Return to Home PageThe Dallas District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a national construction company with headquarters in Morton, Illinois, discharged charging party from her sales consultant position at its McKinney, Texas office because of her sex (female). The manager of the McKinney office hired CP, who had 30 years of sales and marketing experience (20 in commercial real estate construction and sales), as a sales consultant in December 2002, despite initial resistance from the Western Region manager who pressed him to hire an inexperienced male instead. The Regional Manager made statements to CP and other staff suggesting that he was uncomfortable about women working in construction sales. In June 2003, during a period of decreased sales, defendant fired CP, ostensibly for lack of production. Defendant retained male trainees hired at the same time as CP who had made fewer sales for defendant than she had. CP was the only female sales consultant in the McKinney office and one of only four in its five-state Western Region.
Under the 1«-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay CP $275,000 in monetary relief and provide her with a letter of reference agreed to by the parties. Defendant will conduct two training sessions on the requirements of federal antidiscrimination laws at defendant's construction center facilities in the Southern Plains Region, and will report to EEOC on all sex discrimination complaints made during the term of the consent decree and how they were resolved.
The Philadelphia District Office filed two Title VII suits against defendant, an Allentown, Pennsylvania business unit of International Paper Company that distributes lumber and provides related services. In one case, Philadelphia alleged that defendant subjected charging party (the Vice President of Sales (VP)) to same-sex sexual harassment, retaliated against him for opposing the harassment, and constructively discharged him due to the retaliation. In the other case, the district office claimed that defendant discharged a second CP (the President) in retaliation for opposing harassment of the VP.
Beginning in 2000, one of defendant's co-owners (two brothers) subjected the VP to unwelcome sexual conduct, including kissing, inappropriate touching, sexual comments, and requests for sexual favors. In December 2003, the co-owner offered to make the VP an officer and to structure a bonus program to reward CP's success in turning the company around, but demanded a sexual act in return. The VP refused and complained in writing to the President, who promptly commenced an investigation which substantiated the allegations. The company's attorney recommended remedial measures and the co-owner apologized to the VP by letter. After the internal investigation began, both co-owners berated the CPs in front of staff and questioned their loyalty, and the President was told he would not receive his expected 2003 bonus (over $500,000) because of anticipated litigation over the VP's sexual harassment complaint. Defendant suspended both CPs in early March 2004, the President for disloyalty and the VP for refusing to turn over his laptop computer as "forensic evidence." Defendant fired the President on March 12 and the VP resigned several days later. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving both suits, the CPs will receive $3.1 million in monetary relief ($1.9 million for the President and $1.2 million for the VP).
The Baltimore District Office filed this ADEA/ADA case alleging that defendant, a Frederick, Maryland new and used car dealership, fired charging party from his Used Car Manager position because of his age (56), because it regarded him as disabled (due to a brain tumor), and based on his association with his parents who had genetically-linked impairments (Lou Gehrig's disease (mother) and Parkinson's disease (father)). After more than 12 years as Used Car Manager with defendant and its predecessor, defendant fired CP in November 2002. In September 2002, CP passed out at work. He used previously-scheduled vacation time to obtain a diagnosis (brain tumor) and treatment. CP returned to work on October 21, and defendant fired him less than 2 weeks later, ostensibly for performance and productivity problems. Although CP had no physical symptoms that interfered with performing his job, the General Manager repeatedly told CP and CP's wife that CP would be unable to continue working for the dealership because of his age (he said CP was "too old" and compared him to a dead battery) and condition (he said CP had "old timers disease" like his parents). The Philadelphia District Office resolved the case through a 3- year consent decree under which CP will receive $205,000 in monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant from engaging in any employment practice (particularly discharge) that discriminates on the basis of disability and age under the ADA and the ADEA. The decree also prohibits retaliation under both statutes.
The St. Louis District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a national restaurant chain, subjected a 17-year old female server/kitchen helper at its restaurant in Ballwin, Missouri (a St. Louis suburb) to sexual harassment, resulting in her constructive discharge. A male coworker verbally and physically sexually harassed charging party for 3 months. CP complained to the restaurant's General Manager and to two other managers, but no corrective action was taken. In September 2002, after the coworker attempted to coerce CP into sexual activity in the restaurant parking lot, she quit.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, CP will receive $180,000 in monetary relief, consisting of $168,000 in compensatory damages and $12,000 in backpay. Defendant will prepare a reference letter that lists CP's job duties and employment dates and states that her performance was "well above average" and that she is eligible for rehire. The letter will be made a part of CP's permanent employment records, and defendant must limit responses to prospective employers to the information contained in the letter, as applicable. Defendant represents in the decree that it no longer employs the harasser.
The decree prohibits defendant from subjecting any employee to sex discrimination or sexual harassment at any restaurant that it owns or operates. Defendant's sexual harassment policy must clearly describe the proper procedure to file an internal sexual harassment complaint and must include a 1-800 hotline number. Defendant must keep records of all written internal complaints of possible sexual harassment, including hotline reports, received during the term of the decree. At all of its St. Louis District restaurants, defendant must: (1) provide sexual harassment training for all General Managers and Human Resources personnel; (2) post for 1 year a modified "hotline poster" stating that employees may also contact defendant's counsel with internal discrimination complaints; and (3) continue for 3 years defendant's Youth at Work Initiative, which involves notifying new employees age 18 and under and their custodial parent(s) about (a) the youth's right to work in an environment free of harassment and discrimination and (b) how to report discrimination. In addition, every 9 months defendant must provide employees at five restaurants in the District selected by defendant to include the Ballwin restaurant and any other restaurant whose General Manager was employed at the Ballwin restaurant during the time CP was harassed with a copy of the company's sexual harassment policy and a confidential written survey to assess the effectiveness of the policy.
This page was last modified on September 18, 2006.