Return to Home PageThe Chicago District Office filed this Title VII suit, alleging that managers in a business development group (with locations in three Illinois cities) of a large banking institution subjected charging party, a personal banker, and other female employees to a sexually hostile work environment and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, resulting in the constructive discharge of some of the women. A male vice president made inappropriate and sexually offensive comments to CP, such as frequently calling her a dyke, in the presence of the vice president's supervisor and customers. Another male manager required two women to sit in his office for hours and then berated them for failing to complete their assignments; he also took one of the women's portfolio away from her and gave her loans to the men in the office. Other female employees complained of sex-based harassment by male officials at other offices. By a two-year consent decree, defendant agrees to pay $75,000 to CP and $50,000 each to three class members for a total of $225,000 in compensatory damages. The decree provides that defendant shall not discriminate on the basis of sex and shall not retaliate.
In this Title VII case, the New York District Office alleged that a United States subsidiary of a German company that designs high-scale kitchen cabinets subjected charging party, an Egyptian Muslim, to a hostile work environment based on her national origin and religion, and discharged her because she complained about the harassment. CP worked for defendant for 20 years in its Middle Eastern location, and in November 1999 became the Operations and Administration manager for the company's midtown Manhattan showroom. During her New York employment, CP was harassed on a daily basis about her Middle Eastern background and Islamic religion by a coworker, and the harassment escalated following the events of September 11, 2001. The coworker cursed and threatened CP, mocked her accent and language, called her names such as "Mrs. Osama bin Laden" and "Mrs. Taliban," and made offensive comments indicating that she wished people from Arab countries "would be killed . . . like the Americans did to the Native Americans." Stating that the offending coworker was one of its best salespersons and brought in a lot of money for the company, defendant's president failed to take prompt or effective action to stop the harassment. Instead, a week after CP wrote a letter to defendant's vice president complaining about the coworker's conduct, defendant discharged CP for violating its no-cursing policy, even though it offered no instance of when she violated the policy, and for poor performance despite her clean work history.
The case was resolved by an 18-month consent decree that enjoins defendant from engaging in religious discrimination, national origin discrimination, or retaliation. In addition, the decree requires defendant to pay $162,500 in compensatory damages to CP. Defendant also shall revise its policy and reporting procedures regarding harassment and retaliation by (1) creating a formal complaint form to report incidents of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, (2) conducting prompt investigations, and (3) documenting all actions taken during the investigation and resolution of the complaint. To effectuate the complaint process, defendant shall appoint an HR Officer to receive, investigate, and resolve all complaints of discrimination and retaliation. Finally, defendant shall provide a 90-minute anti-discrimination training seminar with an emphasis on national origin discrimination, religious discrimination and retaliation to all non-management employees who work in defendant's showrooms and corporate offices. Managers and supervisors shall receive 2 1/2 hours of anti-discrimination training and semi-annual refresher courses.
The Atlanta District Office brought suit under Title VII to enforce a settlement agreement reached during the mediation of a sexual harassment charge. The parties agreed at the mediation that defendant would pay charging party $50,000 and provide her with a neutral reference. The parties also agreed to a non-disparagement clause and a provision providing defendant a remedy if CP violated the clause. Defendant's attorney was to add the non-disparagement provisions to a typed agreement, which the parties would sign the next day. Before the parties left the mediation room, however, CP made a comment to defendant like "I hope you guys have learned a lesson." Infuriated by CP's comment, defendant had his counsel leave a handwritten statement with EEOC's ADR Coordinator indicating that defendant was reserving the right to challenge the agreement. Four days later, defendant submitted a letter claiming that CP's comment breached the non-disparagement clause and thus that defendant was no longer bound by the terms of the agreement. The matter was resolved by a consent decree that requires defendant to pay $50,000 to CP and provide her with no less than a neutral reference, citing her dates of employment and positions held.
The New York District Office filed this sex discrimination action, alleging that defendant, a global financial services firm with more than 600 offices in 27 countries, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against female employees in its Institutional Equity Division (IED). New York alleged that the unlawful practices affected the women's promotion opportunities, compensation, and terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. New York further alleged that the defendant retaliated against the charging party-intervenor, a principal in the firm, by terminating her for complaining about sex discrimination.
This case was resolved by a three-year consent decree that requires defendant to pay a total of $54 million. Forty million dollars will be paid into a claim fund to pay awards through a process by which claimants and the parties will submit information to a Special Master, paid by defendant, who will determine the amount, if any, to be awarded to each claimant. Any claimant dissatisfied with the Special Master's determination as to her claim can submit objections to the court. Potential claimants are women employed in the United States at any time since January 1, 1995, in IED in the positions of exempt non-officers eligible for promotion to vice president (including but not limited to associate and professional), vice president, principal or executive, and managing director, and female American citizens employed in these covered positions outside the United States during that period. Any residual funds from the $40 million will be used for scholarship programs for female students pursuing careers in the financial services industry. Defendant also is to pay $12 million to CP and to use $2 million to provide anti-discrimination and diversity training and to implement policies and programs designed to prevent sex discrimination and enhance promotional opportunities for women.
Additionally, defendant will appoint an employee to be an EEOC-approved ombudsperson who will oversee the implementation of the decree's terms, administer defendant's complaint policy, and ensure compliance with recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The decree also provides for an outside monitor, paid by defendant, who will review defendant's anti-discrimination policies and practices and be a contact person for employees with sex discrimination complaints. The outside monitor also will provide a report to EEOC and defendant, at least once a year, that assesses defendant's implementation of and compliance with the decree, with special attention to whether defendant has implemented meaningful programs to address retention and promotion of women in IED. Finally, the decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against women in covered positions in promotion and compensation based on their sex and from retaliating against female employees, and provides for yearly reporting to EEOC on the sex, job title, and compensation of employees in covered positions, on transfers and hires into covered positions, and on studies of promotions of employees in covered positions.
The Dallas District Office filed this Title VII suit, alleging that a high-end restaurant and its corporate affiliates, through the conduct of the entities' owner, subjected charging party, a cocktail waitress/part-time hostess, and other waitresses to a sexually hostile work environment. Dallas also alleged that defendants terminated CP because of her sex after she repeatedly rebuffed the owner's advances. The owner's harassment was primarily verbal and included calling CP "Tushy" or "Boobsy"; on other occasions, the owner made sexual gestures and grabbed or slapped CP's buttocks. The owner discharged CP when she misplaced a customer's credit card, shouting and cursing at her in front of other people in the restaurant. CP filed a criminal assault complaint and the owner was found guilty following a jury trial and fined $552. The case was resolved through a two-year consent decree that requires defendants to pay CP $87,500 and three other claimants a total of $10,500. Defendants are no longer in business, but the decree contains affirmative relief applicable if they acquire an ownership interest in a restaurant during the term of the decree.
The Detroit District Office brought this Title VII suit alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge by a residential treatment facility for convicted sexual offenders in Pinconning, Michigan. Charging party, a Behavioral Technician, claimed a male coworker regularly made sexually offensive comments, touched her breasts and buttocks, and asked for sexual favors. Although CP complained to management about the harassment, nothing was done to stop the abuse and she was told the staff "had an understanding." Following the promotion of the coworker to House Coordinator and CP to Assistant House Coordinator, he became CP's supervisor and the harassment escalated to shoving and grabbing of CP and demands for oral sex. CP complained to the owner, who eventually fired the coworker/supervisor but had CP subjected to closer scrutiny. Defendant also created difficult work conditions for CP after she declined to sign a statement agreeing not to take any legal action against defendant. Subsequently, CP suffered an on-the-job injury that resulted in work restrictions and time off. Despite her excused absence, she was fired for being a "no-call, no-show" for a week and for stealing. In accordance with a consent decree, defendant agreed to pay CP $62,000 and reinstate her to the position of Medical Coordinator at the rate of $22,000 per year with the same benefits package offered to the Assistant Home Coordinator.
The Seattle District Office filed a Title VII sexual harassment suit against a leading manufacturer of custom cabinets. Seattle alleged that management at the company's main production facility in Spokane, Washington failed to take appropriate action after charging party, a female cabinet maker, complained about constant lewd remarks, gender epithets, and sexual conduct by her male coworkers. The district office also alleged that defendant's failure to take remedial action under the guise that the sexual harassment was "all in fun" resulted in the constructive discharge of CP, who felt compelled to resign when no effort was made to stop the harassment. In accordance with a consent decree spanning three years and three months, defendant agrees to pay $100,000 to CP. Defendant will provide 4 hours of anti-discrimination training to the managers and supervisors at the Spokane facility and agrees to impose discipline upon any supervisor or manager who engages in sex discrimination. Defendant also will revise the supervisor appraisal process to include as an element the supervisor's handling of EEO issues and will include a "commitment to equal employment opportunity" as a qualification criterion for supervisory positions.
In this Title VII suit, the Baltimore District Office alleged that an assistant manager working for defendants (a casual dining restaurant, its affiliate, and parent company) sexually harassed charging parties (four female food servers) and other female employees and then retaliated against one of the women for complaining about the sexual harassment. The harassment included sexual comments and innuendos and unwelcome touching. Invoking the restaurant's sexual harassment policy, the charging parties complained to management 15 times over a 10-month period but the harassment continued. In retaliation for one of the CP's complaints about him, the assistant manager began to schedule her for work on days when she was unavailable. The CP complained but ultimately was terminated for failing to show up for her shift. Several months later, defendant terminated the assistant manager after the father of a 16-year-old female employee complained to management about the assistant manager putting his hands on her breasts and lifting her up.
By a two-year consent decree, defendants are required to pay a total of $283,000 in monetary relief: $243,000 to the four charging parties and $40,000 to eligible claimants (female employees who were supervised and harassed by the assistant manager during the period March 2001 to January 2003) in amounts determined by the EEOC. Defendants are enjoined from sexually harassing or condoning the sexual harassment of its employees, including the use of derogatory comments or physical conduct, and from retaliation. Defendants' attorneys shall provide training on preventing workplace sexual harassment for all managers and employees at the Bel Air, Maryland location, including defendant's area director.
The Baltimore District Office filed this action, alleging that a discount retail chain unlawfully failed to accommodate CP and then terminated her employment from a Front Royal, Virginia regional distribution center in violation of the ADA. Charging party was employed as Receiving Checker responsible for unloading freight from trucks and taking inventory of delivered goods. In the spring of 2000, CP underwent two surgeries for breast cancer, which left her with a musculoskeletal condition that restricts her ability to lift more than 15 pounds. Consequently, Respondent placed her on light duty for six weeks. When she resumed her position as a full-time Receiver Checker, CP was able to perform her duties in a satisfactory manner with the assistance of lumpers (independent contractors retained to unload trucks) who were available to handle the physical unloading. Near the close of the year, defendant said it was discontinuing the use of lumbers and informed CP that unloading was an essential function of her job and that she was either going to have to find other employment or take medical leave. CP declined the medical leave offer and was assigned to unload a truck. When she reiterated that she had a lifting restriction, defendant said that it could no longer cater to her needs and sent her home. By mid January 2001, CP had been discharged even though there was evidence that the reduction in lumpers was temporary and lasted only for the Christmas season.
The case was resolved by a one-year consent decree that requires defendant to pay $12,000 in back pay and $38,000 in compensatory damages to CP. The decree prohibits defendant from discriminating in any phase of employment against individuals with a musculoskeletal condition resulting from cancer surgery. Using a competent instructor, defendant also will provide ADA training to its managers and HR staff at the Front Royal site on issues such as reasonable accommodation and employee rights under the ADA. New management employees will receive training on the ADA and the company's internal anti-discrimination policies during orientation.
The Seattle District Office brought a Title VII suit alleging that a sheet metal fabrication and machining company retaliated against a Vietnamese-American machinist when it fired him for complaining about a manager's derogatory comments about Asians. Two other employees of Asian national origins (Laotian and Korean) intervened in the Commission's case alleging federal and state claims. In accordance with a three-year consent decree covering defendant's Washington State facilities, defendant will pay a total of $230,000 in compensatory damages and fees to charging party and the two intervenors, and will change CP's termination to a voluntary resignation and remove any no rehire provision from his personnel file. Defendant also will institute and enforce anti-discrimination policies and procedures for its employees, supervisors, and management personnel. Managers must take two hours of face-to-face EEO training and defendant agrees to include a "commitment to equal employment opportunity" as a qualification for supervisory positions. Finally, defendant must revise its EEO policy and complaint procedure to ensure that it adequately prohibits racial harassment and reaffirms defendant's commitment against retaliation.
This page was last modified on November 15, 2004.