Return to Home PageThe Miami District Office filed this Title VII gender case against defendant, a Clearwater, Florida hotel, alleging that a male supervisor sexually harassed charging party, a male cook, and other male kitchen employees in the hotel's restaurant. The objectionable conduct included grabbing buttocks, blowing kisses, and sexual advances, and defendant took no corrective action despite charging party's complaints.
The charging party intervened in the suit and also sought recovery directly from Rick Mitchen, the alleged harasser. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay $172,500 in monetary relief to charging party and an additional claimant (they will receive $168,500 and $4,000, respectively). Defendant is enjoined from engaging in conduct that adversely affects the terms and conditions of any individual's employment based on gender in violation of Title VII and from retaliation. Defendant agrees that within 15 days of entry of the decree it will place a written disciplinary warning in party-defendant Rick Mitchen's employee file explicitly stating that he is being disciplined for violating the Company's policy against sexual harassment and that any future violations of the policy will result in immediate discharge.
The New York District Office filed this ADA/Title VII case alleging that defendant, a national fast-food restaurant chain, subjected charging party, a cashier/server/greeter at its Ronkonkoma, New York restaurant, to a hostile work environment because of her disability (Asperger's Syndrome a neurological impairment causing autistic-like behaviors and deficiencies in social and communication skills) and sex (female), and retaliated against her for her complaints about the harassment, resulting in her constructive discharge.
Defendant hired charging party in May 1999 into a part-time position assisting servers, cleaning tables, collecting trays, and operating the cash register during nonpeak hours. A cashier who trained charging party was intolerant of her disability and berated her when she had difficulty learning her job tasks. The cashier and two other employees who provided supervision or training to charging party made disparaging comments to her, such as telling her there must be something very mentally wrong with her because she had a job coach and calling her worthless and an embarrassment to Boston Market. The sexual harassment began in December 2000 when a newly-hired male employee began propositioning charging party for sex and making sexual comments to her. Other male employees sometimes joined in the sexual comments, and charging party and others complained to management many times. Following an egregious incident in which the harasser threw charging party against a wall and ground his hips into her buttocks, charging party and coworkers complained to management to no avail. Charging party's parents helped her file a criminal complaint against the harasser, who admitted to harassment and pled guilty to a stalking offense. Defendant fired the harasser after the police investigation revealed that he was using a false identity. Charging party continued working, but defendant cut her hours, and a coworker who was a friend of the harasser intensified her harassment of charging party, causing her to resign.
The parties resolved the case through a 3-year consent decree. Charging party intervened and the decree provides that she will receive $150,000 pursuant to a separate agreement between her and defendant to which EEOC is not a party. The decree provides that defendant has adopted a nondiscrimination policy and a complaint procedure and within 60 days of entry of the decree will establish a toll-free telephone number for reporting incidents of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. Defendant will display its nondiscrimination policy and complaint procedure in each of its facilities. Defendant will provide antidiscrimination training annually to employees in the area that currently includes the restaurants in Ronkonkoma, Smithtown, Selden, Commack, Shirley, Deer Park, and East Islip, New York, and in any restaurants opened in that area while the decree is in effect.
The San Francisco District Office alleged that defendant, which owns and operates the Marriott Fisherman's Wharf Hotel in San Francisco, subjected Latino/Hispanic food service workers to a hostile work environment based upon their national origin, and retaliated against them for complaining about the discriminatory treatment. The hotel's former Food and Beverage (F&B) Director called charging party and other Latino workers "monkeys," "lazy," "stupid," "slow learners," "useless," and "dirty." After charging party complained to management about the F&B Director in December 2003, he intensified his harassing behavior and subsequently took charging party off the schedule, resulting in lost wages. The F&B Director also subjected other Latino food service workers who complained to increased harassment and took other adverse actions up to and including termination.
Under the 30-month consent decree resolving this case, the charging party and similarly situated individuals will share $320,000 in monetary relief. Defendant will hire an outside consultant to provide annual training on national origin discrimination to all employees responsible for supervising or managing employees at Mariott Fisherman's Wharf, and will hire a consultant to train its human resources staff on how to investigate claims of discriminatory harassment.
In this Title VII suit, the Indianapolis District Office alleged that defendant, which owns assisted living and other senior facilities in 14 states, failed to hire blacks and other non-Caucasian applicants into nursing support, food service, and housekeeping positions at its Georgetowne Place assisted living facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana because of their race and/or color, and failed to retain employment applications as required by EEOC's regulations implementing section 709(c) of Title VII. Georgetowne Place's General Manager, who had owned the facility before Merrill Gardens acquired it in 1993, coded the applications of minority applicants because she believed residents preferred white employees and did not want minorities to come into their rooms. Defendant fired the General Manager in 2004, after she admitted to race-coding applications.
The EEOC's suit was consolidated with a private class action brought by two charging parties, and the documents resolving the two suits (the consent decree resolving the Commission's case and the settlement agreement resolving the private case) were negotiated together. The court gave both settlements preliminary approval on June 20, 2005, and, following a fairness hearing, final approval on October 6, 2005. EEOC's 42-month consent decree provides $324,000 in backpay and compensatory damages to six known class members, and $326,000 to "unknown class members." The preliminary approval order required Merrill Gardens to spend up to an additional $70,000 advertising for "unknown class members," defined as African Americans and other minorities who applied for vacant positions at Georgetowne Place between February 17, 1998, and April 18, 2005, and were not hired, where the positions were or may have been given to nonminority candidates. In addition, attorneys for the private class will receive $100,000 in fees.
The decree prohibits Merrill Gardens from discriminating against employees and applicants based on race and/or color, and from retaliation as defined under Title VII. Merrill Gardens will distribute a notice of nondiscrimination in hiring to all of its managerial employees with supervisory authority over one or more facility. It will provide training to the General Manager in Ft. Wayne, the Regional Dining Director (Southeast), and the Vice President of Operations (Mid-Atlantic Region) covering nondiscrimination in hiring, procedures for reporting workplace discrimination, and managerial obligations for the workplace. Defendant is required to advise recruiting sources that it hires without regard to race and/or color.
The Los Angeles District Office alleged that defendant, a staffing agency that places nurses and other licensed medical support personnel in acute care facilities, refused to hire charging party because of her disability (deafness) in violation of the ADA. Charging party was born deaf and communicates in writing and through sign language. She uses TTY computer software and an internet-based relay service to conduct telephone conversations. At the time she attempted to apply at defendant, she had 8 years experience as an instrument technician and was working in that position at a teaching hospital. (Instrument technicians sterilize and set up surgical instruments in hospital operating rooms and other settings, following written instructions.) Charging party contacted defendant by TTY to apply for a part-time instrument technician position as a second job. After a number of unsuccessful attempts due to defendant's employees' inexperience with handling relay calls, she was connected to defendant's surgical services supervisor who told her she could not apply for any type of position if she had a disability.
Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay charging party $130,000 in compensatory damages. The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating on the basis of disability or failing to reasonably accommodate an individual with a disability. It requires defendant to post a notice in at least three locations at each of its facilities regarding the terms of the decree and how to contact the EEOC with a discrimination complaint. Defendant will retain an outside consultant to implement and monitor defendant's compliance with the ADA and the decree's provisions. The monitor's responsibilities will include ensuring that defendant develops a reasonable accommodation procedure and providing EEO training to all of defendant's employees. The mandatory training (at least 4 hours for managers and 2 hours for hourly employees) will cover policies and procedures relating to the ADA, including hiring, reasonable accommodation, and nonretaliation.
The Miami District Office alleged that defendant, a nationwide rental car company, subjected charging party, a counter agent at its Ft. Lauderdale International Airport facility, to a sexually hostile work environment and discharged her in retaliation for opposing sexual harassment. The conduct, by charging party's male supervisor, involved offensive sexual comments and intrusive physical acts occurring regularly for over 6 months. Charging party rebuffed the harasser, who then intensified the harassing conduct. Charging party complained to management, which failed to take corrective action, and the harasser then began to fabricate performance deficiencies. After an altercation that caused charging party again to insist that management address the harassment, defendant sent charging party home and then terminated her 10 days later, claiming attendance and performance problems and insubordination. Charging party, who intervened in EEOC's suit, will receive $395,000 in monetary relief under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case.
The Los Angeles District Office alleged that Big Lots, a nationwide discount retail chain, subjected charging party (a cashier at the Long Beach, California Big Lots store) to sexual harassment and discharged her in retaliation for complaining about her treatment. The store manager made unwelcome comments of a sexual nature about her and about other women, asked her for lap dances, and once massaged her shoulders while suggesting that he could be her sugar daddy. Following the massage incident, which had been captured on a security tape, charging party complained to the district manager about the harassment. Defendant investigated approximately 2 weeks later and concluded that the store manager's conduct did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. Nevertheless, defendant issued a written warning to the store manager stating that he violated company policy by subjecting charging party to "insulting and degrading behaviors" and by "engaging in conversations, gestures and behaviors that are considered lewd, offensive, abusive, profane, or threatening to associates" and that further violations would result in immediate termination. Meanwhile, when defendant did not act upon charging party's request to transfer to another store, she took stress leave and then went on workmen's compensation. Defendant finally offered charging party a transfer after she had exhausted her workmen's compensation and had been on unpaid leave for nearly 6 months. Charging party rejected the job offer after determining that she would have to attend staff meetings with the harasser. Defendant then terminated charging party for exceeding her leave.
Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $132,000 in damages for emotional distress. Defendant will also submit a letter to the California Employment Development Department, explaining that charging party was not terminated for failure to return from a leave of absence or for any other reason. The decree requires defendant to issue written EEOC-approved guidelines providing step-by-step instructions to be followed nationwide by all individuals who investigate complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation, including all Regional Human Resources Managers for Big Lots.
The Milwaukee District Office alleged in this ADEA action that defendant school district's early retirement incentive plan for teachers discriminated on the basis of age by reducing benefits for teachers that retired at older ages. The early retirement plan EEOC challenged provided full benefits (25 days pay plus 50% of unused sick leave up to another 70 days of pay) to teachers who retired at age 60 or less, but reduced the benefit by 20% for each year of age after 60 that a teacher worked. Under the 5-year consent judgment resolving the case, 13 former teachers will receive a total of $188,524.49 in backpay and interest. The judgment prohibits defendant from implementing or administering any retirement incentive plan that reduces benefits based on age or on continued employment beyond the employee's date of first eligibility.
The Los Angeles District Office sued three Italian restaurants as an integrated enterprise, alleging that supervisors at one of the restaurants, Valentino Las Vegas, subjected female hostesses and food servers to sexual harassment so intolerable as to result in the constructive discharge of two of the women. The conduct included sexual propositions, intrusive physical acts, and making derogatory sexual statements about the women to customers.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, five women will share $600,000 in damages for emotional distress, to be allocated amongst them at the EEOC's discretion. The decree requires designation or retention of an Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant to implement and monitor defendants' compliance with Title VII and the decree. The decree dismisses Valentino Las Vegas from the suit with prejudice (subject to continuing jurisdiction for decree enforcement purposes), but provides that EEOC will send letters inquiring about sexual harassment to women previously employed at Valentino Santa Monica and Giorgio Caf‚ & Ristorante. If the EEOC notifies the court that it has received credible claims of sexual harassment from former employees of those restaurants, the remaining parties will engage in good faith efforts to resolve the claims. If the claims cannot be resolved informally, the EEOC reserves the right to reinitiate proceedings against the remaining defendants as to the new claimants. If the EEOC does not find any credible claims of sexual harassment, the remaining defendants will be dismissed with prejudice.
The Milwaukee District Office alleged in this ADEA action that defendant school district's early retirement incentive plan for teachers discriminated on the basis of age by reducing benefits for teachers who retired at older ages. The early retirement plan provided full benefits (a lump sum benefit of 7 days of pay for each year of service up to a maximum of 150 days) to those who retired at ages 50-60, but reduced the benefit for each year of age after 60 that a teacher worked (10% a year for the first 2 years and 60% and 80% for the next 2) and eliminated it at age 65. In addition, the plan provided for a payment of $100 per month for single retirees and $152 per month for retirees with dependents, but eliminated both payments at age 62. Under the 5-year consent judgment resolving the case, 48 former teachers will receive a total of $555,935.37 in backpay and interest. The judgment prohibits defendant from implementing or administering any retirement incentive plan that reduces benefits based on age or on continued employment beyond the employee's date of first eligibility.
The New York District Office alleged that defendant, a national retailer of building materials and home improvement products, violated the ADA by failing to provide charging party (a sales associate at the South Setauket, New York store) with a reasonable accommodation and by discharging her because of her disability (mild mental retardation that substantially limited her in learning). Charging party began her job at Home Depot in May 1999 and was assigned a job coach through a program sponsored by New York's Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID). The job coach was to assist her in learning to perform her job and advise her with any issues that arose during her employment. Defendant discharged the charging party 5 months later for failing to report to work as scheduled on 3 consecutive weekends. According to charging party and her father, unidentified persons instructed charging party over the phone not to show up on those weekends. Defendant discharged charging party even though it knew of her claim that she was instructed not to come to work, and it failed to communicate with charging party's job coach about the attendance problems before discharging her.
The 2-year consent decree resolving this case provides that Home Depot will pay charging party $75,000 under the terms of a separate agreement between charging party and Home Depot. Defendant is required to comply with the ADA's prohibition against disability discrimination and is prohibited from retaliating against any individual for asserting his/her rights under the ADA. The decree requires defendant to maintain nondiscrimination policies prohibiting disability discrimination, including one entitled "Reasonable Accommodation" and another entitled "Working With a Job Coach" (which explains the roles of the job coach and Home Depot Management in working with disabled employees). Home Depot must: (1) post the "Job Coach" policy on its computer portal and implement it for all employees nationwide; (2) provide copies of the "Job Coach" and "Reasonable Accommodation" policies to all of its managers and employees in stores located in Bay Shore, Commack, Copaigue, Deer Park, Farmingdale, and South Setauket, New York; and (3) include training on the "Job Coach" policy as a part of its antidiscrimination training at those New York stores.
The Detroit District Office alleged that defendant, a manufacturer of batteries, switches and automobile parts, allowed its employees to subject charging party, a line worker at defendant's SouthView Plant in Holland, Michigan, to sexually offensive conduct in violation of Title VII. Throughout charging party's employment, from late 1998 until late 2003 (excluding a several- month period in 2002 when she was on stress leave and then was temporarily reassigned to another plant), male coworkers subjected her to constant sexual harassment, including touching, grabbing, fondling, offensive gestures, stalking, and other unwelcome verbal and physical conduct. Defendant failed to adequately remedy the situation until it terminated the most egregious harasser for making death threats. Under the 1-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay charging party $125,000 in monetary relief.
In this Title VII/EPA case, the San Francisco District Office alleged that defendant (which makes technology used to develop, deploy, and integrate software programs) paid charging party, who was performing the duties of Director of Technical Support in Cupertino, California, less than white male employees performing substantially similar work, because of her sex (female), race (Asian), and national origin (Vietnamese). Defendant hired charging party as a Senior Technical Support Engineer in February 2000 ($75,000 annual salary) and promoted her 2 months later to Manager of Technical Support ($85,000 salary). San Francisco alleged that charging party began managing half of her supervisor's group in February 2002 and took on all of his duties in October 2002, without a change in title or salary increase. Charging party's salary was lower than the person she replaced (white male, with a $125,000 base salary), the Directors of other departments (all white men, with base salaries ranging from $95,000 to $125,000), and two of the white men who reported to her. Defendant officially promoted charging party to Director of Technical Support in September 2004 and raised her base salary to $100,000.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, Borland will pay charging party $80,000 in monetary relief ($66,500 in backpay and $13,500 in reimbursement for expenses not covered by defendant's policies). Borland is also required to raise charging party's annual salary from $100,000 to $110,000 effective immediately, and will place an action notice in her personnel file reflecting a title change to Director effective April 2002. The salary increase will not have any negative effect on charging party's future bonuses or raises.
The Memphis District Office alleged in this Title VII case that defendant, which manufactures, installs and repairs elevators throughout the United States, failed to hire and promote black employees, and discharged black employees, at its Middleton, Tennessee facility because of their race. Defendant's Middleton facility employs welders, mechanics, temporary mechanics, and helpers in its construction and service departments. Memphis also alleged that only black employees were discharged during their probationary period for performance (as opposed to conduct or attendance) reasons.
The 2-year consent decree resolving this case provides $175,000 in monetary relief to a class of blacks identified by the Commission. Under the decree, defendant is enjoined from race-based discrimination against applicants and employees and from engaging in racial harassment. Defendant is also enjoined from retaliating against employees and applicants as set forth in Title VII. The decree provides that defendant will use its best efforts to hire qualified minority applicants, including advertising in a designated newspaper and other area newspapers. The decree names five individuals to whom defendant is required to offer entry-level jobs, conditioned on a successful criminal background check. In addition, Memphis will provide defendant with a list of qualified blacks previously denied employment by ThyssenKrupp who now wish to be hired. By June 1, 2006, defendant must invite each person on the list to take a preemployment test and must make a good faith effort to hire each individual who passes the test.
This is a Title VII suit in which the Phoenix District Office alleged that defendant subjected a group of female servers working at its Santa Fe Applebee's restaurant, some of whom were teenagers, to a sexually hostile work environment, and that it discharged charging party in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. Charging party worked for defendant as a server for 2 years. During the last 8 months of her employment, a male coworker (bartender) subjected charging party and other female servers to frequent sexual harassment, including lewd remarks, unwanted hugs, and fondling. Defendant terminated charging party several weeks after she made her second complaint to management about the harassment, ostensibly for violating its policy requiring 2 weeks advanced approval for paid vacation. Charging party claims she sought unpaid not paid leave and obtained the company's approval 1 week in advance in accordance with defendant's unpaid leave policy.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party and six other claimants will share $310,000 in monetary relief, in individual amounts determined by the Commission. The decree enjoins defendant, at all of its facilities nationwide, from engaging in sex discrimination and sexual harassment and from retaliation under Title VII. The decree requires defendant to revise its sexual harassment policy and distribute it, along with a revised policy statement regarding reporting and preventing sexual harassment and retaliation, to every employee nationwide. The decree requires defendant to provide all Santa Fe employees (including managers and supervisors once employed at Santa Fe who transferred to or were rehired at a different restaurant) with nondiscrimination training annually.
The Baltimore District Office alleged that defendant (a company that manages hotels) failed to recall/rehire charging party as a dishwasher at the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington, Virginia based upon his national origin (El Salvadorian). Defendant laid off charging party and other kitchen staff in September 2001, while renovating the Sheraton National Hotel. Defendant recalled other members of the kitchen staff in March 2002, but did not recall charging party, who had worked as a dishwasher in the Sheraton National since 1985. Defendant admitted that charging party was not rehired because he lacked fluency in English. Defendant had instituted a policy requiring all employees to be able to speak English, which it said was necessary for safety and security reasons. Defendant later abolished the English fluency policy, but did not rehire charging party. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $80,000 in monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant from violating Title VII.
The Los Angeles District Office alleged in its Title VII complaint that defendant failed to hire women as laborers for a 2-month British Petroleum turnaround project at defendant's Carson, California oil refinery. Defendant advertised for 300 laborer positions starting January 15, 2003, stating in the ad that refractory experience was helpful but not necessary. Charging party applied for a position through a referral from the United States Veterans Initiative. She successfully completed all prerequisite training, testing, and physical exams, but on January 6, 2003, was told by a United States Veterans job developer that he had been informed by defendant's hiring official for the project that defendant was not hiring any women. A temporary employee working under defendant's hiring official told the Commission that the hiring official said that defendant would not be hiring women because it did not get the contract for the fire watch position, a subcategory of laborers for which defendant normally hired only women. Defendant did not hire any women for laborer positions on the project.
Under the 18-month consent decree resolving this case, charging party and similarly-situated rejected female applicants will receive $165,000 in monetary relief to be divided amongst them at EEOC's discretion. The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against women in hiring and requires it to increase diversity in its workforce by undertaking recruiting activities and hiring practices to promote equal opportunities for women. The decree sets goals for hiring women into laborer positions at the greater of: (1) 13.6%, (2) the industry standard, or (3) the qualified female applicant flow. For projects with fewer than 100 employees, defendant is required to submit monthly reports which include information on applicants and hires, by gender, and explain why hiring goals were not met. For projects with more than 100 employees that include more than 50 laborers, defendant is required to hire Progressive Management Resources as a consultant, with responsibility for developing and implementing nondiscriminatory recruiting, screening, and hiring procedures; developing an applicant log and recordkeeping procedures; maintaining all application and selection documents; and otherwise insuring compliance with the consent decree and Title VII.
In its suit against FedEx Freight East, a nationwide trucking company, the St. Louis District Office alleged that American Freightways (which FedEx subsequently acquired) discriminated against African Americans at its St. Louis terminal by selecting them for promotion from part- time to full-time dockworker jobs at a slower pace than whites, subjecting them to disadvantageous terms and conditions of employment as compared to whites, and failing to promote one of the charging parties into a dock foreman job based on his race. The terms and condition claim encompassed allegations of discrimination in work assignments (blacks were given more difficult and more physically demanding work, such as unloading nonbulk freight by hand), training, and opportunities to develop skills.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, 6 charging parties and 14 additional aggrieved individuals will share $500,000 in monetary relief. In addition, the decree requires defendant to: (1) file quarterly written reports with the St. Louis District Office listing part-time and full-time dockworkers by name, address, and other identifying information, including race, giving dates of promotions to full-time positions, and listing similar information for city drivers, and (2) provide part-time and full-time dockworkers at the St. Louis terminal with a written survey every 6 months for 2 years asking whether they believe that dock assignments are being allocated fairly.
The Birmingham District Office alleged that Vulcan Lincoln Mercury, a new and used car dealership in Birmingham, Alabama, discharged three charging parties from manager positions in the dealership's office because they participated in an internal investigation of another employee's sexual harassment complaint against a defendant manager. Within 3 months after giving testimony supporting their coworker's complaint, all three women had been terminated, allegedly as a part of a RIF. They were the only employees terminated, and one of them had been rehired just a month prior to her discharge. Under the consent decree resolving this case, the three charging parties will share $330,000 in monetary relief. The decree prohibits defendant from taking any adverse action against current or former employees for filing or participating in the investigation of an EEOC charge or for opposing or protesting any practice or policy he or she reasonably believes violates Title VII.
This page was last modified on February 2, 2006.