Return to Home PageThe Detroit District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a gas station/mini-market chain, refused to hire a black applicants who applied for Customer Service Representative positions because of their race. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement which provides for a total payment of $150,000 ($21,000 in back pay and $129,000 in compensatory damages) which will be distributed to 16 black job applicants who were denied employment. In addition to the monetary relief, Speedway agreed to offer to the aggrieved claimants the next 14 Customer Service Representative positions that become available and will provide training on federal discrimination laws to its management personnel in 2003 with an estimated cost of $200,000.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant, a subsidiary of Bank of America engaged in mortgage financing, subjected charging party, a female mortgage loan processor, and another female employee to a sexually hostile working environment. The harassment included unwelcome touching and offensive and derogatory remarks and gestures by two male assistant managers. As a result of the harassment, one of the female claimants quit her job. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $190,000 to the two claimants ($100,000 to one claimant and $90,000 to the other). Defendant is enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII and from retaliation.
The Los Angeles District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a Mexican-themed tourist attraction with shops and restaurants in Old Town San Diego which employs over 500 workers, refused to hire black job applicants because of their race. The black claimants applied for various jobs with defendant, including cashier, salesperson, line cook/food prep, and customer service positions, and though qualified for the positions for which they applied, were not hired. Instead, defendant continued soliciting applications and hired less qualified non-black applicants. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $120,000 which will be distributed to 12 black job applicants who were denied employment because of their race. Pursuant to the decree, defendant is enjoined from engaging in any hiring practice which discriminates against blacks. BDM further agrees to retain a consultant for a period of three years to develop recruiting, screening and hiring procedures, assist in training defendant's supervisory employees and ensure compliance with the provisions of the decree. Defendant further agrees to actively recruit black job applicants with a hiring goal of 5% black employees in each 12-month period during the three-year term of the decree.
The Houston District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant discriminated against charging party Sobhan Davaryhadikiasary, an Iranian-born insurance sales representative, when it withdrew an offer of promotion because of his national origin. Charging party was offered a promotion to an Assistant Manager position in September 2000 which was to become effective November 20, 2000. In October 2000, defendant announced an initiative to increase the number of Hispanic and black sales representatives and assistant managers working in the Houston area. Thereafter, charging party's District Manager told him that non-Hispanic employees were not going to be promoted to assistant manager positions. The company withdrew his promotion and promoted a Hispanic male into the assistant manager position previously offered to him. The case was resolved through an Agreed Final Judgment which provides for payment of $75,000 to charging party. Defendant shall not engage in any employment practices which discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of his or her national origin and shall not retaliate against any individual who opposes unlawful employment practices under Title VII.
The Los Angeles District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, which sells discounted leisure travel products, subjected a group of female employees working at its Los Angeles call center to a sexually hostile working environment. The harassment included unwelcome touching, propositions for sexual favors and sexually charged speech from two male supervisors. The lawsuit further alleged that defendant discharged the female employee who filed the initial charge of discrimination in retaliation for complaining about the harassment. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement which provides for a payment of $1.1 million in monetary relief. Of the total recovery, $800,000 will be distributed among the eight named claimants ($275,000 and $125,000 to the two plaintiff-intervenors and $400,000 to be split among the remaining six named claimants) and $300,000 will be divided among any other aggrieved females employed since October 2000 who can demonstrate that they were sexually harassed during their employment with defendant. (Because defendant closed its Los Angeles call center and was bought out by another corporation after the lawsuit was filed, no injunctive relief was included in the settlement agreement.)
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Baltimore District Office alleged that defendant, a nationwide telecommunications network, subjected a group of employees working at company facilities in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia to a hostile working environment based on their race (black) and national origin (Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sudan and Cameroon). The claimants, who were employed for approximately 4 to 6 weeks, were subjected to racial epithets ("sand nigger," "black monkey") and insulting comments ("beatle eater," "camel jockey") from managers and some were discharged because of their race and/or national origin. The complaint also alleged that an Afghani class member employed as a project manager was demoted and discharged because he opposed the discriminatory practices, including refusing to discriminatorily discharge class members. A related case, Nestor, et al. v. Hugh O'Kane Electric Co., was consolidated with EEOC's lawsuit for discovery.
The two cases were resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $1.1 million in monetary relief to be distributed to the aggrieved claimants ($749,151 to 19 claimants in EEOC's lawsuit and $350,849 to claimants in the related case). Defendant is enjoined in the states of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia from discharging employees because of their race or national origin, from maintaining a hostile environment based on race or national origin, and from retaliating against individuals who oppose unlawful discriminatory practices. Defendant further agrees to revise its written policy on race and national origin harassment to include improved complaint procedures and to distribute the revised policy to all managers and employees.
The Milwaukee District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a nationwide busing company, discharged charging party, a Dispatcher, in retaliation for his complaints that the manager of the Iowa City, Iowa facility where he worked used racial epithets toward black employees and sexually harassed female employees. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $80,000 in compensatory damages to charging party.
The Los Angeles District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a nationwide retailer of home improvement products, discriminated against charging party, a black department manager, when it refused to promote him to an Assistant Store Manager position at one of its Las Vegas, Nevada stores. Charging party applied for the promotion on three separate occasions between April 2001 and August 2001 and despite his qualifications (four years of experience as department manager in five different departments) and a recommendation for promotion from his supervisor, he was rejected each time. Defendant instead selected three white candidates for Assistant Manager positions. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement which provides for payment of $70,000 ($10,000 in back pay and $60,000 in damages) to charging party. At the store location at issue in this case, defendant is prohibited from discriminating against any individual based on race in promotion opportunities and from retaliation. Defendant will also promote the charging party to an Assistant Store Manager position in a Jacksonville, Florida area store within 14 days of execution of the settlement agreement; the promotion will be retroactive to April 1, 2001.
In this Title VII lawsuit, the Houston District Office alleged that defendant, the nationwide discount retailer, discriminated against charging party, a black Unloader, when it denied him a promotion to a Receiving Team Supervisor position and instead promoted a less qualified non-black employee. The suit further alleged that defendant discriminated against a group of black Unloaders by denying them pay raises and paying them lower wages than comparable non-black Unloaders. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $143,500 ($140,000 to charging party and $3,500 to other aggrieved claimants). Defendant agrees that it will not unlawfully discriminate against any individual because of his or her race and will not retaliate against anyone who opposes unlawful employment practices. Pursuant to the Decree, defendant agrees to study the wage rates of black Unloaders currently employed at the facility where the discrimination occurred and to adjust any wage rate to be no less than the average wage rate paid to an Unloader with similar tenure and experience (upon a showing of a statistically significant wage inequity for that Unloader).
This page was last modified on January 9, 2004.