In this Title VII suit, the Los Angeles District Office alleged that defendant, a firm that formerly provided security for the Space Shuttle at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California, countenanced hostile environment sexual harassment and retaliated against charging party for resisting the harassment. For more than a year, defendant's top-level onsite manager (a man) sexually harassed charging party and several other subordinate male employees (all security officers) by touching them on their necks, shoulders, genitals, and thighs, and continually making inappropriate sexual remarks. Charging party complained to a number of supervisors about the harassment but no corrective action was taken. After charging party had resisted the manager's advances for months, he ceased harassing charging party and moved on to other security officers. At around the same time (July 2002), and again in November 2002, the manager turned down charging party's requests for a full-time position, ostensibly because charging party's availability was limited (he was attending school). However, the manager had given full-time schedules to other guards who were attending school or had second jobs.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay a total of $237,000 in monetary relief to charging party and three similarly situated men in amounts determined by the EEOC.
In the complaint in this Title VII case, the Seattle District Office alleged that a nursing facility in Puyallup, Washington, one of 20 long-term care facilities that defendant owns, discriminated against nursing staff members in assignments, terms and conditions of employment, and promotions on the basis of race (black) and subjected staff to a racially hostile work environment. For example, the all-white care management team, after meeting with a white resident's family members, prepared a care plan for the resident incorporating the family's request that no "colored girls" work with the resident. Management also tolerated frequent use of racial slurs by residents and employees. When a resident's family member referred to another of the charging parties as a "slave" in the presence of the DNS, the DNS downplayed the gravity of the comment and told the charging party to ignore it. In addition, management usually assigned nursing staff to shifts by race, with most of the blacks on the night shift and most of the whites on the more desirable day and evening shifts, when most of the visitors came to the facility. Defendant ignored requests by black nursing staff members for day and evening assignments. Defendant also assigned black and white employees to separate lunchtimes and lunchrooms. One of the black charging parties applied twice for a promotion to a staffing position for which she had several years of experience and was highly qualified. Defendant rejected her both times, once in favor of a white woman who had not applied for the job but was a friend of the hiring official.
Seven claimants intervened and the court certified for monetary relief a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class of 150 current and former nonwhite caregivers employed between November 15, 2000, and November 15, 2004. The decree provides for $270,000 in monetary relief to be provided to the eight class representatives, $100,000 to other claimants based on criteria set out in the decree, and $125,000 in attorney's fees and $5,000 in costs to class counsel. The decree provides that defendant will not engage in practices that discriminate on the basis of race or that constitute retaliation for engaging in protected EEOC activity.
In this Title VII suit, the Baltimore District Office alleged that defendant denied an African American employee in Coca-Cola's Hanover, Maryland Equipment and Service Center a promotion into a management position because of his race. Charging party entered a training program for a grade 15 field service manager or bottle/can install manager position in October 2000. White employees who started in the program earlier in the year were placed into grade 15 positions within a few months, but charging party remained at a grade 13 after completing the program because no grade 15 positions were available. In 2003, following a merger with another equipment and operations service center, charging party applied for two field service manager positions, but they were given to white employees who had less relevant experience than charging party and had not participated in the training program.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving the case defendant will pay charging party $60,500 in monetary relief, upgrade his current position to grade 15 effective June 1, 2005, change his job title to bottle/can install manager, increase his salary to $52,800 annually, and award him retroactive grade 15 seniority to January 2001 for internal job competition and to January 2005 for eligibility for the management incentive bonus plan. The decree enjoins defendant from engaging in promotion practices that violate Title VII.
The Philadelphia District Office alleged that the Clifton, New Jersey-based trucking company Clifford B. Finkle Jr., Inc., discriminated against charging party, a female trucker working out of defendant's Indianapolis facility, by failing to correct gender-based harassment. Between July and December 2001, charging party's truck was repeatedly sabotaged, jeopardizing her safety. For example, the air hose was removed from her truck, the truck's antifreeze was drained, and the air seal on the truck's brakeline was removed. Charging party complained repeatedly to the Director of Operations. Subsequently a male coworker witnessed charging party's male supervisor and a male coworker sabotaging her truck and overheard them calling her "the bitch." The coworker warned charging party and in October 2001 reported the conduct to the Director of Operations. Defendant did not conduct an investigation until after charging party filed a discrimination charge in December 2001. Defendant then concluded that the conduct had occurred and fire both perpetrators at the end of January 2002.
Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $225,000 in monetary relief. The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, allowing harassment on the basis of sex, permitting the existence of a hostile work environment based on sex, and engaging in any practices deemed retaliatory under Title VII. Defendant will take the following corrective actions at its facilities in Indianapolis, Indiana and Clifton and Ocean, New Jersey: (1) post a notice regarding the consent decree's terms and Title VII's requirements on bulletin boards used for communicating with employees; (2) create policies prohibiting harassment and retaliation and disseminate them to all employees; (3) provide annual training to all employees (including temporary employees) and supervisors regarding employees' rights and employer's obligations under Title VII and the comparable New Jersey law; (4) provide training to all managers and supervisors, and to all Human Resources employees, on how to investigate complaints of discrimination; and (5) maintain records on complaints of discrimination and harassment, prepare reports on how the complaints are resolved, make these reports available to the EEOC upon request, and make available to the EEOC all employees whom the Commission wishes to interview to verify compliance with the decree.
In its ADA complaint, the Milwaukee District Office alleged that defendant, one of the largest health care systems in Minnesota, refused to provide reasonable accommodations for a doctor with viral encephalitis and terminated her employment based on disability. Charging party, a board-certified family practitioner, worked for defendant from 1991 until 1999, when defendant terminated her. In 1995, she contracted viral encephalitis, which caused brain damage leaving her cognitively impaired and subject to seizures. Following treatment, she returned to her practice with some restrictions, which defendant accommodated by modifying her duties and reducing her schedule. After 4 years of successful practice with these accommodations, she took a medical leave of absence to evaluate her condition, which now included frequent migraine headaches, nausea, and vomiting. After an 8-month leave, during which she completed her medical evaluation and 3 months of vocational rehabilitation, charging party's doctors recommended that she return to work with restrictions similar to those she had been working under since contracting viral encephalitis. Defendant refused to permit charging party to return to work even after she was successfully evaluated, at defendant's request, by an independent review program which evaluates doctors with health problems.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $155,000 in monetary relief. Defendant will provide charging party a positive letter of reference agreed to by the parties, and in response to oral requests for references will provide employment information consistent with the reference letter. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating against any employee on the basis of disability. Defendant will post a notice regarding the consent decree in a conspicuous place at its offices throughout Minnesota for the term of the decree.
In this Title VII suit, the Denver District Office alleged that defendant, a global supplier of aerospace and industrial products, subjected charging party (a machinist) and other Hispanic employees at its Grand Junction, Colorado facility to a hostile work environment based on national origin and afforded them less favorable terms and conditions of employment than non-Hispanics. Non-Hispanic supervisors and coworkers repeatedly directed ethnic slurs and racial epithets at the Hispanic employees (who numbered about 20 of the approximate 250 employees) and, with less frequency, physically threatened them. In October 2001, an anonymous employee posted and circulated documents promoting discrimination based on race and national origin. Charging party reported numerous incidents to supervisors and to the Human Resources Department using defendant's complaint procedures. Defendant took no corrective action and the harassment of charging party escalated.
Under the consent decree resolving this case, 12 individuals will share $1.25 million in monetary relief. The decree provides that defendant will not discriminate against applicants or employees in any terms or conditions of employment based on national origin, race, or color. In anticipation of the closure of the Grant Junction plant, defendant has prepared a "General Release and Covenant Not to Sue Agreement" (agreement). The consent decree requires defendant to remove all language from the agreement that prohibits or construes as a breach of contract: (1) assisting another person with a charge of discrimination or a lawsuit against defendant, or (2) reapplying for employment at defendant. Defendant must provide performance incentive earnings to its remaining employees who meet eligibility requirements (including claimants who receive relief under the decree) on a nondiscriminatory basis. The decree will expire upon closure of the Grand Junction facility or after 2 years, whichever occurs sooner.
The Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant, a public transportation company with facilities nationwide, violated Title VII by subjecting two charging parties (busdrivers) and several other women at its Dravosburg, Pennsylvania facility to a sexually hostile work environment. Beginning in the fall of 2002, a male employee working as a fueller engaged in sexually offensive intrusive physical conduct towards a number of female employees. They complained to managers, but defendant refused to take action, saying there were no eyewitnesses. Finally, after investigating an incident in February 2004 in which the harasser hugged and offensively touched another woman, defendant discharged him (or permitted him to resign). Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay a total of $240,000 in compensatory damages to affected women ($100,000 each to the two charging parties and $20,000 each to two other women). Defendant will not engage in conduct deemed discriminatory under Title VII at its Dravosburg branch, including fostering or tolerating a hostile work environment based on sex or engaging in retaliation.
In this ADA case, the Detroit District Office alleged that defendant, a nonprofit community-based primary care organization operating five medical clinics in Detroit, failed to hire charging party as the director of one of its clinics because it perceived her as disabled. After five interviews with staff in defendant's president's office, defendant offered charging party the director position conditioned on a physical examination. Charging party had a history of diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension, angina, and smoking, and had had a cerebral aneurysm. The examining doctor believed the director position was a high stress job and would put charging party's health at risk due to her medical history. He recommended a cardiac stress test, which charging party agreed to take but was unable to pay for. The doctor said he would find out if defendant would pay for the test. Defendant revoked the job offer the following day, telling charging party the doctor said she had failed the physical examination.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $116,000 in back pay and compensatory damages. Defendant is required to comply with the ADA. When making a hiring decision, defendant will make an individual assessment of an applicant's ability to work with or without a reasonable accommodation, engage in an interactive process if an applicant requests an accommodation, and pay for additional outside medical examinations requested by defendant.
The Philadelphia District Office filed a Title VII suit alleging that Imclone Systems, a bio-pharmaceutical company, subjected charging party, a black man, to harsher terms and conditions of employment than whites, and retaliated against him for complaining. Charging party worked for defendant for a month as a temporary facility technician before accepting a transfer into a permanent utilities operator position in another building. The permanent position required 8 weeks of training, which would qualify him for a higher level license. The white senior utilities operator responsible for training charging party referred to him as "the black man," spoke to him in a demeaning manner, yelled at him, and told him he was treating him more harshly than nonminorities because he was a minority. Charging party complained to one of respondent's vice presidents. Defendant investigated, found that the above conduct violated its policies, and took disciplinary action against the trainer. However, defendant then transferred charging party back into his original temporary position and a few months later terminated him when a full-time facility technician returned from medical leave. On the same day charging party was terminated, respondent hired a nonblack temporary employee with less experience than charging party into a full-time permanent facility technician position, and a month later hired a nonblack employee into the position for which charging party had been training before he complained.
The parties entered into a 2-year consent decree resolving this case under which charging party will receive $85,000 in monetary relief. The decree provides that defendant will not engage in practices that discriminate based on race under Title VII or that are retaliatory under Title VII.
The Los Angeles District Office alleged in this Title VII action that defendant, an asphalt manufacturing company located in Las Vegas, Nevada, harassed charging party based on his race (Asian) and national origin (Arab, Pakistani, or Middle Eastern) and constructively discharged him in retaliation for his complaint. The charging party began working for defendant as an operational technician (mixing asphalt) in September 2000. Two days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a coworker mass distributed an e-mail to company employees suggesting that Kabul, Afghanistan and Karachi, Pakistan, should be attacked by a nuclear bomb. Charging party, who immigrated to the U.S. from Karachi in about 1980 and still had relatives there, was offended and complained to management. Defendant took no corrective action. Thereafter, charging party's supervisors and coworkers frequently called him a "terrorist" and a member of a "sleeper cell." In March 2003, his supervisor accused him of planning to blow up the plant, after finding notes that charging party had written in a log book in Urdu (the supervisor thought it was Arabic). Several days after this incident, charging party called the company's hotline to complain that he was being subjected to discrimination because he was Pakistani. Over the next 2 months charging party's supervisors subjected him to excessive scrutiny and he was the subject of frequent "counseling sessions," which ultimately led to a negative performance review and denial of a raise. Due to the stress caused by these working conditions, charging party started seeing a psychologist and took a leave of absence. Defendant claimed he abandoned his job and discharged him. Charging party will receive $200,000 in monetary relief ($190,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in backpay) in settlement of the case.
This page was last modified on October 11, 2005.