Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases
(Covering Private and Federal Sectors)

In enforcing Title VII's prohibition of race and color discrimination, the EEOC has filed, resolved, and adjudicated a number of cases since 1964. Under the E-RACE Initiative, the Commission continues to be focused on the eradication of race and color discrimination from the 21st century workplace and is seeking to retool its enforcement efforts to address contemporary forms of overt, subtle and implicit bias. Below is an inexhaustive list of significant EEOC private or federal sector cases from 2003 to present. These cases illustrate some of the common, novel, systemic and emerging issues in the realm of race and color discrimination.

Contents

• E-RACE And Other EEOC Initiatives
  • Systemic
  • Youth@ Work
• Employment Practices
  • Hiring
  • Customer Preference
  • Hispanic Preference
  • Job Segregation
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Compensation Disparity
  • Hostile Work Environment
  • Retaliation
  • Discharge
• Types of Race/Color Discrimination
  • Color Discrimination
  • Same Race Discrimination
  • Intersectional Discrimination/Harassment
  • Associational Discrimination
  • Biracial Discrimination
  • Code Words

E-RACE AND OTHER EEOC INITIATIVES

Systemic

• In August 2008, a tobacco retail chain agreed to pay $425,000 and provide significant remedial relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit on behalf of qualified black workers who were denied promotion to management positions. The three-year consent decree also requires the company, which has stores in Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi, to train all managers and supervisors on preventing race discrimination and retaliation; create job descriptions for manager and assistant manager positions that outline the qualifications for each position; develop a written promotion policy that will include the procedures by which employees will be notified of promotional opportunities; report assistant manager and manager vacancies, the name and race of all applicants for the position, and the name of the successful candidate; report the names of all African Americans who are either hired or promoted to manager or assistant manager positions; and report any complaints of race discrimination and describe its investigation in response to the complaint. See EEOC v. Tobacco Superstores, Inc., No. 3:05 CV 00218 (E.D. Ark. settled Aug. 2008).).
• In July 2008, a Chicago-based leading chemical manufacturer of high-quality surfactants, polymers, chemical specialties and cosmetic preservatives paid $175,000 to settle a class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. According to the lawsuit, a class of African American employees had been subjected to race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation for complaining about the misconduct. The company agreed to conduct EEO training and refrain from future acts of discrimination and retaliation. See EEOC v. McIntyre Group, Ltd., No. 07 C 5458 (N.D. Ill. settled July, 2008).
• In May 2008, the EEOC obtained a settlement of $1.65 million in a racial harassment case filed against a general contractor and its subsidiaries on behalf of a class of African American employees who were subjected to egregious racial harassment at a construction site in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The harassment included a life size noose made of heavy rope hung from a beam in a class member’s work area for at least 10 days before it was removed; the regular use of the “N-word”; racially offensive comments made to black individuals, including “I think everybody should own one” and “black people are no good and you can’t trust them” and “black people can’t read or write.” Additionally, racist graffiti was written in portable toilets, with terms such as “coon”; “if u not white u not right”; “white power”; “KKK”; and “I love the Ku Klux Klan.” Additional remedies were injunctive relief enjoining each defendant from engaging in racial harassment or retaliation; anti-discrimination training; the posting of a notice about the settlement; and reporting complaints of racial harassment to the EEOC for monitoring. See EEOC v. Conectiv,et al. Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00389 (E.D. Pa. settled May 5, 2008).
• In August 2007, a renowned French chef agreed to pay $80,000 to settle claims that his upscale Manhattan restaurant discriminated against Hispanic workers and Asian employees from Bangladesh in job assignments. The aggrieved employees alleged that they were restricted to “back of the house” positions such as busboys and runners and refused promotions to “front of the house” positions such as captains, which instead went to Caucasian workers with less experience and seniority. They also alleged that they were subjected to racial insults and harassment when they complained. See EEOC v. Restaurant Daniel, No. 07-6845 (S.D.N.Y. August 2, 2007).
• In June 2007, EEOC obtained $500,000 from a South Lyon, Mich., steel tubing company, which, after purchasing the assets of its predecessor company, allegedly refused to hire a class of African American former employees of the predecessor. Though the company hired 52 of its predecessor’s former employees, none of them were Black. EEOC charged that many of the white employees hired had significantly less experience than the black former employees represented by the EEOC, and in some cases had actually been trained by the same African American employees who were denied hire. The suit also included other black applicants who were denied hire in favor of less qualified white applicants. See EEOC v. Michigan Seamless Tube, No. 05-73719 (E.D. Mich. June 8, 2007); http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-8-07.html
• In February 2007, EEOC obtained a $5 million settlement resolving two consolidated class action employment discrimination lawsuits against a global engine systems and parts company, asserting that the company engaged in illegal discrimination against African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians at its Rockford and Rockton, Ill., facilities with respect to pay, promotions and training. See EEOC v. Woodward Governor Company, No. 06-cv-50178 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2007)
• In August 2006, a major national public works contractor agreed to settle for $125,000 EEOC lawsuits alleging race, gender, national origin and religious discrimination against a class of Black, Asian and female electricians and retaliation against a Black male employee who complained about the race and gender-based discrimination and harassment of his coworkers. See EEOC v. Amelco Corp., No. C 05-2492 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2006).
• In August 2006, the Commission settled this Title VII lawsuit alleging that since at least 1991, defendant, a manufacturer of precision metal-formed products and assemblies, failed to hire women and Blacks into laborer and machine operator positions at its plant because of their sex and race for $940,000. The complaint also alleged that defendant failed to retain employment applications. The 39-month consent decree requires defendant to consider all female and Black applicants on the same basis as all other applicants, to engage in good faith efforts to increase recruitment of female and Black applicants, and to submit semiannual reports to EEOC that include applicant flow and hiring data by race and sex. See EEOC v. S&Z Tool Co., Inc., No. 1:03CV2023 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2006).
• In August 2006, a major national public works contractor paid $125,000 to settle race, gender, national origin and religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuits brought by EEOC on behalf of a class of Black, Asian, and female electricians who were subjected to daily harassment due to their race, national origin, and/or gender by their immediate foremen, racial and otherwise offensive graffiti in plain sight at the workplace, and retaliation for complaining. See EEOC v. Amelco, No. C 05-2492 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006).
• In June 2005, EEOC obtained an $8 million dollar settlement from Ford Motor Co. and a major national union in a class race discrimination lawsuit, alleging that a test had a disproportionately negative impact on African American hourly employees seeking admission to an apprenticeship program. See http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-1-05.html
• In November 2004, the Commission settled for $50 million a lawsuit filed against Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of a class of African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and women allegedly subjected to discrimination in recruitment, hiring, assignment, promotion and discharge based on race, color, national origin, and sex. Abercrombie & Fitch also agreed to improve hiring, recruitment, training, and promotions policies; revise marketing material; and select a Vice President of Diversity and diversity recruiters. See EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. CV-04-4731 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2004) , http://www.eeoc.gov/press/11-18-04.html.
• In November 2002, the Commission settled a lawsuit with the Las Vegas hotel for more than $1 million on behalf of African American and Hispanic applicants who were allegedly were not hired for server positions because of their race. The hotel also agreed to conduct antidiscrimination training and implement procedures to investigate discrimination complaints. See EEOC v. The Mirage Hotel & Casino, No. CV S-02-1554 RLH – LRL (D.Nev. Nov. 27, 2002), http://www.eeoc.gov/press/11-27-02.html

Youth@ Work

• In September 2006, the Korean owners of a fast food chain in Torrance, California agreed to pay $5,000 to resolve a Title VII lawsuit alleging that a 16-year old biracial girl, who looked like a fair-skinned African American, was refused an application for employment because of her perceived race (Black). According to the EEOC lawsuit, after a day at the beach with her Caucasian friends, the teen was asked if she would request an application on her friend’s behalf since the friend was a little disheveled in appearance. The owner refused to give the teen an application and told her the store was not hiring anymore despite the presence of a “Help Wanted” sign in the window. After consultation among the friends, another White friend entered the store and was immediately given an application on request. See EEOC v. Quiznos, No. 2:06-cv-00215-DSFJC (C.D. settled Sept. 22, 2006).
• In December 2005, EEOC resolved this Title VII lawsuit alleging that a fast food conglomerate subjected a Black female employee and other non-White restaurant staff members (some of them minors) to a hostile work environment based on race. The racial harassment included a male shift leader’s frequent use of “nigger” and his exhortations that Whites were a superior race. Although the assistant manager received a letter signed by eight employees complaining about the shift leader’s conduct, the shift leader was exonerated and the Black female employee who complained was fired. The consent decree provided $255,000 in monetary relief: $105,000 to Charging Party and $150,000 for a settlement fund for eligible claimants as determined by EEOC. See EEOC v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Carl’s Jr. Restaurant, No. CV-05-01978 FCD PAW (E.D. Ca. Dec. 13, 2005)
• In October 2005, an elevator manufacturing company agreed to pay $75,000 to an 18-year-old African American welder and $100,000 to 12 other Black employees in an EEOC suit alleging racial harassment of the teen and a pattern of discrimination against African American employees at the Middleton, Tennessee facility. Harassment of the teen included calling him a “Black [S.O.B.],” telling racially offensive jokes, hiding his safety gloves, placing stink bombs under his workstation, and telling him that the vending machines do not take “crack money.” See EEOC v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Manufacturing, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-1160-T (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 2005).
• In September 2005, EEOC obtained a $34,000 default judgment on behalf of a then 19-year old Black former employee of a manufacturing plant in Illinois who alleged that he had been subjected to derogatory remarks and racial epithets, such as “what are you supposed to be, some kind of special nigger?” or name-calling such as “pencil dick,” by his supervisor. The supervisor was the father of the company’s president and he insisted that the “n-word” is Latin for “black person.” When the teen complained to the company president about the offensive remarks, the supervisor’s son replied that he could not reprimand his father. See EEOC v. Midwest Rack Manufacturing, Inc., No. 05-194-WDS (S.D. Ill. Sep. 21, 2005).
• In March 2004, a Ruby Tuesday franchise agreed to pay $32,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit, alleging race discrimination in hiring against two African American college students who were refused employment as food servers in favor of several Caucasian applicants with less or similar experience and qualifications. According to the lawsuit, when the students met with the store manager, he briefly reviewed their applications and told them they were “not what he was looking for.” See EEOC v. RT KCMO, LLC d/b/a Ruby Tuesday’s, No.03-CV-00983-FJG (W.D. Mo. settled March 30, 2004).
• In February 2004, the Commission settled a racial and sexual harassment lawsuit for $67,000 plus injunctive relief on behalf of two Black young female employees who alleged that they were subjected to unwelcome touching, degrading sexual and racial comments, and were shown a drawing of a Ku Klux Klan member by their supervisor. After one of the women complained, her hours were cut and she was eventually terminated. The other employee was forced to resign. See EEOC v. Planet Wings of Rockland, Inc., No. 03 CV 5430 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2004).

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

Hiring

• In July 2008, EEOC resolved a race discrimination and retaliation suit for $140,000 against a Mississippi U-Haul company. The company was accused of discriminating on the basis of race when it hired the son of a selecting official rather than a veteran African American manager, to serve as the company’s marketing company president. The Black manager had worked for U-Haul for ten years as a reservation manager, assistant manager, general manager, area field manager and field relief manager, and held a bachelor’s degree in business manage¬ment as well as having received various awards for performance. The company, however, altered the job’s requirements and hired the executive’s son who lacked a college degree and had scanty experience compared with the Black manager. The manager complained and the company disciplined and fired him. The company has agreed to adopt an online employee handbook and other documents spelling out company policies and practices; to post all vacancies for marketing company president; to provide training on discrimination and retaliation to all board members; and to provide periodic reports to the EEOC. See EEOC v. U-Haul Co. of Mississippi, Civil Action No. 3:06cv516 (S.D. Miss. filed July 2008).
• In June 2008, a beauty supply chain agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit in which the EEOC charged that it rescinded a job offer after learning the successful applicant was Black. In a deposition, the former acting store manager of the West Orange store gave sworn testimony that she had a telephone conversation with the district manager after the applicant had applied, and the district manager “told [me] she didn’t want another black person working in the store.” When the selectee arrived at the store on her starting date, she was informed that she could not be hired due to her race because there would have been too many African Americans at the store. See EEOC v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC, Civil Action No. 1:07cv644 (E.D. Tex. settled June 23, 2008).
• In September 2007, EEOC upheld an Administrative Judge’s (AJ) default judgment in favor of complainant, a Staff Nurse Supervisor, who had alleged race discrimination when she was not selected for a Nurse Manager position. The AJ sanctioned the agency for failing to timely investigate the complaint. Relief included retroactive promotion, back pay and a tailored order to allow complainant to submit her request for fees incurred solely for the successful prosecution of the appeal. See Royal v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070045 (Sep. 10, 2007).
• In January 2007, the Commission found discrimination based on race (African-American) when a federal employee was not selected for the position of Criminal Investigator despite plainly superior qualifications as compared to the selectee. The manager who recommended the selectee, ignored complainant's qualifications and was reported to have previously told another African-American applicant that his "black ass would never become a special agent." The Commission affirmed the AJ's finding of discrimination and ordered the retroactive promotion of complainant, back pay, compensatory damages ($75,000), attorney's fees, and other relief. See Green v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060058 (January 19, 2007).
• In November 2006, the Commission found that a federal employee had been discriminated against based on his race (Asian/Pacific Islander) when he was not selected for the position of Social Insurance Specialist. The Commission affirmed the AJ’s finding that the agency's articulated reason for failing to select complainant -- the selectee was "highly recommended" to the selecting official -- was not worthy of belief since complainant was "definitely recommended" and that discrimination more likely motivated the agency's decision. The Commission ordered the retroactive promotion of complainant, back pay, compensatory damages ($5,000), attorney's fees, and other relief. See Paras v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060049 (November 6, 2006).
• In August 2006, a federal appellate court in Illinois reversed a negative trial court ruling and decided that the EEOC had produced sufficient evidence to proceed to trial in its race discrimination case against Target Corporation, a major retailer. According to the lawsuit, an interviewing official for the company refused to schedule interviews for four Black applicants seeking entry-level management positions because of their race. The Commission’s evidence included inculpatory tester evidence and expert testimony indicating that the names and voices of the Black applicants, as well as some of the organizational affiliations disclosed on their resumes, could have served as proxies for race. See EEOC v. Target Corporation, 460 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 2006).
• In April 2006, EEOC sued a department store chain in Iowa for refusing to hire qualified Black job applicants for sales, truck driver and other positions in its retail or warehouse facilities for reasons that were not applied to successful White applicants. See EEOC v. Von Maur, No. 06-C-182 (S.D. Iowa Apr. 19, 2006).

Customer Preference

• In January 2007, EEOC charged a Minnesota-based frozen food home delivery service with discriminating against qualified African American job applicants at its Missouri facility. According to the lawsuit, the company refused to hire Black applicants because it was concerned that its customers would be uncomfortable with a Black man coming to their home and would be intimidated by him. Consequently, despite promising the Black applicant he would be hired for a warehouse position, the company hired a less qualified White applicant. See EEOC v. Schwan’s Sales, No. 4:07-CV-00221-AGF (E.D. Mo. Jan. 29, 2007).
• In September 2006, the EEOC brought a Title VII suit, alleging that the general manager of a Pennsylvania hot dog franchise ordered the store manager to fire the African American employees because the student patrons did not like to be waited on by them. After firing several of the black employees, the store manager resigned in protest and the store manager fired the remaining African American employees himself. See EEOC v. The Original Hot Dog Shop (W.D. Pa. Sep. 19, 2006).
• In October 2005, the EEOC obtained $650,000 for named claimants and an additional $70,000 for “unknown class members” in a Title VII lawsuit alleging that the owner of assisted living and other senior facilities in 14 states engaged in discriminatory hiring practices based on race and/or color. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that defendant’s former general manager refused to hire Blacks and other non-Caucasian applicants into nursing support, food service, and housekeeping positions at an assisted living facility and coded the applications of minority applicants because she believed residents preferred White employees and did not want minorities to come into their rooms. Additionally, defendant failed to retain employment applications as required by EEOC’s regulations implementing section 709(c) of Title VII. Pursuant to a 42-month consent, defendant is prohibited from discriminating or retaliating and is required to advise recruiting sources that it hires without regard to race or color. See EEOC v. Merrill Gardens, LLC, No. 1:05-CV-004 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 2005)
• In September 2005, the nation’s largest maker and retailer of wooden play systems agreed to pay six people a total of $275,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit, which alleged that the company’s owner pursued a policy of limiting the hiring and promotion opportunities of African Americans and Hispanics and fired a white district manager in retaliation for recommending two blacks for district manager openings after telling him that “our customers can’t relate to minorities and therefore we must be choosy who we hire.” See EEOC v. Creative Playthings, Inc., No. 04-cv-3243 (E.D. Pa. press release issued Sep. 15, 2005).
• In March 2004, EEOC settled a failure to promote case for $45,000, in which the company’s president and CEO defended its action by arguing that the company was in “redneck country” and customers would not accept a black man as an account manager. See EEOC v. Frontier Materials Corp., No. H-03-856 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2004).

Hispanic Preference

• In September 2006, EEOC filed suit against a temporary staffing agency, alleging that it failed to hire African American applicants because of their race and American national origin for warehouse positions and instead hired Hispanic individuals with less experience. See EEOC v. Paramount Staffing, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-02624 (W.D. Ten. Sept. 2007).
• In August 2006, EEOC filed a lawsuit against a Charlotte, N.C. supermarket chain, alleging that it fired or forced long-term Caucasian and African American employees to resign and replaced them with Hispanic workers after it took over a particular facility. In January 2008, the supermarket chain paid $40,000 to settle the case. In addition, the consent decree required the company to distribute a formal, written anti-discrimination policy; provide periodic training to all its employees on the policy and on Title VII’s prohibition against national origin and race discrimination; send periodic reports to the EEOC concerning employees who are fired or resign; and post a “Notice to Employees” concerning this lawsuit. See EEOC v. E&T Foods, LLC, d/b/a Compare Foods, Civil Action No 3:06-cv-318 (W.D.N.C. settled Jan. 28, 2008).

Job Segregation

• In June 2008, EEOC sued a North Carolina-based restaurant for refusing to hire an African American employee for a bartender position because of his race. According to the complaint, the Black employee sought and was qualified for the bartender position, but the restaurant hired him as a server and refused to place him in the bartender position on several occasions when it became available. Evidence indicated that the restaurant had a practice of hiring only white people as bartenders. Eventually, the Black employee resigned because he believed he would never be placed in the bartender position. See EEOC v. Chelda, Inc. and Charmike Holdings, LLC, dba Ham’s Restaurant, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00236 (W.D.N.C. filed June 11, 2008).
• In September 2007, EEOC filed race discrimination suit against a Michigan-based freight and trucking company because it refused to hire a Black female applicant for a part-time customer service position, even after she was designated best qualified and had passed the requisite drug test. According to the lawsuit, the company’s regional manager vetoed her hire because he was concerned about a Black customer service representative working with customers and drivers in southeast Missouri. See EEOC v. Con-way Freight, Inc., No. 4:07-cv-01638 (D. Mo. Sept. 20, 2007).
• In July 2007, the EEOC filed suit against a supply company in Arizona, alleging that it assigned an African American employee and his Hispanic team member to less desirable, lower-paying jobs than their Caucasian counterparts because of the Black employee’s race. Additionally, the lawsuit alleged that the supervisor responsible for determining job assignments used racial slurs such as “pinche negro,” the n-word, and other racially derogatory comments to refer to the Black employee See EEOC v. L&W Supply Co., (D. Ariz. July 19, 2007).
• In July 2007, EEOC and Walgreens agreed to a proposed settlement of $20 million to resolve allegations that the Illinois-based national drug store chain engaged in systemic race discrimination against African American retail management and pharmacy employees in promotion, compensation and assignment. In addition to the monetary relief for an estimated 10,000 class members, the consent decree prohibits store assignments based on race. See EEOC v. Walgreen Co., No. 07-CV-172-GPM; Tucker v. Walgreen Co. No. 05-CV-440-GPM (S.D. Ill. July 12, 2007); http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-12-07.html.
• In March 2007, the owners of a Louisiana motel agreed to pay $140,000 to charging party and three other claimants who alleged that the motel would not hire them for front-desk positions because they are African American. The company also agreed not to exclude any African American employee or applicant for the front-desk day positions based on their race for any future businesses it may operate. The consent decree further requires it to maintain a complaint procedure to encourage employees to file internal good faith complaints regarding race discrimination and retaliation. See United States v. Sunrise Hospitality BC-II LLC, No. 5:06cv1684 (W.D. La., consent decree entered 3/27/07).
• In October 2006, EEOC sued a bakery café franchise in Florida because the company allegedly segregated the Black employees from non-Black employees and illegally fired a class of Black employees in violation of Title VII. See EEOC v. Atlanta Bread Co., International and ARO Enterprise of Miami, Inc, (S.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2006).
• In September 2006, EEOC filed a race discrimination lawsuit against McCormick & Schmick’s Restaurant Corp., the national restaurant chain, charging that the company gave African-American food servers inferior and lesser-paying job assignments by denying them assignments of larger parties with greater resulting tips and income, by denying them better paying assignments to banquets at the restaurant, and by failing on some occasions to give them assignments to any customers. See EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick’s Restaurant Corp, No. 06-CV-7806 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2006).
• In April 2006, EEOC obtained $450,000 to settle a race discrimination case in which a health care provider explained its refusal to hire “blacks or Jews” for a client in Oregon by arguing that it was protecting the safety of its employees, especially in areas where the KKK is active. See EEOC v. Health Help, Inc., 03-1204 PHX RGS (D. Ariz. Apr. 2006).

Terms and Conditions

• In January 2008, the EEOC settled a race and national origin discrimination case against a Nevada U-Haul company for $153,000. The EEOC had charged that the company subjected Hispanic and Asian/Filipino employees to derogatory comments and slurs based on their race and/or national origin. Hispanic employees also were subjected to comments such as "go back to Mexico." In addition, Filipino mechanics were denied promotions while less qualified white employees were promoted. The EEOC also charged that Hispanic and Filipino employees were told they had to be "white to get ahead" at the company. As part of the injunctive relief, U-Haul further agreed to provide training to all employees in its Nevada locations, and provide annual reports to the EEOC regarding its employment practices in its Nevada branches. See EEOC v. U-Haul Company of Nevada, Case No. 2:06-CV-01209-JCM-LRL(D.Nev. settled Jan. 28,  2008).
• In June 2008, the EEOC resolved a race discrimination and retaliation suit against a North Georgia restaurant chain for $135,000. The lawsuit alleged that a white male store manager ordered all the African American employees to be strip-searched in response to a white cashier’s drawer turning up $100 short. When advised about the missing money by the store manager, the white cashier asserted she knew nothing about it and was permitted to leave without being searched. When the Black employees complained about the discriminatory treatment, the manager fired them. The consent decree also includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting, and posting of anti-discrimination notices. See EEOC v. New Capital Dimensions, Inc., dba Krystal Restaurant (N.D. Ga. Settled June 3, 2008).
• In September 2007, the Commission upheld an AJ’s determination that complainant was discriminated against on the bases of race (Asian American), national origin (Japanese), sex (female), and/or in retaliation for prior EEO activity when: (1) she received an unsatisfactory interim performance rating; (2) she was demoted from her GS-14 Section Chief position; and (3) management’s actions created and allowed a hostile work environment. The agency was ordered to restore leave; pay complainant $50,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages and $6,944.00 in pecuniary compensatory damages; and pay $45,517.50 in attorney’s fees and $786.39 for costs. See Sugawara-Adams v. EPA, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070050 (Sep. 10, 2007).
• In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit agreed in part with EEOC’s amicus argument that a district court improperly granted summary judgment against a Black rehabilitation aide because she presented sufficient evidence – whether categorized as “direct” or “circumstantial” – that race was a factor motivating her employer’s decision not to promote her. This evidence included a White manager’s statement that if the Black recommending official hired the Black aide based on her the strength of her interview and her demonstrated ability to interact and work one-on-one with clients, “people are going to think” nonetheless that she was selected “because she was black.” The manager hired a White candidate with more seniority. On appeal, the circuit court decided that “the subject of race was improperly introduced into the selection process and used as a consideration in [the] hiring decision” and that the manager’s decision was motivated by the aide’s race and not the selectee’s experience or seniority. The court then reversed summary judgment and remanded the case for trial. See Brewer v. Cedar Lake Lodge, Inc., No. 06-6327 (6th Cir. July 31, 2007) (unpublished opinion).
• In September 2006, EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that a nonprofit organization that provides rehabilitation services for people with disabilities discriminated against four African-American employees because of their race (delayed promotion, unfair discipline, and termination) and retaliated against three of them for complaining about racially disparate working conditions, reduction of working hours, discipline, and termination. Under the 3-year consent decree, four Black employees will share $400,000 in monetary relief and the organization will increase one Black employee’s hours to no less than 20 per week to restore her eligibility for various employment benefits. See EEOC v. Richmond of New York d/b/a Richmond Children’s Center, No. 05-CV-8342 (SCR)(MDF) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2006).
• In February 2006, the Commission settled for $275,000 a Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, an aviation services company, subjected Charging Party to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, discipline, and demotion based on race, Black. After six years as a line service technician, defendant promoted Charging Party to supervisor. Defendant did not announce the promotion until two months after Charging Party had begun the new job and did not issue Charging Party a cell telephone or a company e-mail address during his tenure in the position. In contrast, defendant announced the promotion of Charging Party’s White successor within three days and issued him a cell telephone and a company e-mail address immediately. Just 4½ months after promoting Charging Party, defendant reprimanded him and demoted him. See EEOC v. Signature Flight Support Corp., No. C 05 1101 CW (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2006).
• In May 2005, the EEOC obtained a $500,000 settlement against a nursing facility in Puyallup, Washington for alleged violations of Title VII, which included the all-White care management team preparing a care plan incorporating a White family's request that no "colored girls" work with the resident; tolerating frequent use of racial slurs, including reference to a Black nurse as a "slave;” assigning Black nurses to the night shift, while giving White nurses the more desirable day shifts; assigning Black and White employees to separate lunchtimes and lunchrooms; and twice-denying a Black nurse a promotion a staffing position for which she had several years of experience and was highly qualified. See EEOC v. Central Park Lodges Long Term Care, Inc., d/b/a Linden Grove Health Care Center, No. 04-5627 RBL (W.D. Wash. consent decree filed May 13, 2005).

Compensation Disparity

• In March 2007, EEOC reached a $60,000 settlement in its Title VII lawsuit against Stock Building Supply d/b/a Stuart Lumber alleging that defendant did not give Charging Party a salary increase when he was promoted to a managerial position while White employees who were promoted were given salary increases. See EEOC v. Stock Building Supply f/k/a Carolina Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Stuart Lumber Co., Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-306-FTM-29 (M.D. Fla. March 26, 2007).
• In September 2006, EEOC charged a northern Arizona hospital that served parts of the Navaho Nation with paying its non-White doctors thousands of dollars less than a White American physician who performed the same work. The non-White physicians represented different races and national origins, including Asian, Native American, Nigerian, Puerto Rican, and Pakistani. When they, as well as former medical director, sought redress of the wage difference and filed discrimination charges with the EEOC, the hospital retaliated against them with threats of termination and threats of adverse changes to the terms and conditions of their employment. See EEOC v. Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc., No. 06-CV-2125-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Sept. 7, 2006).
• In August 2006, the EEOC resolved this Title VII/Equal Pay Act case alleging that the largest electronic screen-based equity securities market in the United States failed to promote its only Black female into higher level Research Analyst positions in its Economic Research Department and paid her less than White male Research Analysts, on the basis of race and sex. The case settled for $75,000 and a raise in her annual salary. See EEOC v. NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc., No. 06-1066-RWT (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2006).
• In May 2006, Orkin, Inc. paid $75,000 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC, alleging that Orkin refused to reinstate a black former employee to a service manager position at the Memphis location and paid him less when he held the position because of his race. See EEOC v. Orkin, Inc., No. 05-2657-Ma/P (W.D. Tenn. May 26, 2006).

Hostile Work Environment

• In July 2008, the EEOC sued a Hagerstown, MD plant of a fiberglass company for permitting its Black employees to be subjected to a racially hostile work environment despite repeated complaints about the harassment. The alleged harassment included name-calling such as “black Polack,” “Buckwheat,” and “boy;” White coworkers’ frequent use of the N-word; and the discovery of a note in a Black employee’s locker that said: “KKK plans could result in death, serious personal injury, Nigga Bernard.” See EEOC v. Xerxes Corp., Civ. Action No. AMD 08CV1882 (D.Md. July 21, 2008).
• In May 2008, the Sixth Circuit ruled that two Black male dockworkers had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The harassment in this case, in which the EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of the victims, centered on the frequent use of the term “boy” to refer to the Black male employees. The term was spray-painted on walls and doors, written in black marker or spray painted in the locker rooms, equipment, and on a calendar in the break room over Martin Luther King’s birthday, etched into bathroom walls in the terminal, and written in dust on dock surfaces, even after the employer held a sensitivity session to explain the term’s racial and derogatory implications. See Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc., 526 F.3d 880 (6th Cir.  2008).
• In April 2008, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff’s Title VII claim alleging that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. The racial hostility manifested as racist graffiti, racial epithets, and the hanging of a noose at a Salt Lake City rail yard. Agreeing with the position taken by the EEOC as amicus curiae, the court of appeals held that nearly all of the racially hostile acts alleged by the plaintiff could be considered as a single hostile work environment under National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002), and that the plaintiff could obtain relief for the entire period of the hostile work environment at issue notwithstanding the fact that he failed to file suit after receiving a notice of right to sue on an earlier Title VII charge challenging the racial harassment. See Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp., 520 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. Apr. 1, 2008).
• In March 2008, the Commission affirmed the AJ’s finding of race (Native American) and national origin (Cherokee Nation) discrimination, where complainant had his life threatened by a client and the agency never took necessary actions to stop the harassment. The AJ found that a customer continually harassed complainant by, among other actions, referring to complainant as a "worthless Indian, dumb Indian, and stupid." The Commission affirmed the award of $50,000 in non-pecuniary damages due to complainant's emotional suffering, restoration of leave, payment of costs, and mileage. The Commission also ordered training of responsible officials, consideration of discipline, and the posting of a notice but rejected the AJ's award of $6,903.87 in closing costs for complainant's sale of his house as being too speculative to connect to the discriminatory conduct. See Hern v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060012 (March 10, 2008).
• In October 2007, EEOC obtained $290,000 from an Oklahoma-based oil drilling contractor for seven African American men who alleged that, while on an oil rig, they were subjected to a hostile work environment, which included the display of hangman nooses, derogatory racial language, and race-based name calling. See EEOC v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co., No. 3:05-cv-691 (D. Miss. 2007).
• In October 2007, the Commission decided that a federal agency had improperly dismissed a Black employee’s racial harassment complaint for failure to state a claim. The employee had alleged she was subjected to a hostile work environment because the agency had rehired a former employee who had been charged with discrimination after he made a noose and hung it up in the proximity of an African American employee. The Commission decided that the employee’s allegations, if true, were sufficiently severe to state a hostile work environment claim in violation of Title VII since an employer is responsible for preventing discriminatory work environments when it is aware of such danger. The case was reinstated and remanded to the agency for an investigation. See Juergensen v. Dep’t of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 0120073331 (Oct. 5, 2007).
• In September 2007, EEOC filed a Title VII lawsuit on behalf of female, Hispanic, and Black employees against a landmark New York City restaurant in Central Park, alleging that for the past eight years the restaurant engaged in racial and sexual harassment. The alleged harassment included a manager’s regular use of the “n-word” to refer to the Black employees and “sp*c” or “ignorant immigrants” to refer to the Hispanic employees. Additionally, the manager asked a Black hostess to "touch and suck his penis" and inappropriately grabbed her buttocks and breasts. In June 2008, the restaurant settled the case for $2.2 million. Additionally, the restaurant will establish a telephone hotline which employees may use to raise any discrimination complaints, distribute a revised policy against discrimination and retaliation, and provide training to all employees against discrimination and retaliation. See EEOC v. Tavern on the Green, Civil Action No. 07- CV-8256 (S.D.N.Y. settled June 2, 2008).
• In September 2007, EEOC sued a San Jose-based manufacturer of semiconductor production equipment because it failed to stop the racial harassment of an African American assembly technician who was forced to listen to a Vietnamese coworker play and rap aloud to rap music with racially offensive lyrics and because it fired the Black employee after he repeatedly complained about his work conditions. In June 2008, the manufacturer settled the case for $168,000 and agreed to amend its harassment policy to refer specifically to harassment through the playing of music, and to include offensive musical lyrics in its examples of racial harassment. See EEOC v. Novellus Systems, Inc., C-07-4787 RS (N.D. Cal. settled June 24, 2008).
• In April 2007, the Commission decided that a Caucasian complainant, was subjected to racial harassment over a period of two years by both managers and co-workers used various racially derogatory terms when referring to complainant. Evidence showed that management generally condoned racially related comments made by African-American supervisors and co-workers who frequently voiced a "black versus white" mentality at the work place. The Commission ordered the agency to pay complainant $10,000.00 in compensatory damages and to provide training to all management and staff at the facility. See Brown v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060042 (April 11, 2007).
• In April 2007, EEOC reached a $900,000 settlement in a lawsuit alleging that a geriatric center subjected 29 Black, Haitian and Jamaican employees to harassing comments because of race and national origin. The employees were also prohibited from speaking Creole, and were retaliated against by being subjected to discipline when they complained about their treatment. See EEOC v. Flushing Manor Geriatric Center, Inc. d/b/a William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, No. 05-4061 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2007).
• In January 2007, EEOC settled a racial harassment lawsuit against AK Steel Corporation, a Fortune 500 company, for $600,000. The evidence in that case was both severe and pervasive because the workplace featured Nazi symbols, racially graphic and threatening graffiti with messages to kill Black people, displays of nooses and swastikas in work areas open to Black employees, racial slurs and epithets, an open display of KKK videos in the employee lounge areas and circulation of political literature by David Duke, a known KKK leader. See EEOC v. AK Steel Corp., (Jan. 31, 2007).
• In November 2006, the EEOC resolved a Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, a nationwide meat processing company, discriminated against Black maintenance department employees at its chicken processing plant in Ashland, Alabama, by subjecting them to a racially hostile work environment, which included a “Whites Only” sign on a bathroom in the maintenance department and a padlock on the bathroom door to which only White employees were given keys. The complaint also alleged that the two Charging Parties were retaliated against when they were suspended for minor issues within a few months of complaining about racial conditions at the plant. Thirteen Black employees intervened in the Commission action alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and various state law provisions. Pursuant to a 3-year consent decree, 13 complainants would receive $871,000 and attorney’s fees and costs. See EEOC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., cv-05-BE-1704-E (N.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 2006).
• In September 2006, EEOC sued one of the largest independent tire companies in the nation because it allegedly subjected a Native American employee to continuous race-based harassment, which included co-workers calling him derogatory names and making insulting jokes about Native Americans, over a period of years and then fired him when he continued to complain about the mistreatment. In July 2008, the company agreed to pay $185,000 and furnish other corrective measures to settle a racial harassment lawsuit. See EEOC v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of Montana, Inc., No. 06-149-M-DWM (D. Mont. July 1, 2008).
• In July 2006, Home Depot paid $125,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The suit alleged that a Black former night crew lumberman/forklift operator was subjected to a racially hostile work environment because management condoned racial remarks by his supervisors who called him “black dog,” “black boy,” a “worthless [racial epithet]” and told him that the Supreme Court had found black people to be “inferior.” See EEOC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 05-11921 (D. Mass. July 13, 2006).
• In March 2006, a commercial coating company agreed to pay $1 million to settle an EEOC case that alleged that a Black employee was subjected to racially hostile environment that included frequent verbal and physical abuse that culminated in him being choked by a noose in the company bathroom until he lost consciousness. See EEOC v. Commercial Coating Serv., Inc., No. H-03-3984 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 2006).
• In February 2006, the Commission affirmed an AJ’s finding that complainant had been subjected to hostile work environment discrimination based on race (African-American) when a noose was placed in his work area. Although based on a single incident, the noose was a sufficiently severe racial symbol with violent implications that equates to a death threat. As such, the incident altered the condition of complainant’s employment. Complainant was awarded $35,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, restoration of annual and sick leave, and $34,505.87 in attorney’s fees. The agency was ordered to provide racial harassment training to all employees at the activity. See Tootle v. Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40127 (Feb. 10, 2006).
• In August 2005, the EEOC sued a Lockheed Martin facility in Hawaii for racial harassment and retaliation after it allegedly permitted a Latino supervisor and White co-workers to subject an African American electrician to racial jokes, slurs and threats daily for a year. Additionally, the employees told the electrician it would have been better if the South had won the Civil War and talked regularly about lynching and slavery. When the electrician complained about the harassment, he was terminated. In January 2008, the military contractor settled the lawsuit for $2.5 million, the largest amount ever obtained by the EEOC for a single person in a race discrimination case. The company also agreed to terminate the harassers and make significant policy changes to address any future discrimination. See EEOC v. Lockheed Martin, Civil No. 05-00479 SPK (D. Haw. settled Jan. 2, 2008).
• In March 2005, the Commission found that a federal employee’s supervisor subjected him to hostile work environment harassment when he used a historically-offensive racist slur (n-word) in the employee’s presence and at least once in reference to him; treated him less favorably than he did White employees; verbally abused him; and subjected him to hazardous working conditions because of complainant’s race (African-American). EEOC also found that the supervisor violated the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII when, standing behind the federal employee, he informed all employees that if they wanted to file an EEO complaint, they had to discuss it with him first. EEOC ordered the agency to determine complainant’s entitlement to compensatory damages; train the supervisor with regard to his obligations to eliminate discrimination in the federal workplace; and consider taking disciplinary action against the supervisor. See Whidbee v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01A40193 (March 31, 2005).
• In November 2004, in a case against an upstate New York a computer parts manufacturer, EEOC alleged that Native American employees were subjected to frequent name-calling, war whoops, and other derogatory statements (comments about being "on the warpath" and about scalpings, alcohol abuse, and living in tepees). The employees complained to several supervisors and the Human Resources Department, and the offending employees were occasionally warned, but the hostile environment continued. A consent decree required the company to pay $200,000 to the victims and enjoined future discrimination; to actively recruit Native Americans for available positions; to implement and publish a policy and procedure for addressing harassment and retaliation that includes an effective complaint procedure, and to report to EEOC on complaints of retaliation and harassment based on Native American heritage. See EEOC v. Dielectric Labs, Inc. (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2007), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/05annrpt/index.html#IID2.
• In November 2004, the Commission decided that, although racially charged comments were only made on one day, the nature of the comments, which included several racial slurs, was sufficiently severe to render work environment hostile. See Nicholas v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01A43603 (November 4, 2004).
• In September 2004, the Commission affirmed an AJ’s finding that a Caucasian registered nurse had been subjected to racial harassment and constructive discharge. The AJ found that for approximately two and one-half years Black Health Technicians refused to comply with her orders while following the orders of African American nurses; that one Health Technician told complainant that she would not take orders from a White nurse; and that Technicians screamed, banged on doors, blocked complainant’s exit when complainant asked for assistance. The AJ found that the harassment ultimately led to proposed disciplinary action and complainant’s constructive discharge. The agency was ordered to reinstate complainant to a Registered Nurse position in a different work area, with back pay and benefits, pay complainant $10,000 in compensatory damages, and provide training to her former unit. See Menard v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40004 (September 29, 2004), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05A50175 (January 18, 2005); http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/05a50175.txt.

Retaliation

• In July 2006, EEOC reached a $100,000 settlement in its Title VII lawsuit against a Springfield, Missouri grocery chain alleging that a Black assistant manager was subjected to racially derogatory comments and epithets and was permanently suspended in retaliation for complaining about his store manager’s racial harassment of him and the manager’s sexual harassment of another worker. See EEOC v. Roswil, Inc. d/b/a Price Cutters Supermarket, No. 06-3287-CV-S-WAK (W.D. Mo. July 27, 2006).
• In March 2006, the Commission obtained $2 million for approximately 50 claimants in this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant subjected employees in its three Illinois restaurant/gift stores to sex and race discrimination and retaliation, causing the constructive discharge of some employees. Female employees were subjected to offensive sexual comments and touching by managers and coworkers; Black employees to racially derogatory language, and directives to wait on customers that White employees refused to serve and to work in the smoking section; and a White employee to racially offensive language because of her association with a Black employee. The 2-year consent decree prohibits the company from engaging in sex and race discrimination and retaliation at the three stores. See EEOC v. David Maus Toyota, Civil Action No. 6:05cv-1452-ORL-28-KRS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2007).
• In November 2005, the EEOC obtained a $317,000 settlement in a Title VII case alleging that an extended stay hotel business discharged and otherwise retaliated against a district manager (DM) for six properties in Georgia, Alabama, and Virginia because she complained about race discrimination. The DM, a White female, e-mailed Defendant’s Chief Operating Officer in September 2001 expressing her concerns about the exclusion of African Americans and other racial minorities from management positions. Despite being considered a stellar performer, following her e-mail, the DM was reprimanded, threatened with a PIP, accused of being disloyal to the company, and terminated. The 24-month consent decree applies to all of Defendant’s facilities in Georgia and include requirements that Defendant create and institute a nonretaliation policy, advise all employees that it will not retaliate against them for complaining about discrimination, and instruct all management and supervisory personnel about the terms of the decree and provide them with annual training on Title VII’s equal employment obligations, including nonretaliation. See EEOC v. InTown Suites Management, Inc., No. 1:03-CV-1494-RLV (N.D. Ga. Nov. 21, 2005).
• In February 2005, EEOC settled a retaliation case against Burger King for $65,000, on behalf of a Caucasian manager who was terminated after refusing to comply with a Black customer’s preference that a “white boy” not make her sandwich. See EEOC v. Star City LLC d/b/a Burger King, No. 6:03-cv-00077 (W.D. Va. consent decree filed Feb. 11, 2005).

Discharge

• In January 2008, the Commission upheld an AJ's finding of race and color discrimination where a probationary employee was terminated from his position of Part-Time Flexible Letter Carrier. Although complainant was a probationary employee, the record reflected that he worked at the same level or better than other full-time carriers. The Commission found that, as no other probationary employee was available as a comparator, complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination by creating an inference of race and color discrimination. Further, the Commission found that the agency failed to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating complainant because the responsible management official failed to specify a standard to which complainant was compared when he determined that complainant was not performing at an acceptable level. Complainant was reinstated to his position with backpay. See Artis v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070032 (February 4, 2008).
• In October 2007, a trial court determined that EEOC is entitled to a trial on its claim that a Toyota car dealership engaged in a wholesale elimination of Blacks in management when it demoted and ultimately terminated all of its African American managers because of their race. See EEOC v. David Maus Toyota, Civil Action No. 6:05cv-1452-ORL-28-KRS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2007).
• In September 2007, EEOC filed suit against a Minneapolis-based company that provides contract human resources services to more than 37,000 entities, allegedly disciplined and fired a Ph.D. social worker because of his race (African American) and his complaints about race discrimination. According to the Title VII lawsuit, the six-year employee had his work scrutinized more critically than non-Black employees, was placed on a performance improvement plan because of his race, and was fired when he complained despite his excellent performance history and numerous awards. See EEOC v. Ceridian Corp., Civil Action No. 07-cv-4086 (D. Minn. 2007).
• In July 2007, the EEOC received a favorable jury verdict in its Title VII lawsuit against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P) alleging that a Black senior manager terminated a White manager because of his race. The jury concluded the White manager was discharged solely because of his race and awarded approximately $85,000 in monetary relief. See EEOC v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., C.A. No. 1:05-cv-01211-JFM (D.Md. verdict filed July 30, 2007).
• In December 2005, the Commission resolved for $145,000 this Title VII case alleging that a global company discharged a traffic clerk in a Colorado warehouse, based on his race (Black) and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The traffic clerk asserted that, prior to his discharge, his coworker, a White woman, 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, that she was afraid to be around certain people of color, and that a customer was entitled use the “n-word” in reference to the clerk based on freedom of speech. The clerk told her she should take her hood off and not burn a cross on his lawn. Defendant investigated the racial incidents, but failed to interview two Black employee witnesses and fired the clerk in part for the hood and cross comment he made. Neither the White coworker nor the supervisors who witnessed the racial incidents were disciplined. The 3-year consent decree enjoins defendant’s Golden, Colorado facility from discriminating on the basis of race and from retaliation. See EEOC v. Exel, Inc., No. 04-CV-2005-RPM-BNB (D. Col. Dec. 20, 2005).

TYPES OF RACE/COLOR DISCRIMINATION

Color Discrimination

• In December 2007, the EEOC sued a discount retail chain when a a light skinned Black female manager subjected darker skinned African American employees to a hostile and abusive work environment because of their color. The lawsuit alleged that the manager told one employee she looked as “black as charcoal” and repeatedly called her “charcoal” until she quit. See EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,(No. 07 C 6996 (N.D. Ill. filed Dec. 13, 2007).
• In March 2007, EEOC filed suit against a national video store because a Bangladeshi employee alleged that after she was assigned to be store manager of a Staten Island location, she was told by her district supervisor that Staten Island was a predominantly white neighborhood and that she should change her dark skin color if she wanted to work in the area. The supervisor also allegedly told her that she really should be working in Harlem with her dark skin color and threatened to terminate her if she did not accept a demotion and a transfer to the Harlem store. See Intervenor’s Declaration in Support of Motion to Intervene at ¶¶ 13-14. EEOC v. Blockbuster, Inc., C.A. No. 07-2221 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y. filed June 12, 2007). [1]
• In May 2006, the Commission won a Title VII case filed on behalf of Asian Indian legal aliens who were victims of human trafficking, enslavement, and job segregation because of their race, national origin, and dark-skinned color. See Chellen & EEOC v. John Pickle Co., Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 1069 (N.D. Okl. 2006).[2]
• In August 2003, the EEOC obtained a $40,000 settlement on behalf of an African American former employee who was discriminated against based on his dark skin color by a light skinned African American manager, and terminated when he complained to corporate headquarters. See EEOC v. Applebee’s Int’l Inc., No. 1:02-CV-829 (D. Ga. Aug. 7, 2003), http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-07-03.html.

Same Race Discrimination

• In July 2006, EEOC settled a Title VII action against a Dallas-based HIV service agency, in which four Black employees were allegedly racially harassed by the center’s founder and former Executive Director, who is also African American. The persistent same-race harassment – which was reported to management and the Board of Directors – included graphic language, racial slurs and pejorative insults. Although it ceased operations, the agency agreed to pay $200,000 to the aggrieved employees. See EEOC v. Renaissance III, No. 3:05-1063-B (N.D. Tex. July 19, 2006).
• In March 2006, EEOC filed a Title VII suit alleging that a Texas transportation shuttle service discriminated against African American drivers in favor of native African drivers by denying them the more profitable routes, sending them to destinations where no passengers awaited pickup, and misappropriating tips earned by the Black American drivers and instead giving them to the African drivers. In November 2007, the district court ruled in favor of the EEOC.  The judgment prohibits Ethio Express’s President, Berhane T. Tesfamariam , and his business partner Mohammed Bedru from engaging in other discriminatory practices in the future.  The judgment also assesses $37,197.00 in monetary damages against Ethio Express. See EEOC v. Ethio Express Shuttle Service, Inc. dba Texans Super Shuttle, No. H-06-1096 (S.D. Tex. judgment entered Nov. 2007).
• In September 1998, an EEOC AJ properly decided that a Black male hospital director who abused all employees was not insulated from liability for racially harassing an African American female where evidence showed that she was the target of more egregious and public abuse than other employees. Evidence revealed that the director told her he only hired because she is a Black woman, he often used profanity toward her, referred to her by race and gender slurs, singled her out for verbal abuse in front of other employees, told plaintiff to "get your black ass out of here", and told her and other black managers they better not file EEO complaints. See Veterans Admin., EEOC No. 140-97-8374x-RNS (Sept. 21, 1998).

Intersectional Discrimination/Harassment

• Race/Age
  • In October 2007, the EEOC resolved a discrimination lawsuit alleging race and age discrimination for $48,000. The EEOC had charged that a South Carolina beauty salon violated federal law by refusing to promote a 51-year-old African American stylist. Between June and September 2006, three employees resigned from the salon manager position and in filling the salon manager position all three times, the salon selected a succession of three white employees from other salons whose ages ranged from late teens to early 20s even though the Black stylist was more than qualified to fill the position. See EEOC v. Regis Corporation d/b/a SmartStyle, Civil Action No.7:06-cv-02734 (D.S.C. settled October 5, 2007).
  • In June 2007, the Commission affirmed its decision that complainant, a 48-year old Black male Supervisory Deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service, was not selected for the position of Assistant Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal because of race, gender, and age discrimination when the agency’s Career Board selected a 34-year old Caucasian female based on her academy achievement, work experience and interview. The Commission found that the record showed that complainant's qualifications were observably superior to those of the selectee, and concluded that the agency's stated reasons for not selecting complainant for the position in question were a pretext for discrimination. The agency was ordered to appoint complainant to the position of Assistant Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal, with back pay and benefits, and pay complainant $50,000.00 and attorney's fees. See Washington v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060092 (February 8, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520070324 (June 15, 2007).
  • In November 2006, the EEOC affirmed an AJ’s findings that a federal employee complainant was not selected for promotion to Team Leader based on race (African American), sex (female) and age (DOB 2/14/54), notwithstanding her qualifications, and that she was subjected to discriminatory harassment by the same management official. The decision awarded complainant a retroactive promotion with back pay, $150,000 in compensatory damages and attorneys fees and costs. See Goodridge v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050026 (November15, 2006).
  • In June 2006, a Newark port facility paid $28,500 to settle a race and age discrim­ination lawsuit brought by EEOC, which alleged that the facility’s new manager mistreated and then fired a 56-year-old African American customer service representative, who was the only Black and oldest of seven employees, because of her race and age. See EEOC v. Port Elizabeth Terminal & Warehouse, Civil Action 05-cv-4828 (WJM) (D.N.J. June 22, 2006).
  • In August 2005, EEOC filed suit on behalf of two older workers who allegedly were denied promotions based on their race (Black) and their ages (50 and 53), despite their extensive relevant experience of 13+ years. Instead of promoting one older Black employee, the Pennsylvania health care company promoted a 28-year old Caucasian employee with seven months of experience and who did not meet the stated criteria for the position. See EEOC v. Mainline Health Care, No.05-cv-4092(CN) (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2005).
• Race/Disability
  • In July 2008, the EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that a telemarketing company’s immediate termination of Black employee following a diabetic episode at work violated Title VII and the ADA. See EEOC v. RMG Communications, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-0947-JDT-TAB (S.D. Ind. filed July 14, 2008).
  • In November 2007, the Commission upheld an Administrative Judge’s finding of discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and disability (cervical strain/sprain) when complainant was not accommodated with a high back chair. The agency was ordered to provide complainant with backpay for the period she was out of work due to the failure to accommodate, and complainant was awarded $2,250 in compensatory damages. See Jones v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070069 (November 8, 2007).
  • An EEOC Administrative Judge’s finding that a blanket policy excluding employees with Type I and II Diabetes adversely impacted African Americans and Native Americans resulted in a settlement and change in policy.
  • In June 2005, an AJ found direct evidence of retaliation and circumstantial evidence of race discrimination where the agency's managers did not act on the Black complainant's plea for mail handling assistance for many months before the complainant injured himself. The managers told him that he should have thought of this [that he might need future assistance from them] before he filed his [previous] EEO complaint. They also treated him differently than non-Black employees. The complainant suffered debilitating and career-ending shoulder, neck, arm, and back injuries and lapsed into a major depression. The AJ awarded 28 months of back pay and 24 months of from pay; lost benefits; compensatory damages of $120,000 for physical and mental pain and suffering; and approximately $40,000 in attorney's fees and costs. See USPS, EEOC Hearing No. 370-2004-00099X (June 21, 2005).
  • In April 2004, a letter carrier prevailed in part on his federal sector complaint alleging employment discrimination based on race/national origin (Asian), disability (PTSD), and retaliation. The allegations included that the Postal facility forced him to remain in a plywood shack for hours each day; disabled postal workers were routinely assigned to “the Box,” as it was called, while non-disabled workers were never assigned to “the Box;” employees consigned to “the Box” did not have a telephone, radio, computer, or any other equipment with which to perform any work and were not given any work assignments; and the disabled employees were required to knock on a little window in “the Box” when they needed to use to the restroom. AJ found that the Agency discriminated against this letter carrier on the basis of disability when it forced him to remain in the plywood shack, and when it denied him leave, but decided the remaining claims in the favor of the agency. The Commission affirmed the AJ’s decision awarding $75,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages, restoration of sick leave, payment of attorneys fees and other expenses, and the dismantling of “the Box.” See USPS, EEOC Hearing No. 270-2003-090077X (April 20, 2004).
• Race/Gender
  • In March 2007, EEOC upheld an AJ’s finding that complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment on the bases of her race (African American) and sex (female) when management: yelled at complainant; refused to communicate with her on work matters; failed to assist her; interfered with her work; removed her space leasing duties and responsibilities which fundamentally changed the nature of her position; and engaged in an effort to get her off the leasing team. Remedial relief included back pay, benefits including reimbursement of leave, compensatory damages and attorney’s fees, posting of a notice, training, and recommended disciplinary action against the responsible management officials. See Burton v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050066 (March 6, 2007).
  • In December 2004, the Commission affirmed an AJ’s finding that a Black female complainant was subjected to discrimination on the basis of her race and sex with regard to the processing and approval of her application for telecommuting and her request for advanced sick leave. The Commission noted that, while complainant was asked to provide additional information concerning child care and told that she would have to submit to a home inspection, a White male employee who also had children at home was not asked to do so. The agency was ordered to pay complainant $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, expunge any derogatory materials relating to complainant’s performance, and pay attorney’s fees and costs. See Ellis-Balone v. Department of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 07A30125 (December 29, 2004).
  • In September 2004, an AJ determined that a Black male complainant was subjected to race discrimination when he was not selected for an EEO Specialist (Mediator) position despite having performed the duties of the position in the area in which he applied. Testimony in the record showed that the approving official was biased against those of complainant’s race, particularly males. In addition, it was suspected that none of the seven members of complainant’s race who had been performing the Mediator duties were selected for the position, while the one individual outside of complainant’s race was chosen. See McMillian v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 07A40088 (September 28, 2004), requests for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 05A50171 (December 13, 2004), & EEOC Request No. 05A50361 (April 25, 2005).
• Race/National Origin
  • In November 2007, a high-end suburban Illinois retirement facility agreed to pay $125,000 to settle a discrimination lawsuit alleging that it terminated its director of nursing, because of her national origin (Filipino) and race (Asian). The federal district court approved a two-year consent decree requiring the facility to provide training regarding anti-discrimination laws to all its employees; post a notice informing its employees of the consent decree; report to the EEOC any complaints of discrimination made by its employees; and take affirmative steps to recruit Asian nurses. See EEOC v. Presbyterian Homes, Case No. 07 C 5443 (N.D. Ill.  Nov. 28, 2007).
  • In September 2007, the Commission filed a Title VII suit against a popular pizzeria based in Ferndale, Mich., alleging that it violated federal law when it told two qualified Black job seekers for waitress positions, one of whom is African and spoke with an accent, on two separate occasions that it had run out of applications but hired a White applicant as a waitress later the same day without requiring her to fill out an application. See EEOC v. Cosmo’s, Case No. 2:07CV14091 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 27, 2007).
  • In March 2007, MBNA-America agreed to pay $147,000 to settle a Title VII lawsuit alleging discrimination and harassment based on race and national origin. According to the lawsuit, an Asian Indian employee was subjected to ethnic taunts, such as being called “dot-head” and “Osama Bin Laden,” was physically attacked by a coworker with a learning disability who believed he was Osama’s brother, and was denied training and promotional opportunities afforded to his White coworkers. See EEOC v. MBNA-America (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2007).
  • In December 2006, a New York apple farm agreed to pay $100,000 to Jamaican migrant workers holding H-2B worker’s visas who were allegedly subjected them to different terms and conditions of employment on the basis of their race (African-Caribbean), color (black), and national origin (Jamaican). EEOC asserted in the lawsuit that the farm harassed Jamaican migrant workers and forced them to pay rent while permitting non-Jamaicans to live in housing rent-free in violation of Title VII. See EEOC v. Porpiglia Farms, Civil Action No.06-cv-1124 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006).
  • In August 2006, EEOC filed a Title VII lawsuit on behalf of a dining manager who was Arab and Moroccan because he and an Arab waiter from Tunisia allegedly had been subjected to customer harassment based on race and national origin and then the manager was fired in retaliation for opposing the harassment. According to the Commission’s investigation, when the dining manager complained, the customer turned on him, saying, “If you don’t like it, why don’t you go back to your country?” and “I fought two wars to get rid of people like you!” See EEOC v. Albion River Inn, No. C-06-5356 SI (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006).
  • In July 2006, EEOC filed a Title VII suit alleging discrimination based on race, national origin, and color against a convenience store distributor. According to the suit, a Black employee from West Guinea, Africa was subjected to verbal and physical harassment and then fired when he complained. See EEOC v. Eby-Brown, LLC, No. 1:06-CV-1083-SEB-VSS (S.D. Ind. July 26, 2006).
  • In January 2006, the Commission settled for $200,000 a case against Bally North America filed on behalf of a former manager of its Honolulu store who was harassed and fired due to her Asian race and Chinese national origin. See EEOC v. Bally North America, Inc., No. 05-000631 (D. Haw. Jan. 2006).
• Race/Pregnancy
  • In July 2008, a Florida laundry services company agreed to pay $80,000 and furnish other remedial relief to settle an EEOC discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC had charged that a black Haitian laundry worker at Sodexho Laundry Services, Inc. lost her job because of her race, national origin and pregnancy. The employee had developed complications early in her pregnancy, obtained a light duty assignment, but was not permitted to continue her light duty assignment after her doctor imposed lifting restrictions even though Hispanic managers routinely assigned pregnant Hispanic women to light duty work at the same time she was being denied the same opportunity. See EEOC v. Sodexho Laundry Services, Inc. (S.D. Fla. settled  July 2008).
  • In October 2006, EEOC obtained a $30,600 settlement in Title VII suit, alleging that a California-based office equipment supplier had fired an accounts payable specialist because she was African-American and because she had been pregnant, when it told her that after she returned from maternity leave, her assignment was complete and there were no other positions in the accounting department, permanently placed a non-Black, non-pregnant female who she had trained to fill-in during her maternity leave in her former position, and a week later hired a non-Black male to work in another accounting position in the same department. See EEOC v. Taylor Made Digital Systems, Inc., No. C-05-3952 JCS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2006).
• Race/Religion
  • In September 2006, EEOC sued an Oregon video company because allegedly two employees, an African American who was converting to Judaism and a Hispanic with some Jewish ancestry, who began working for Video Only in early 2005, were forced to endure repeated racial, religious, and national origin jokes, slurs and derogatory comments made by employees and upper management since the beginning of their employment. EEOC also charged that the company then engaged in a series of acts designed to punish the victims for complaining and to ridicule those who corroborated the complaints. See EEOC v. Video Only (D. Or. Sep. 25, 2006).
  • In August 2006, EEOC sued a cocktail lounge for race and religious discrimination because it refused to promote an African American employee who wears a headscarf in observance of her Muslim faith to be a cocktail server because the owner said she was looking only for what she termed “hot, white girls.” See EEOC v. Starlight Lounge, No. CV-06-3075-AAM (E.D. Wash. Aug. 2006).

Associational Discrimination

• In July 2007, EEOC sued a steakhouse restaurant chain for permitting its customers to harass a White employee because of her association with persons of a different race. The case settled for $75,000 and injunctive relief which included mandatory EEO training for managers, supervisors and employees. See EEOC v. Ponderosa Steakhouse, No. 1:06-cv-142-JDT-TAB (S.D. Ind. settled July 3, 2007).
• In August 2006, EEOC sued a wholesaler book company for verbally harassing a white female employee after the owner learned she had biracial children. The suit also alleged that the owner made sex and race-based insults to a class of other employees based on their race (Black) and/or gender (female) and retaliated against them when the complained or cooperated with the EEOC’s investigation. See EEOC v. Books for Less, C.A. No. 06-4577 (E.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 24, 2006).
• In May 2006, EEOC settled a hostile work environment case against a retail furniture store chain for $275,000. The store manager allegedly made racially and sexually offensive remarks to a Black employee, referred to the African Americans as “you people” and interracial couples as “Oreos” or “Zebras,” and disparaged the employee for marrying a Caucasian man. See EEOC v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp., No. 8:04-cv-T24-TBM (M.D. Fla. May 16, 2006).
• In April 2006, the Commission resolved a race discrimination lawsuit challenging the termination of a White female employee who worked without incident for a hotel and conference center until management saw her biracial children. See EEOC v. Jax Inn’s/Spindrifter Hotel, No. 3:04-cv-978-J-16-MMH (M.D. Fla. April 2006).[3]
• In January 2004, the Commission affirmed an AJ’s finding that complainant was subjected to associational race discrimination (African-American who associates with White employees). The record showed that complainant had a close working relationship with White managers, which the selecting official held against her because of her race. The record evidence showed that the selecting official’s actions in not choosing complainant for the position were intended to show the White managers that they were not running the region, and that he had a philosophy of rewarding African-American employees who aligned themselves with him instead of those, like complainant, who aligned themselves with White managers. See Wiggins v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 07A30048 (January 22, 2004), request for reconsideration pending, EEOC Request No. 05A40478.

Biracial Discrimination

• In September 2006, EEOC sued a Virginia steel contractor, charging that it subjected a biracial (Black/White) employee to harassment based on race and color and then retaliated against him when he complained. See EEOC v. Bolling Steel Co., Civ. Action No. 7:06-000586 (W.D. Va. Filed Sept. 29, 2006).
• In March 2004, the EEOC settled a hostile work environment case in which a Caucasian-looking employee, who had a White mother and Black father, was repeatedly subjected to racially offensive comments about Black people after a White coworker learned she was biracial. When the employee complained, she was told to “pray about it” or “leave” by the owner; the employee resigned. The company agreed to pay $45,000 to the biracial employee, to create a policy on racial harassment, and to train the owner, managers and employees about how to prevent and address race discrimination in the workplace. See EEOC v.Jefferson Pain & Rehabilitation Center, No. 03-cv-1329 (W.D. Pa. settled March 10, 2004).

Code Words

• In September 2007, the EEOC filed a Title VII racial harassment case against a food and beverage distributor, alleging that the company subjected a Black employee to a racially hostile work environment when a co-worker repeatedly called him “Cornelius” in reference to an ape character from the movie, “Planet of the Apes,” management officials were aware of the term’s racially derogatory reference to the employee and an ape character from the movie, but terminated his employment once he objected to the racial harassment. See EEOC v. Dairy Fresh Foods, Inc., No. 2:07CV14085 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2007).
• In August 2007, a San Jose body shop agreed to pay $45,000 to settle a sexual and racial harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC, in which a male auto body technician of Chinese and Italian ancestry was taunted daily by his foreman with sexual comments, racial stereotypes and code words, including calling him “Bruce Lee.” The company also agreed to establish an internal complaint procedure, disseminate an anti-harassment policy, and train its workforce to prevent future harassment. See EEOC v. Monterey Collision Frame and Auto Body, Inc., No. 5:06-cv-06032-JF (N.D. Cal. consent decree filed August 30, 2007).
• In August 2007, the Commission settled for $44,000 a lawsuit against a California medical clinic, alleging that a White supervisor used racial code words, such as “reggin” (“nigger” spelled backwards), to debase and intimidate an African American file clerk and then fired her after she complained. The clinic also agreed to incorporate a zero-tolerance policy concerning discriminatory harassment and retaliation into its internal EEO and anti-harassment policies. See EEOC v. Robert G. Aptekar, M.D., d/b/a Arthritis & Orthopedic Medical Clinic, Civ. No. C06-4808 MHP (N.D. Cal. consent decree filed Aug. 20, 2007).
• In March 2006, the Commission obtained $562,470 in a Title VII lawsuit against the eighth largest automobile retailer in the U.S. EEOC alleged that shortly after a new White employee was transferred to serve as the new General Manager (GM), he engaged in disparate treatment of the Black employee and made racial remarks to him, such as using “BP time” (Black people time) and remarking that he’d fired “a bunch of you people already.” The new GM also berated the personnel coordinator for assisting the Black employee with his complaint and intensified his harassment of him until the employee resigned. The 4-year consent decree prohibits defendants from engaging in future discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. See EEOC v. Lithia Motors, Inc., d/b/a Lithia Dodge of Cherry Creek, No. 1:05-cv-01901 (D. Colo. March 8, 2006).

---

[1] The employee was also subjected to national origin discrimination based on her name and accent when the district supervisor allegedly excluded the employee from staff meetings because he said the other employees could not understand her accent and asked her to change her name because the customers could not pronounce it. Decl. at ¶¶17-18.

[2] For another human trafficking case, see EEOC v. Trans Bay Steel, Inc., No. 06-07766 (C.D. Cal. complaint filed 2006) (nearly $1 million settlement of national origin discrimination case in which 48 Thai welders paid exorbitant recruitment fees to an agency that kept them in involuntary servitude, and had their passports confiscated by employers that forced them to work without pay and threatened them with arrest if they tried to escape their slave-like, squalid conditions).

[3] As the Sixth Circuit explained: “A white employee who is discharged because his child is biracial is discriminated against on the basis of his race, even though the root animus for the discrimination is a prejudice against the biracial child” because “the essence of the alleged discrimination . . . is the contrast in races.” Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, & GMC Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988, 994-95 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding employee stated a claim under Title VII when he alleged that company owner discriminated against him after his biracial child visited him at work).