The Seattle District Office filed this Title VII suit alleging that defendant, a leading national manufacturer of processed meat snacks, failed to accommodate the religious beliefs of Muslim packers in its Kent, Washington plant and discharged them based on religion. In spring 2002 defendant hired the Muslim packers, all Somalian with limited English skills, for the day shift (7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.). The Somali employees took 2- to 5-minute breaks throughout the workday for some of the five Muslim daily prayers without incident. Before the month of Ramadan began in 2003, the company announced that it was switching to a 12-hour day shift (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). The Somali employees (and a translator) met with supervisors to request a few (3-5) minutes off to pray and break their fast at sunset during the month of Ramadan. Defendant refused, even though the employees agreed to have the time taken out of their regular breaks or to clock out for the short time period involved. Defendant proposed the option of transferring the Somali employees to other shifts during Ramadan, but it was not clear whether there would be openings on the other shifts and whether the employees would be able to return to their regular shift. After Ramadan began, the Somali employees took 2- to 4-minute breaks each day at sunset. Defendant warned and then terminated them, even though the breaks did not affect production.
Under the 5-year consent decree resolving this case, defendants will pay six claimants a total of $362,000 in monetary relief (which includes $350,000 accepted in response to a Rule 68 offer of judgment). Defendant is enjoined from engaging in religious discrimination and will not retaliate as defined in Title VII. Defendant will provide an interpreter when communicating to Somali-speaking employees about personnel related issues.
In this Title VII case, the New York District Office alleged that defendants Fuller Oil Co. and Fuller's Convenience Store subjected female employees at various New Hampshire locations to a sexually hostile work environment; the District Office also alleged constructive discharge and retaliatory discharge. Defendants' owner, Frederick Fuller, subjected several female employees to lewd language, sexual advances, and unwelcome touching. After a particularly unsettling incident, one charging party quit her job and filed a criminal sexual assault complaint. Fuller discharged women who opposed his conduct, and forced a woman out of the company because she refused to lie about the harassment to investigators.
Under the consent decree resolving this case, which will expire on December 31, 2008, the oil company and its owner, Frederick Fuller, who was added to the suit as a defendant by intervenors, will be jointly and severally liable for paying a total of $780,000 in monetary relief to five women in three installments over 1 year (upon entry of the decree, 6 months after entry, and 1 year after entry). (The Convenience Store was released from obligations under the decree, as it is no longer owned or operated by Fred Fuller.) The women will receive cumulative amounts ranging from $220,000 to $70,000 each. The decree requires defendants to provide a work environment free from sex discrimination and sexual harassment and prohibits retaliation against any employee who exercises his or her rights under Title VII.
Defendants will contract with Employment Practices Group (EPG) of North Andover, Massachusetts, to develop EEO and harassment policies and complaint procedures and implement them for the duration of the decree at Fuller Oil's facilities throughout New Hampshire. If EPG determines that Frederick Fuller has sexually harassed any employee, Frederick Fuller will take appropriate remedial steps recommended by EPG including issuing a statement pledging to cease such conduct. Julie Moore, an attorney with EPG, will provide Frederick Fuller with 8 hours of sensitivity training, and she will provide the other managers with sexual harassment training outside Fred Fuller's presence. For the duration of the decree, Fuller Oil will post a notice at all of its business locations informing employees of: (1) the resolution of the lawsuit, (2) defendants' obligations thereunder regarding sex discrimination, and (3) employees' right to file a charge with the EEOC or the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights. Fuller Oil will submit quarterly reports to the EEOC on sexual harassment complaints and their resolution, and Frederick Fuller will sign a statement as part of the final report verifying his and Fuller Oil's compliance with the decree.
In this ADA action, the Detroit District Office alleged that defendant, a soft drink bottling company, failed to accommodate charging party's disability, diabetes, and discharged him from his position in its Detroit warehouse due to his disability. After 17 years as a delivery driver for defendant, charging party was diagnosed with diabetes. Three years later he was diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes, which meant that he was no longer qualified under the then-applicable U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations to transport goods in interstate commerce. Defendant refused to place charging party in an alternative position (warehouse loader) because he did not pass a Physical Ability Test (PAT) applicable to the position, even though charging party's delivery driver job was at least as physically demanding as the loader position. Defendant's procedures did not allow for an individualized assessment of a person's ability to perform the job. Defendant discharged charging party in April 2002.
Under the 18-month consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $75,000 in monetary relief. Charging party declined defendant's offer (made after defendant received the charge) to reinstate him into the warehouse loader position with seniority to November 2002. Defendant will make good faith efforts to help charging party obtain a DOT waiver, and if he obtains the waiver, defendant will consider him for a driver position in its Detroit warehouse if one is available. Defendant will not give the PAT to any current employee seeking a transfer into a loader, route salesman, or merchandiser position if the employee has safely and adequately performed an equally or more physically demanding job for defendant. Also, defendant will prepare materials advising applicants who may have disabilities of their right to seek a reasonable accommodation in taking the PAT. Defendant will not discriminate against employees under the ADA.
The Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant, a New York/New Jersey area construction firm that specializes in interior renovations for large businesses, subjected charging party, a project manager in its Jersey City office, to a sexually hostile work environment. Defendant promoted charging party to project manager in June 1999. Starting in December 1999, and continuing throughout charging party's employment, defendant's vice president subjected her to unwelcome sexual conduct, including sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, degrading comments, and offensive touching. Defendant had no written sexual harassment policy. Charging party complained to defendant's chief operating officer (COO) after egregious incidents at the company's 1999 and 2002 Christmas parties. The COO reported charging party's 1999 complaints to defendant's president/CEO and defendant made the vice president apologize. However, the vice president told charging party that the president asked him (using crude language) if he was having sexual relations with her. This led charging party to believe that the president had not taken her complaint seriously. The harassment continued until April 2003, when defendant closed its New Jersey office and laid charging party off.
Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $125,000 in monetary relief. The decree provides that defendant will not engage in retaliation as defined in Title VII. Defendant has established a sexual harassment policy that includes a procedure to report violations of the policy to individuals in identified job categories.
In its Title VII complaint, the Milwaukee District Office alleged that defendant, a distributor of lubricants and fuel for industrial use, failed to promote charging party into a field sales representative position because of her sex, female. When she applied for the open position, charging party had worked as an inside sales representative for 2 years with defendant and had 3 years experience in the oil industry with a prior employer. Defendant's promotion policy stated that first consideration for vacant positions would be given to current employees and that it preferred to promote from within when possible. Defendant did not consider charging party for the field sales representative position, instead hiring a male candidate from outside the company who lacked experience in the oil industry, although he did have more sales experience than charging party. All of defendant's five field sales representatives were men. Defendant admitted during EEOC's investigation that its vice president told charging party that defendant's was a male dominated business and that he didn't want to set her up to fail.
Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay charging party $80,000, consisting of $50,000 in backpay and $30,000 in compensatory damages. The decree provides that defendant will not discriminate on the basis of sex or engage in retaliation under Title VII. For the duration of the decree, if defendant chooses to advertise in a newspaper of general circulation (such as the St. Paul Pioneer Press) to fill a field or outside sales representative position, it will also advertise the position in one or more media outlets that target women (such as the Minnesota Women's Press). Defendant also will recruit from sources and/or organizations aimed at women. Defendant will report every 6 months on applicants, including their sex, whether the applicant was interviewed, hired, or promoted, and the reasons for rejections.
In this ADA suit, the Milwaukee District Office alleged that Kindred, an in-house pharmacy operation serving nursing homes and health centers, refused to allow charging party to return to his pharmacy manager job after a medical leave of absence for cancer treatment. Charging party was the pharmacy manager for defendant's operations in Wisconsin, consisting of nine defendant-owned nursing homes. He had been in the position for just under a year and had improved the pharmacy operations when he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of skin cancer in October 2001. He took a medical leave of absence to have the nodes on his neck removed and undergo radiation treatment. His manager promised to hold the job open for him. As a result of the radiation treatment, charging party's salivary glands were damaged and destroyed, permanently impairing his ability to swallow and eliminating his sense of taste. After several months on leave, charging party contacted defendant in February 2002 about returning to work part-time and was told he could not return until he had a release allowing him to return full-time. He obtained the release the same day. Only then did defendant tell him it had permanently promoted the former assistant pharmacy manager into the pharmacy manager position.
Under the 1-year consent decree and order resolving this case, charging party will receive $100,000 in monetary relief. The decree provides that defendant will not discriminate against any employee based on disability or refuse to reasonably accommodate any disabled employee.
The New York District Office alleged that defendant, a global corporation which provides automation technology to industrial manufacturers, violated the ADEA when it failed to transfer charging party because of his age (54) and his complaints about age discrimination, and failed to rehire him because of his age and opposition to age discrimination. Charging party, the Northeast Regional Director of Rockwell's Global Manufacturing Solutions (GMS) division, was a 25-year employee of Rockwell and its predecessor with strong performance evaluations. When Rockwell eliminated his position in a reorganization in September 2002, it did not transfer him into the promised position of GMS Boston District Manager. Instead the hiring official selected a less senior and significantly younger manager for the position. Charging party e-mailed four senior managers including the hiring official to request a meeting to discuss his suspicions that age discrimination motivated the decision. Defendant declined to meet with him or investigate his complaint.
Charging party applied for a number of other positions for which he was qualified but was never interviewed. Defendant eventually offered him a significantly lower paying job in Virginia for which he had not applied. He accepted the offer and moved to Virginia, but quickly realized he was unsuited for the position and entered into a mutual separation agreement with defendant, under which he was terminated and received a severance package but remained eligible for open positions. He continued to apply for open positions for which he was qualified, but defendant did not hire him and instead selected younger and less experienced candidates. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving the case, defendant will pay charging party $180,000 in monetary relief in two equal installments, one after entry of the decree and the second in early 2006.
The Los Angeles District Office alleged that defendant, which supplies cabinetry to businesses and commercial construction sites in the Las Vegas, Nevada area, subjected six charging parties and several others (installers and helpers) to a hostile work environment based on their national origin (Hispanic) in violation of Title VII. Supervisors as well as coworkers committed the harassing conduct, which included humiliating physical and verbal assaults, insults, and ethnic epithets.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendants will pay up to $600,000 in monetary relief, consisting of $400,000 in damages for emotional distress to be apportioned among the charging parties and $200,000 to be held in escrow as a class fund for distribution as compensatory damages to eligible installers and helpers who submit timely claims. Within 12 months of entry, the EEOC will identify eligible claimants and determine the amount each will receive from the class fund, not to exceed $50,000 per person. The decree requires defendant to post a notice in at least three locations at each facility informing employees of the resolution of the lawsuit and defendant's obligations thereunder, and of their right to file a charge with the EEOC. Defendant must also hire an EEO consultant approved by EEOC to develop and implement discrimination and harassment policies and procedures, including internal EEO complaint procedures. Defendant will provide mandatory EEO training to managerial and human resources staff (2.5 hours) and to hourly staff (1.5 hours) once a year. Defendant will offer separate training sessions for staff in English and in Spanish and each employee may elect to take the training in whichever language he or she understands best.
The Chicago District Office alleged that defendant, operator of the Chicago Botanic Garden in Glencoe, Illinois, failed to accommodate charging party (who was the gift shop merchandiser coordinator) and discharged her due to her disability (multiple sclerosis (MS)). Charging party was diagnosed with MS in 2000. After working as the merchandiser coordinator for about 10 months, she experienced a major MS flareup triggered by uterine fibroid tumors. The MS flareup limited charging party's ability to walk and (due to numbness in her hands) perform manual tasks. Charging party's neurologist told her to stop working and to have surgery to remove the fibroids. Charging party commenced leave at the end of January 2003 and had surgery at the end of April. One month into charging party's leave, defendant hired a permanent replacement. When charging party attempted to return to work in mid-May, defendant terminated her, telling her that its leave policy had a 3-month maximum, and that it had no available jobs in the gift shop. Defendant did not explore job opportunities outside the gift shop.
Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, charging party will receive $95,000 in damages. The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against employees or applicants on the basis of disability and from failing to make reasonable accommodations for applicants or employees with disabilities. The decree also prohibits defendant from engaging in retaliation against individuals who engage in activities protected under the ADA.
This page was last modified on October 11, 2005.