex-based harassment, or retaliation under Title VII. Defendant is required to report to the EEOC monthly regarding any disciplinary action taken nationwide against an employee for bringing false claims or misleading allegations in reporting harassment or during the investigation of such claims.
The Miami District Office filed this Title VII race discrimination case alleging that defendant, owner of the Spindrifter Hotel and Conference Center in Orange Park, Florida, fired charging party (white) from her Director of Sales position for associating with blacks. Defendant bought the Spindrifter Hotel in June 2002, and in October 2002 rehired CP into the Director of Sales position she had held under the previous owners. Defendant's owners often complimented CP on the great job she was doing. In December 2002, CP stopped by the hotel after church to make sure everything was going well, although she was not scheduled to work. Her children, who are biracial, accompanied her. Defendant's majority owner asked if the children were hers, and appeared shocked and disappointed when she said they were. The following week the majority owner made stereotypical, pejorative comments about black people to CP. He then began interviewing candidates for CP's position. After hiring a new "Assistant General Manager" he fired CP without explanation on January 17, 2003. The new manager assumed CP's duties. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, CP will receive $99,000 in monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant from engaging in race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII.
The Phoenix District Office filed this ADA case alleging that Houston restaurant chain Luby's harassed charging party, a floor attendant in its Phoenix restaurant, because of disability (mental retardation), failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations, retaliated against her for complaining about her treatment, and constructively discharged her due to the disability harassment and retaliation. Due to injuries suffered prenatally and at birth, CP is developmentally disabled and is substantially limited in learning (her IQ is 65, she attended special education classes and functions at a third or fourth grade level, and she is forgetful) and in speaking (she speaks slowly and stutters). She has a job coach. From August 1999 until December 2000, CP worked as a floor attendant, which involved cleaning tables and bathrooms, carrying dishes to the dishwasher, and filling condiment bottles. Initially the restaurant manager provided CP with needed accommodations and she performed her job successfully. However in February 2000 a new restaurant manager took over. The new manager refused to repeat instructions to CP, berated her, told her to "shut up" when she asked about her job duties, and got impatient and angry with her for working and speaking slowly. The new manager also allowed CP's coworkers to harass her, including mimicking CP's speech, teasing her about her stutter, and barking at her. CP, her job coach, and CP's family all complained to defendant, resulting only in an increase in the harassment. CP resigned after receiving a written counseling report criticizing her for asking a question about a work assignment.
Under the 18-month consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay CP $90,000 in compensatory damages and will pay $60,000 to the Arizona Center for Disability Law, which represented CP in her intervention in EEOC's suit. Defendant will also provide CP a letter signed by defendant's VP of HR, which apologizes for the harassment and the failure to accommodate CP, states that steps will be taken to ensure that employees with disabilities are accommodated and not harassed, and states: "We appreciate the years of service you provided to us. You were an excellent and dependable employee. . . ."
This page was last modified on July 5, 2006.