Return to Home PageThe following are brief descriptions of the some of the significant settlements reached by EEOC District Office Legal Units during May of 2003.
The Atlanta District Office alleged in this ADEA lawsuit that defendant, a manufacturer of business aircraft, discriminated against older workers when selecting employees for layoff during a reduction-in-force (RIF). Between August 20 and December 31, 2000, defendant laid off approximately 200 management-level employees at its Savannah, Georgia facility, and EEOC alleged that employees age 40 and older were laid off or forced to retire in lieu of layoff because of their age. The court preliminarily approved a consent decree in December 2002 and held a fairness hearing in April 2003. Four eligible claimants filed objections, primarily on the basis that the settlement amount was inadequate. In an order dated May 12, 2003, the court finally approved the consent decree which provides that defendant will pay $2,176,307 into a settlement fund for distribution to 66 eligible claimants according to criteria set out in the decree. Pursuant to the decree, defendant also agrees not to undertake any RIF that discriminates against an employee age 40 or older on the basis of age nor retaliate against any person who has opposed a practice or policy as discriminatory. Defendant also agrees that, for the two-year term of the decree, if it implements a RIF involving 75 employees over a six-month period at any Savannah facility, it will provide EEOC with a report providing detailed department-level information on employees laid off and retained. In addition, defendant will maintain a web page posting all vacancies at its Savannah facility so eligible claimants may apply. The company will also develop and submit to EEOC a non-discrimination policy which will contain specific reporting, investigative and resolution procedures for employee complaints.
The Baltimore District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendants, a manufacturer and a union, discriminated against charging party, a female machine worker, by subjecting her to a sexually hostile working environment and by retaliating against her after she complained. After charging party ended a consensual sexual relationship with a male coworker, he began harassing her at work. Charging party reported the harassment to her supervisor and a union official but both individuals discouraged her from making a formal complaint to human resources personnel. Charging party then filed criminal assault charges against the harasser who was convicted of assault and ordered to have no future contact with charging party. One week after charging party gave Reynolds a copy of the harasser's conviction, he assaulted her on company premises during a Christmas party. Reynolds conducted a cursory investigation and, with the consent of the union, required charging party to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which penalized her but not the harasser. Shortly thereafter, charging party was fired for violating the MOU.
The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment by Reynolds of $75,000 in monetary relief to charging party. Reynolds and the union are prohibited from discriminating against any individual because of the individual's sex and from retaliating against any individual for asserting rights under Title VII. Training will be provided to Reynolds' full-time management employees and to the union's officials and shop stewards with a focus on sexual harassment and gender discrimination, Reynolds' sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure, and the duties and options that union officials and shop stewards have when a complaint of sexual harassment is brought to their attention.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Seattle District Office alleged that defendant, a forest products company, subjected five male millworkers, to a sexually hostile working environment at the company's Estacada, Oregon sawmill. The men experienced repeated inappropriate and unwelcome sexual conduct from a high-level male manager. The supervisor made vulgar comments, thrusting motions and grabbed the male employees' genital areas. Workers reported the harassment to management but the company failed to take effective remedial action to end the harassment. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $200,000 to the five male claimants and the creation and distribution of a written equal employment opportunity policy.
The San Antonio District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a car dealership, retaliated against charging party, a Parts Counterman, when it fired him after he complained that his manager was making discriminatory remarks about his religion (Jewish). After charging party asked his direct supervisor for time off during the Jewish holidays, the supervisor began to ask charging party specific questions about his religious customs and beliefs. The questioning made charging party uncomfortable because his supervisor would get upset if charging party was unable to answer a question. Charging party complained to defendant's General Manager about negative comments his supervisor was making about his religion, and in response the General Manager stated that he did not believe the supervisor's actions were discriminatory and that he did not want to hear any more complaints from charging party about the supervisor. Shortly thereafter, charging party was fired. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement which provides for payment of $75,000 in monetary relief to charging party, including attorneys fees.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Baltimore District Office alleged that defendant, a bus company, discriminated against charging party, a relief bus driver, by failing to reasonably accommodate his religious practices and firing him in retaliation for complaining about the denial of accommodation. Charging party, a member of the Fourth Tabernacle, Church of God and Saints of Christ which observes Biblical Judaism, requested that defendant not schedule him for shifts during his Sabbath (from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday) and on holy days. Supervisors at defendant's Richmond, Virginia terminal refused his request for accommodation. Charging party then sought accommodation through defendant's national dispatch office, which allows drivers, under certain circumstances, to remove themselves from the roster of availability. Charging party's local supervisors retaliated against him for contacting the national office by disciplining him for insubordination and for failure to report for work. Ultimately, the local supervisors fired charging party for missing work despite the fact that he had sought and was granted time off by the national office to observe Passover in April 2001. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $50,000 in monetary relief to charging party. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating on the basis of religion and from failing to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of its applicants and employees. Defendant further agrees that it will not discriminate or retaliate against any person who opposes unlawful discrimination. Defendant will provide training to all management and supervisory personnel at its Richmond, Virginia terminal on employees' rights under Title VII, including defendant's responsibility to reasonably accommodate employees' religious needs.
This page was last modified on January 9, 2004.