Return to Home PageThe Chicago District Office filed this ADA case alleging that defendant, a telemarketing firm with locations in four states and two foreign countries, failed to hire charging party for a telemarketing service representative (TSR) position at its Lansing, Illinois facility because she was blind and used a guide dog. Charging party, who has been blind since birth, applied for a TSR job with defendant in December 2002. She passed a "pre-screen" by telephone and was invited for a "group interview, " which she attended with a reader and her guide dog. Although she successfully completed a grammar and listening examination, and the interview went well, defendant rejected her for the position, explaining in its rejection letter that the "facility is not conducive for a seeing eye dog." Charging party filed a disability discrimination charge on January 15, 2003. In April 2003, defendant hired charging party as a TSR and permitted her to bring her guide dog to work. She successfully performed the job using adaptive computer software (Jaws for Windows).
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $200,000 in monetary relief, consisting of $191,000 in compensatory damages and $9,000 in backpay. Americall agrees to pursue a cooperative relationship with The Chicago Lighthouse for People Who are Blind or Visually Impaired in order to promote increased employment opportunities for blind and visually impaired individuals at Americall. The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against any qualified employee or applicant with a physical disability in violation of the ADA, and from failing to reasonably accommodate employees or applicants with physical disabilities. The decree also prohibits defendant from engaging in any form of retaliation that violates the ADA. Defendant is required to post a notice at each of its facilities in Illinois and Indiana for 3 years describing the lawsuit and consent decree and providing contact information for the EEOC's Chicago District Office. The decree requires defendant to provide training, within 90 days and again within 18 months of the entry of the decree, to all of its supervisory, managerial, HR (including corporate HR), recruiting, and training employees regarding disability discrimination and the duty to reasonable accommodate disabled employees.
The Chicago District Office alleged in this ADEA action that defendant, a manufacturer of household appliances based in Newton, Iowa, demoted charging party and similarly-situated regional sales managers (RSMs) over age 50 during a 1999 national restructuring/reorganization and denied them reinstatement, based on age during a further reorganization in 2001. In the original 1999 reorganization, Maytag reduced the number of RSMs nationwide, downgrading a disproportionate number of individuals in the protected age group into zone operations manager (ZOM) positions. In 2000, defendant eliminated the ZOM positions and again downgraded some of the same individuals. Charging party, who had been a successful RSM, was demoted to ZOM in 1999, and then to District Manager in 2000. Defendant had hired him as a District Manager 30 years earlier. In a further reorganization in 2001, defendant created new RSM positions and promoted disproportionately few employees over age 50 into the new positions. Defendant did not interview charging party for any of the newly-created RSM positions. As a result of the reorganizations, the percentage of individuals above age 50 in Maytag's RSM ranks nationally plummeted from 41% (9 out of 22) in 1999 to 12% (2 out of 17) in 2001.
The 2-year consent decree provides charging party and two other claimants with $334,000 in monetary relief. Maytag is enjoined from discriminating based on age and is prohibited from engaging in retaliation under the ADEA. Defendant is required to train all of the managers and supervisors in its sales division annually regarding the ADEA's requirements. Defendant's VP for HR must meet with the District Director, Chicago District Office, within 90 days of the entry of the decree to discuss Maytag's compliance with U.S. EEO laws.
The Miami District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a national dental supply company headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, subjected charging party, an equipment coordinator at its Orlando branch, to sexual harassment and disciplined and constructively discharged her in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. Beginning in August 2001, when charging party transferred into an equipment coordinator position, a male coworker continually made sexually inappropriate comments to her and expressed his interest in a sexual relationship, even though she rebuffed him. In addition to the continuing verbal harassment, he gave charging party a sexually explicit card in October and a five-page handwritten letter in December, both expressing his interest in a sexual relationship. Charging party's husband met with defendant's branch manager after the October incident, complained that charging party's coworker was harassing her, and showed the manager the sexually explicit card. The harassment continued. Between December 2001 and February 2002, charging party complained repeatedly to defendant's operations manager and its Employee Assistance Program, and finally to defendant's attorney. Defendant finally investigated, and on February 21, 2002, informed charging party that the investigation had been inconclusive and implied that she had welcomed the harasser's attentions. Five days later, defendant told charging party that it "let [the harasser] go" and that it was placing her on an "action plan," a disciplinary action requiring weekly meetings with the branch manager. Charging Party resigned 2 days later because of the heightened scrutiny of her work.
The 3-year consent decree provides $150,000 in monetary relief to the charging party. Defendant is enjoined from engaging in conduct which violates Title VII by adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any individual's employment because of gender and from retaliating against employees.
The Phoenix District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that DHL Express (as successor corporation to Airborne Express, a nationwide package delivery service) subjected charging party, a Field Service Supervisor (FSS) at Airborne's Albuquerque facility, to a hostile work environment based on sex (female), and disciplined and failed to promote her to Station Services Manager (SSM) in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. Phoenix also alleged that Air One Transport of New Mexico, an Airborne contractor, interfered with charging party's employment opportunities with Airborne by subjecting her to offensive comments and conduct because of her sex. From 1994 until she resigned in early 2003, charging party was a FSS at Airborne's Albuquerque facility, with supervisory responsibilities over Airborne's but not Air One's package delivery employees. Air One male employees, who worked alongside Airborne's, frequently used vulgar and sexually offensive language. Airborne's male District Field Services Manager (DFSM) attempted to address charging party's complaints about the language. However, he left in late 2001. From late 2001 through early 2003, Air One's employees intensified their harassing and hostile conduct. The new DFSM laughed about their conduct and sometimes participated in it. When charging party complained to him, he told her a sexually offensive story. During the same period, charging party also complained to Air One supervisors (including its Executive VP of Operations), often by e-mail. Air One took no corrective action.
Airborne disciplined and failed to promote charging party in retaliation for her opposition to the harassment. Airborne gave her a disciplinary warning in November 2002 for telling a contract employee to "waddle up here" over the intercom, even though the conduct did not violate defendant's policy on use of profane or sexual language. In contrast, employees who violated the language policy (including the DFSM) were not disciplined. Charging party and a male candidate applied for an Albuquerque SSM position in January 2003. Defendant interviewed both candidates and selected the male, in part because his presentation (by Power Point) was more polished and organized. According to charging party, defendant told her to prepare a 20- minute oral presentation for the interview, and she learned only shortly before the interview that a written presentation was expected. Defendant said it also rejected charging party because of her inability to communicate with the contract employees and "third party issues that pointed back to her," suggesting it penalized her for complaining about the contract employees' vulgar and hostile language.
The EEOC entered into separate 3-year consent decrees with DHL and Air One providing charging party with $300,000 in compensatory damages ($175,000 from DHL and $125,000 from Air One). The decrees' injunctive and other relief provisions apply to Air One's facilities in New Mexico and Arizona and to DHL's facilities in New Mexico. The decrees enjoin Air One and DHL from engaging in sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and from retaliation under Title VII and applicable state EEO statute(s). Defendants must adopt and distribute to all employees policies and procedures (including effective internal complaint and investigation procedures) designed to prevent sexual harassment of their employees and others and to prevent retaliation. Defendants must post notices summarizing Title VII's nondiscrimination and retaliation prohibitions, describing sexual harassment, and providing contact information for the EEOC's Albuquerque office and the Human Rights Division of the New Mexico Department of Labor. Defendants must provide all employees at facilities covered by the decree with annual (two for Air One the first year) 3-hour EEO training sessions focusing on sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. Immediately following each training session, the highest ranking managerial employee at the facility must speak to employees about the employer's policies regarding sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, and potential discipline for engaging in or permitting such conduct.
The Milwaukee District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that Macalester College, a private undergraduate liberal arts college in St. Paul, Minnesota, failed to renew charging party's teaching contract in retaliation for his internal race and sex discrimination complaint. Macalester College employed charging party (a white male) as a visiting professor of physics on one-year contracts starting in the fall of 1999. In April 2002 he applied for a tenure-track position and was not selected. Thereafter, defendant renewed his contract for the 2002-2003 academic year. After the new academic year began, charging party complained to the Provost that race and sex discrimination were factors in Macalester's decision to reject him for the tenure-track position. The Provost assured him that the selection process had been fair and then told him that, according to college policy, visiting faculty who apply for and do not receive tenure track offers are not rehired, and that his contract renewal had been an error. Macalester did not renew charging party's contract for the 2003-2004 academic year.
Defendant will pay charging party $125,000 in monetary relief under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case. The decree prohibits defendant from engaging in retaliation under Title VII. Defendant is required to send memoranda to the President of Macalester, the Provost, the Academic Dean of Faculty, the Vice President of Finance, and the Faculty Grievance Officer informing them of (1) the resolution of the suit, (2) the consent decree's availability in the Provost's office for inspection, and (3) the antidiscrimination statutes' prohibitions on retaliation. It must also send those individuals a copy of Macalester College's antiretaliation policy.
The San Francisco District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that Carl Karcher Enterprises (CKE), a fast food conglomerate with headquarters in Carpinteria, California, subjected charging party (a black female) and other restaurant staff members (some of them minors) at its Elk Grove, California, Carl's, Jr. restaurant, to a hostile work environment based on race (nonwhite) and discharged charging party in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. Charging party (starting at age 18) worked for defendant as a cashier and then as a shift leader for about 1« years, in two stints between August 2000 and July 2002, when defendant terminated her. During both periods of her employment, a male shift leader, subjected charging party and other nonwhites to frequent racial comments. He used the "N" word, bragged about his skinhead activities, stated that he believed that whites were the superior race, flashed white power signs, bragged about having a Confederate flag hanging outside his home, displayed his tattoos (a swastika, "honky," and some White Power gang symbols), and announced that he wanted to put a tattoo on his forehead depicting a black lynching victim.
In April 2002, charging party reported the shift leader to the restaurant's Assistant Manager, who said he was aware of the shift leader's attitude and admitted he was a bit of a racist himself. On July 16, 2002, charging party gave the Assistant Manager a letter signed by eight employees complaining about shift leader's conduct. She met with the District Manager about the matter 3 days later. He promised to investigate shift leader's actions, but the investigation consisting solely of interviews with managers and the shift leader exonerated the shift leader. Defendant suspended charging party on July 27 and fired her on July 30, ostensibly for violating its cash handling and food preparation rules. San Francisco claimed that other employees who violated those rules were not disciplined.
Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, CKE will pay $255,000 in monetary relief, consisting of $105,000 to charging party ($100,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in backpay) and $150,000 into a Settlement Fund, to be distributed as compensatory damages to eligible claimants determined by EEOC. Charging party may receive an additional payment from the Settlement Fund. CKE will take the following steps at all restaurants within District 22 (which includes Elk Grove and eight other restaurants): (1) distribute its EEO and harassment policies and procedures to all current employees within 30 days of entry of the decree and to new employees upon hire; (2) post its EEO complaint policy prominently at each location; (3) provide antiharassment training to all current and new management and supervisory employees.
The Milwaukee District Office filed this Title VII case against The Boldt Co. and Iron City Constructors (ICC) alleging racial harassment and race-based termination of African Americans and individual retaliatory discharge. Boldt (with headquarters in Appleton, Wisconsin) was the general contractor for the River Side Energy Plant project in Beloit, Wisconsin. ICC (with headquarters in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania) was the metal sheeting subcontractor on the project. Milwaukee alleged that Boldt interfered with the employment conditions of Iron City's African- American employees by permitting racial graffiti in the port-a-johns at the construction site. It also alleged that ICC: (1) subjected charging party and other African-American employees to a racially hostile work environment; (2) terminated charging party and another African-American employee based on race; and (3) terminated charging party in retaliation for complaining about racial harassment.
Charging party, an apprentice iron worker and member of Iron Workers Local 498, worked on the River Side Energy Plant project as an employee of ICC. On his first day, charging party saw racist graffiti in the port-a-johns maintained by Boldt at the worksite. He complained about the graffiti to his direct supervisor and also to a Boldt supervisor, but neither defendant took corrective action. In addition, charging party's supervisor regularly used abusive and racially derogatory language toward him and otherwise treated him with hostility. His supervisor assigned him to perform the most dangerous jobs without assistance, while assigning white employees less dangerous work or pairing them for the more dangerous work. He repeatedly complained to his supervisor about the working conditions, including the appearance of a noose in his lunchbox. When he asked for ICC's corporate phone number so he could complain about racial issues, the supervisor threatened to fire him immediately if he complained. After 3 months, ICC laid off charging party (along with the only other black on ICC's payroll and one white), ostensibly due to lack of work. ICC tried to hire two whites the next day, but the union blocked the effort.
Milwaukee entered into separate consent decrees with ICC and Boldt, resolving the case for $275,000 in monetary relief, consisting of $175,000 from Boldt and $100,000 from ICC. Charging party will receive $125,000, $45,000 outright from Boldt and $80,000 from ICC in three installments over a 6-month period. A second individual will receive $20,000 from ICC, also in three installments. Boldt will pay the remaining $130,000 in monetary relief into a fund for African-American employees of Boldt and its subcontractors who worked at the River Side Energy Plant project and who the EEOC determines were subjected to racial harassment, including exposure to racial graffiti. After notifying claimants of the proposed distribution and allowing them an opportunity to object, EEOC will prepare the final distribution schedule, subject to court approval. Iron City is enjoined from race discrimination and racial harassment, and prohibited from engaging in retaliation. Boldt is enjoined from racial harassment and retaliation. The ICC decree will expire in 3 years and the Boldt decree in 2 years.
The decrees require defendants to develop, implement, and disseminate policies and procedures regarding racial harassment and retaliation (the ICC decree also includes race discrimination) and the investigation of internal complaints. Both defendants must designate two individuals with responsibility for investigating employee complaints and post their contact information at corporate headquarters and at each jobsite. ICC must also place such contact information in its employee handbook. Boldt must also set up and maintain a complaint hotline. Both defendants must provide annual training regarding race harassment and retaliation and ICC's training program must also cover race discrimination. For ICC, the training is mandatory for permanent employees and for temporary employees hired for offsite construction projects. For Boldt, the training is mandatory for all management, supervisory, and office employees; full-time hourly general foremen and superintendents; Boldt employees at offsite construction sites; and all employees of subcontractors where Boldt is the general contractor. The decrees require both defendants to post a notice at their corporate headquarters describing the lawsuit and resolution, and containing contact information for the EEOC. ICC must also post the notice at all of its offsite construction sites, and Boldt must post the notice at offsite construction projects where it employs more than 25 people.
The Denver District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, a global company that provides warehouse and distribution services to corporations, discharged charging party, a traffic clerk in the Coors Brewing Company warehouse in Golden, Colorado, based on his race and color (black) and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination. In April 2003, one of charging party's coworkers, a white woman, initiated two racial incidents. First, she expounded on her view that African Americans are more athletic than whites because they were inbred as slaves and have an extra muscle in their legs. She also said she was afraid to be around certain people of color. Charging party and other employees were offended and argued with her. Charging party said she should take her hood off and not burn a cross on his lawn. Several supervisors witnessed portions of the discussion, but none intervened or reported it. Three days later the same coworker told charging party that a customer with a rebel flag on his truck said he did not want "that nigger" (referring to charging party) waiting on him. She defended the customer's statement based on freedom of speech. Charging party immediately reported the statement to a supervisor. About a week later, the white woman resigned, complaining that charging party had created a hostile work environment for her. She rescinded her resignation after the white plant manager asked her if she would come back if he terminated charging party. Defendant investigated both of the above racial incidents, but failed to interview two black employees who witnessed the first incident. Defendant fired charging party in May 2003, in part for the hood and cross comment he made during the first racial incident, but did not discipline the white woman who initiated the incident or the supervisors who failed to report it. Almost a month after the incident, and 2 weeks after charging party's termination, Defendant gave the white woman a Final Written Warning for her role in the second incident (failing to report the truck driver's statement to management and sharing it with charging party).
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $145,000 in monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant, at its Golden, Colorado facility, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race or color and from engaging in reprisal or retaliation under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, or the EPA.
The San Francisco District Office filed this Title VII case alleging that Micro Pacific Development (MPD), a corporation that operates upscale hotels on the island of Saipan, subjected charging party and other female kitchen workers to egregious sexual harassment at the Saipan Grand Hotel. In 1997, MPD assigned charging party, an assistant cook, to work the early evening shift with a newly hired male assistant chief cook. On a daily basis, the assistant chief cook touched charging party's breasts and buttocks and made unwelcome sexual comments. He frequently asked her for sexual favors. The harassment ceased after charging party complained to her supervisor, but resumed when the supervisor left the company in 2001 and by 2002 it had escalated to include a number of sexual assaults and at least one attempted rape. After the attempted rape, charging party told her supervisor that assistant chief cook had touched and harassed her and that she could no longer work with him. MPD conducted an investigation and and suspended the assistant chief cook for 5 days without pay and forced him to write a letter of apology to charging party. When MPD refused to transfer the assistant chief cook to another department, charging party transferred to housekeeping so she would not have to come into contact with him. The assistant chief cook's contract with MPD expired in July 2003 and was not renewed.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, MPD will pay $175,000 in compensatory damages to charging party and three other women. The charging party will receive $100,000 and the other women $30,000, $30,000, and $15,000. After the EEOC filed suit, MPD sold the Saipan Grand Hotel to Asia Pacific Hotels, Inc. (APHI), which participated in the settlement talks and signed the decree as MPD's successor. The decree provides that APHI will revise its complaint procedure to encourage employees to come forward with complaints of sexual harassment and/or retaliation. APHI is prohibited from employing the assistant chief cook again, or using him as an independent contractor. MPD represents in the decree that it will dissolve in approximately January 2006. If it does not complete dissolution by February 28, 2006, or if it reestablishes its business, it will undertake specific injunctive relief set forth in the decree and will be prohibited from ever employing or contracting with the assistant chief cook.
This page was last modified on March 2, 2006.