FIGHT SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Captain’s Galley Sued By EEOC For Sexual Harassment And Retaliation

2010-12-07T17:09:00.000-05:00

Male Employee at Huntersville Restaurant Subjected Male Co-Workers to Sexual Touching and Obscene Displays, Federal Agency Charges

CHARLOTTE , N.C. – Huntersville Seafood, Inc. doing business as Captain’s Galley restaurant, violated federal law by subjecting male employees to a sexually hostile work environment and by firing one of its male employees for complaining, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today. Captain’s Galley is located off Interstate 77 in Huntersville, N.C.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, in 2007 and 2008 Peter Economos was subjected to sexual harassment by a male co-worker. The EEOC contends that on a daily or almost daily basis, the co-worker would touch, poke, or slap Economos on the buttocks, and occasionally would grab his private parts. The co-worker’s conduct also included explicit, obscene sexual gestures. The EEOC said that Economos complained about the sexual harassment to the company’s owner on at least two occasions but that no action was taken to stop the misconduct. Rather, the agency charged, Captain’s Galley discharged Economos in retaliation for his complaints.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that other male employees were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment at Captain’s Galley beginning in at least 2007. Specifically, other male workers were touched, poked, or slapped on their buttocks by the same male co-worker.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division ( Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Huntersville Seafood Inc., d/b/a Captain’s Galley, Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00624) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The agency seeks back pay for Economos, as well as compensatory and punitive damages for Economos and the other harassment victims.

“Sexual harassment is illegal and unacceptable, regardless of the gender of the perpetrators or the victims,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Charlotte District. “Furthermore, an employer is only making a bad situation worse by punishing a victim for complaining instead of addressing and solving the problem. The EEOC will step in when it must to defend the rights of sexual harassment victims.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Fleming’s Pays $248,750 To Three Men In EEOC Same-Sex Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

2010-12-07T17:01:00.000-05:00

Upscale Chain Settles After Litigation Revealed Head Chef Fondled Male Employees

PHOENIX —Fleming’s Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar, at DC Ranch in Scottsdale, Ariz., will pay nearly a quarter million dollars and furnish other relief to settle a same-sex sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s suit (CV-07683-PHX-SMM), which was brought in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix, charged that male employees who worked at Fleming’s in Scottsdale, a fine dining steak house, were sexually abused by the head chef, Tod Rawson. The evidence gathered during the EEOC’s investigation revealed that, among other things, Rawson frequently pinched or squeezed his subordinates’ private parts, flicked their genitals with his bare hands, and groped them from behind. Rawson even used kitchen utensils from the restaurant to touch his victims’ genitals through their clothing, the EEOC said. Evidence uncovered during the lawsuit also revealed that several managers at Fleming’s knew what was happening well before formal charges were filed but did nothing to stop it. After several internal complaints, a formal EEOC charge was filed.

“The key lesson we want people to take from this case: employers must protect their employees from sexual harassment,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “This means doing a meaningful internal investigation designed to find the truth and not designed to merely cover tracks. Also, employers must immediately stop further sexual harassment from occurring. Here, not only did Fleming’s not fire the harasser, they let him continue the harassment for more than a year and a half before allowing him to resign. When employers prove incapable of addressing these toxic situations, the EEOC is ready to right these wrongs.”

Rayford Irvin, District Director of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, added, “We want the public to know that sexual harassment isn’t just about misconduct between men and women. It includes sexually abusive behavior between people of the same sex also. Regardless of your gender or anyone else’s, you don’t have to tolerate sexual harassment.”

The EEOC Phoenix District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, with offices in Albuquerque and Denver.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Mcdonald's USA To Pay $50,000 To Settle EEOC Sex Harassment Suit

2010-10-20T19:11:00.000-04:00

Teenaged Male Employee Hugged, Touched and Spanked by Supervisor, Federal Lawsuit Alleged

NEW YORK – McDonald’s will pay $50,000 to settle a sex discrimination suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC charged that McDonald’s USA, LLC unlawfully subjected an employee to sexual harassment at one of its Perth Amboy, N.J., restaurants.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit (Civil Action No. 2:09-Civ-05028 (WJM)(MF)), filed September 29, 2009 in U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey, an assistant store manager made lewd comments to a teenaged crew member and touched, spanked and hugged him in a way that made him very uncomfortable. The crew member was only 16-17 years of age when these incidences took place.

The case was resolved pursuant to a consent decree signed by Judge William J. Martini on October 19. Besides paying the victim $50,000 in compensatory damages, McDonald’s will also take important steps to prevent future workplace harassment. The company will post and maintain EEOC remedial notices and posters; train all employees and managers at the restaurant on the federal laws that prohibit discrimination; maintain an anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedure; and cooperate with EEOC’s compliance monitoring.

EEOC Acting New York District Director Elizabeth Grossman said, “The EEOC takes very seriously allegations of sexual harassment involving teenagers because many of them are in the workplace for the first time and don’t know how to complain, especially when the harasser is their supervisor.” Adela Santos, the EEOC trial attorney assigned to the case, added, “We are very pleased that McDonald’s agreed to settle this case without protracted litigation and that it is taking steps to prevent future workplace discrimination.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Bardon, Inc. / Aggregate Industries to Pay $325,000 to Settle Sexual Harassment/Retaliation Suit

2010-10-06T15:15:00.000-04:00

EEOC Said Female Technician Subjected to Sexual Comments and Requests, Lewd Acts and Groping, and Fired After Complaining to Management

BALTIMORE – Concrete company Bardon, Inc., trading as Aggregate Industries, Inc., will pay $325,000 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. Aggregate, an internationally owned ready-mix concrete company with operations in the United States and United Kingdom, has corporate offices in Greenbelt, Md.

In its suit, (Civil Action No. 8:08-cv-1883-RWT) filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the EEOC charged that Aggregate created and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for Ora L. Borrell -- the only female quality control technician employed at the company. The EEOC charged that the incidents of sexual harassment included repeated public urination in her presence, overt and explicit sexual comments and requests, touching and grabbing against her will and other sexually offensive conduct while on the job. Borrell’s managers were aware of the offensive conduct, having witnessed some incidents and through her complaints. Borrell was subsequently fired by the company’s human resources department in retaliation for opposing these discriminatory practices.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation for resisting such harassment and complaining about it. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

In addition to the monetary relief to Borrell, which represents back wages and compensatory damages, the consent decree settling the suit provides significant remedial relief. Aggregate:

is enjoined from discriminating on the basis of sex and from retaliating against any employee who complains about discriminatory practices made unlawful under Title VII or because of filing a charge, giving testimony, assistance or participating in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII;
will post a notice to employees at all its facilities concerning its commitment to maintaining an environment free of sexual harassment and retaliation for a period of five years;
will provide mandatory training to all its employees, managers and supervisors regarding federal EEO laws prohibiting discrimination in employment with emphasis on sex discrimination, harassment and retaliation;
will provide training on its equal employment opportunity policies and its sexual harassment policy to all newly-hired employees during orientation; and
agreed to monitoring by the EEOC with regard to its compliance with the provisions in the decree settling the lawsuit for five years.

“Sexual harassment continues to be a persistent problem 45 years after the enactment of Title VII, which prohibits gender discrimination in employment,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “Workers should not be subjected to this type of conduct or lose their livelihood when they complain about it.”

According to its web site, www.aggregate-us.com, Aggregate Industries is a member of the Holcim group of companies and is an international construction and building materials company in the UK and the U.S., with operations ranging from the northeast to the southwest, along with the U.S. corporate office and Shared Services Center in Rockville, Maryland.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available at its web site at (www.eeoc.gov).

Orlando Magazine Distributor to Pay $162,400 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

2010-10-04T20:21:00.004-04:00

Female Magazine Order Fillers Subjected to Sexually Hostile Working Environment at Prologix’s Orlando Facility, Federal Agency Charges

MIAMI – Prologix Distribution Services (East), LLC, an Orlando, Fla.-based magazine distributor, will pay $162,400 and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

Prologix provides distribution services for publishers relating to merchandising, warehousing, and the delivery of magazines.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, several women who worked at Prologix’s Orlando, Fla., facility as magazine order fillers were subjected to harassment by a longtime supervisor. The harassment included the making of sexually explicit remarks and inappropriate touching and groping of the women.

In addition to monetary damages in the amount of $162,400, the three-year consent decree resolving the case (EEOC v. Prologix Distribution Services (East), LLC, Case No. 6:09-cv-01681-MSS-GJK), filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, includes injunctive relief enjoining the company from engaging in further sexual harassment; requires the company to post a notice about the settlement; to conduct anti-discrimination training; and to report information about sex discrimination complaints it receives to the EEOC for monitoring.

“No one should be subjected to this type of harassing conduct in the modern workplace,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Robert Weisberg. “Employers must take appropriate steps to assure that this kind of abuse does not occur.”

Trial Attorney Kaleb Kasperson said, “Inappropriate touching and lewd comments are perfect examples of conduct which has no place at work. The law requires that the workplace be free from this type of blatant harassment and sexual innuendo.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Privacy

Fry’s Electronics Sued for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

2010-09-29T20:32:00.001-04:00

Female Sales Associate Target of Sexting, and Her Supervisor Fired For Reporting Harassment, EEOC Charges

SEATTLE — National retail chain Fry's Electronics violated federal laws by failing to take action against the sexual harassment of a young female employee and retaliating against her supervisor after he spoke out on her behalf, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC, the assistant manager of Fry’s Renton, Wash., store began to sexually harass sales associate America Rios in early 2007. Even though Rios was under 21 years old at the time and had repeatedly refused his advances, the harasser continually sent her sexually charged text messages with invitations to his house and offers of alcohol.

“This was my first job,” said Rios. “I was overwhelmed, uncomfortable, stressed out, and I didn’t know what to do. I tried to let it go, but I felt violated and didn’t know how to pretend that nothing happened.”

Rios reported the harassment to her immediate supervisor, Ka Lam. When Lam spoke to upper management on her behalf, he was told to focus on his job and that some “changes might be happening.” However, shortly thereafter, Lam was fired for poor performance, even though the EEOC found that he had never received a bad review and had consistently been promoted during his four years with the company.

“I worked hard for this company, and tried to do what was right by standing up for Ms. Rios,” said Lam. “Firing me for speaking out was wrong.”

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. After first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation, the EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Fry's Electronics CV-10-1562) in U.S. District Court for the District of Washington, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of Lam and Rios, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of notices at the work site and other injunctive relief.

“While technology can put a new spin on how harassment manifests, the responsibility of employers to take harassment seriously is not new,” said Luis Lucero, director for the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office overseeing the case. “Text messages, instant messaging, and social networking certainly contribute to the blurring of formal lines of communication. However, the law holds employers liable for the actions of their supervisors and managers, so training them to prevent and redress harassment, no matter what the medium, is critical.”

EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo added, “Mr. Lam rightfully spoke up to protect an employee under his supervision from unlawful harassment, which is the legal duty of any manager. Fry’s should have been grateful that Mr. Lam was doing his job to protect them from liability, but instead they made things worse by firing him. All workers have the right to report discrimination, and the EEOC will vigorously defend that right.”

According to the company’s website, www.Frys.com, the chain of retail stores specializes in software, consumer electronics, computer hardware and household appliances and the company employs over 14,000 individuals in 34 stores located throughout the U.S.

The EEOC enforces federal laws in prohibiting employment discrimination. Additional information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Priva

Michigan City Restaurant Sued by EEOC for Sexual Harassment

2010-09-29T20:27:00.006-04:00

Lighthouse Restaurant Allowed Male Manager to Sexually Harass Female Employee, Federal Agency Charged

MICHIGAN CITY, Ind. – A Northern Indiana restaurant violated federal law when it allowed its manager to sexually harass one of its female employees and create a hostile work environment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed yesterday.

According to the EEOC’s suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Faros Inc., d/b/a the Lighthouse Restaurant, Civil Action No. 3:10-cv- 0407- RL), filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Faros, Inc., doing business as the Lighthouse restaurant, subjected one of its female employees to constant unwelcome sexual comments by its male manager.

The EEOC said the restaurant neither has a policy prohibiting sexual harassment, nor does it provide any sort of anti-harassment training. Further, the EEOC said, the harassing manager was the only available person to whom employees could complain about harassment.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for the sexually harassed female employee, as well as an injunction enjoining Faros, Inc., d/b/a the Lighthouse Restaurant, from engaging in sex discrimination and requiring it to take other measures to ensure a workplace free of discrimination for current and future employees.

“All employers need to have reasonable and effective avenues for employees to complain about sexual harassment,” said Laurie A. Young, regional attorney for EEOC’s Indianapolis District Office. “In cases when they do not, the EEOC is ready to take action to defend employees’ rights to be free from workplace abuse.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at: www.eeoc.gov.

ABM Industries Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit For $5.8 Million

2010-09-02T12:29:00.000-04:00

Class of Hispanic Janitorial Workers Sexually Harassed, One Raped by Supervisor, Federal Agency Charged

LOS ANGELES — ABM Industries, Inc., along with two subsidiaries, ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. and ABM Janitorial Services Northern California, Inc. will pay $5.8 million and provide other relief to a class of 21 Hispanic female janitorial workers, settling an egregious sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

The sexual harassment began around 2001, with the most severe forms involving sexual assaults of some women beginning in 2005 throughout California’s Central Valley region, according to the EEOC’s suit. The EEOC asserted that the 21 class members were victims of varying degrees of unwelcome touching, explicit sexual comments and requests for sex by 14 male co-workers and supervisors, one of whom was a registered sex offender. Some of the harassers allegedly often exposed themselves, groped female employees’ private parts from behind, and even raped at least one of the victims, the EEOC said. The EEOC’s suit charged that ABM failed to respond to the employees’ repeated complaints of harassment, which made for a dangerous and sexually hostile work environment. Many of the harassers continued to work despite the complaints.

The EEOC filed suit against ABM in 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (U.S. EEOC v. ABM Industries, Inc. and ABM Janitorial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07 CV 01428 LJO JLT), arguing that the conduct was a direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), which prohibits gender discrimination in employment, including sexual harassment.

“Despite progress, sexual harassment remains a significant problem for our nation’s workforce,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The EEOC takes very seriously its obligation to obtain redress for employees who are victims of these egregious practices. This settlement serves as a reminder to employers that they must remain vigilant in preventing and remedying harassment in their workplace.”

Aside from the monetary relief, the three-year consent decree settling the suit requires ABM to:

Designate an outside equal employment opportunity monitor to ensure the effectiveness of ABM’s investigations, complaint policies and procedures, and assist in anti-harass¬ment training to employees;
Ensure that investigators of harassment complaints are trained thoroughly to investigate internal complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation;
Establish a toll-free telephone hotline to receive complaints of harassment and retaliation;
Provide anti-harassment training to its employees in both English and Spanish to include a video message from the chief executive officer emphasizing zero tolerance for harassment and retaliation;
Conduct internal compliance audits at worksites;
Closely track any future discrimination complaints to conform to its obligations under Title VII;
Provide periodic annual reports to the EEOC regarding its employment practices; and
Ensure that employees are not subjected to harassment and retaliation.

“All I wanted was to do my job,” said class member Maria Quintero. “I never dreamed that I would be exposed to so much abuse at work. I complained several times about the abuse I suffered and saw, and they did nothing. I am relieved to know that ABM will make changes to make sure that no one else has to suffer as we did.”

Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, said, “We commend ABM for addressing what we found to be a grave and ominous situation for its female staff. Employers must implement strict policies and procedures to safeguard against such harassment, and take employee complaints seriously so that they not rise to the level of severity we saw in this case.”

Melissa Barrios, local director for the EEOC’s Fresno Local Office, added, “The EEOC is an avenue for workers who suffer sexual abuse and harassment on the job. Workers have the right to file complaints against employers that fail to protect them against such behavior -- and without the threat of retaliation.”

According to ABM’s website, www.abm.com, ABM Janitorial Services is a Fortune 1000 provider of commercial cleaning services, operating in branches nationwide.

The EEOC is the federal agency that enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Hillsborough Restaurant Sued By EEOC For Sexual Harassment And Retaliation

2010-08-16T16:39:00.000-04:00

Women Fired for Objecting to Misconduct by Manager, Federal Agency Charged

CHARLOTTE , N.C. – A Hillsborough, N.C., restaurant violated federal law by subjecting a class of female employees to a sexually hostile work environment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today. The EEOC’s lawsuit further charged that at least one female employee quit her job because of the sexual harassment and that the company, which operates “Vinny’s Italian Grill,” fired two other female employees in retaliation for complaining about the sexual harassment.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Hillsborough Pizzeria, Inc., doing business as Vinny’s Italian Grill, created and maintained a hostile working environment for Jacqueline Sorrell and a class of similarly situated female employees based on their sex, female. According to the complaint, from at least April 2008 until at least May 2009, a male manager for Vinny’s Italian Grill subjected Sorrell and other female employees to unwelcome sexual verbal misconduct. The conduct included telling Sorrell that he wanted to “French kiss” her and repeatedly asking her about her sexual relationship with her husband. The manager would also make comments about his own sexual preferences, and frequently told explicit stories about his sexual encounters with other women.

According to the complaint, when Sorrell sought the help of her employer to stop the harassment, the managing co-owner of the company told her, “It’s no big deal.” After an additional complaint to an acting manager, Sorrell was discharged. At the same time Sorrell was discharged, the company discharged another female employee who had also complained about the sexual harassment. In addition, the complaint alleges that at least one other female employee was forced to quit her employment because of the harassment.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hillsborough Pizzeria, Inc. d/b/a Vinny’s Italian Grill, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00627) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Sorrell and a class of similarly situated female employees, as well as an injunction enjoining Vinny’s Italian Grill from engaging in similar discrimination again and requiring it to take other measures to ensure a workplace free of discrimination for future employees.

“Employers must maintain a workplace free from harassment," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. "A policy forbidding such harassment and a means by which employees can report harassment is vital to an employer’s ability to prevent and stop unlawful discrimination. An employer who ignores sexual harassment in the workplace and does not take active measures to prevent it risks legal liability.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Mercury Air Centers To Pay $600,000 For National Origin, Race And Sex Harassment In EEOC Suit

2010-08-10T02:56:00.000-04:00

Salvadoran Airport Employee Was Promoted Despite Harassment of Filipino, Guatemalan and Mexican Male Workers, Federal Agency Charged

LOS ANGELES – Aircraft services provider Mercury Air Centers, Inc., will pay $600,000 and furnish other relief to settle a national origin, race and sex harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC originally filed suit against Mercury Air Centers in September 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (EEOC v. Mercury Air Centers, Inc., CV-08-06332-AHM(Ex)), alleging that the harassment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since the filing of the lawsuit, Mercury Air Centers was sold and became a part of Atlantic Services, Inc. Atlantic Services then worked with the EEOC in an effort to resolve the lawsuit.

According to the EEOC, the seven victims – including one Filipino male and six Hispanic males – endured a barrage of harassing comments on the part of a Salvadoran male co-worker at the Bob Hope Airport facility in Burbank, Calif., since at least 2004. The EEOC claims that a Filipino line technician was regularly referred to as a “chink,” “chino,” and “stupid Chinese,” and subjected to offensive statements about Filipinos. The alleged harasser derided the Guatemalan victims with derogatory remarks regarding their national origin, including references to them as “stupid Guatemaltecos” and stating that Guatemalans are useless and inferior to Salvadorans. Prior to learning the actual national origin of one of the Guatemalan victims, the alleged harasser also called him a “stupid Mexican.”

The EEOC contends that the alleged harasser also repeatedly hurled offensive racial and sexual remarks toward the claimants and at least two African-American employees, which included usage of the N-word and requests for sexual favors. The alleged harasser grabbed his genitals in their presence and engaged in unwanted sexual touching. Despite complaints regarding his inappropriate behavior, Mercury Air Centers’ management officials failed to fully investigate or address the alleged harassment, says the EEOC. In fact, the alleged harasser was instead promoted to a supervisory position.

The settlement includes total monetary relief of $600,000 to be paid to least seven employees along with a group of unidentified class members. The company also agreed to a two-year consent decree that calls for the appointment of an equal employment opportunity (EEO) officer to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws, along with an anti-discrimination policy, training, procedures, and reporting requirements to the EEOC.

“We commend Atlantic Services for taking steps to rectify the hostile work environment that persisted at Mercury Air Centers,” said Anna Park, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Employers must properly heed warnings about harassing activity at the outset, so that it does not permeate throughout the rest of the working environment. Rewarding bad behavior simply sends out the wrong message to employees.”

Olophius E. Perry, district director of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, added, “As the American workforce becomes increasingly more diverse, the potential for inter-minority and same-sex discrimination also rises. Employers must be mindful not to downplay such forms of discrimination, which can be just as demoralizing to the workforce as more traditional civil rights violations.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Safelite Glass Company Sued By EEOC For Sexual Harassment And Retaliation

2010-08-07T00:26:00.000-04:00

Human Resources Manager Sexually Harassed Female Assistant, Then Fired Her for Complaining, Federal Agency Says

RALEIGH, N.C. – Safelite Glass Co., the nation’s leading provider of auto glass repair and replacement, violated federal law by subjecting a female employee to a sexually hostile work environment and then firing her after she complained, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Lee Laraviere-Steele, who worked as a human resources assistant in Safelite’s Enfield, N.C., facility, was subjected to sexual harassment from March 2007 until March 2008 by the facility’s male human resources manager. The suit alleges that the human resources manager made unwelcome sexual comments to Laraviere-Steele such as telling her that she is pretty and sexy, asking her the color of her panties and commenting that she has nice breasts. The suit further alleges that the human resources manager rubbed Laraviere-Steele's shoulders and tried to kiss her and pull her into his lap. When Laraviere-Steele complained about the sexual harassment to upper management at the company in March 2008, the company failed to investigate the complaint or take action to stop the harassment. Instead, the company retaliated against Laraviere-Steele by firing her, according to the EEOC's complaint.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Raleigh Division ( Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Safelite Glass Co. , Civil Action No. 4:10cv00102) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement with Safelite. The agency seeks back pay for Laraviere-Steele as well as compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

“Once an employee complains about harassment in the workplace, the employer is required under federal law to act reasonably to prevent further abuse,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Charlotte District. “This case is especially egregious because the alleged harasser is the human resources manager, the person who in many companies is responsible for ensuring that employees are not harassed. The EEOC will aggressively prosecute cases where the employer ignores known harassment or retaliates against the victim for complaining.”

According to company information, Safelite is the nation's leading provider of vehicle glass repair and replacement services, providing mobile service to more than 95 percent of the U.S. population in all 50 states. The Columbus, Ohio-based company employs 10,000 people across the United States and serves more than 3.8 million customers each year through its company-owned operations.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Federal Court Bars Employer’s Questions About Immigration And Sexual History In EEOC Sexual Harassment Case

2010-07-16T01:04:00.000-04:00

Judge Grants Order Against Inquiries that "Intimidate ... Needlessly"

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal district court has ordered an employer to stop questioning Hispanic farm workers who filed charges of sexual harassment and retaliation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) concerning their immigration status, employment history and, in one woman’s case, her sexual history. In June 2009, the federal agency sued Willamette Tree Wholesale, Inc. of Molalla, Ore., alleging that workers were sexually harassed and threatened in retaliation for reporting the harassment. The EEOC also charged that one Latina farm worker was repeatedly raped by her supervisor.

The EEOC, together with the claimants represented by the Oregon Law Center, sought a protective order in response to requests by Willamette Tree’s lawyers for certain information. They argued that the company’s inquiries would have a chilling effect. In an order issued last week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak of U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland division, specifically prohibited the company’s attorneys from asking questions concerning the alleged rape victim’s immigration status, whether she has ever used another name, her prior sexual history and her reasons for not contacting police after the sexual assaults. It also bars discovery of the immigration status and third-party employment records for all workers participating in the case.

The court stated that “the public interest would be far better served” if meritorious discrimination claims were presented by immigrants regardless of their status, rather than if the “potentially chilling effect” of scrutinizing plaintiffs' documentation prevented workers from coming forward.

Judge Papak also found that the female farm worker’s sexual history is “not clearly relevant” to the claims of the case and would have “clear prejudicial effect” on the lawsuit: “to permit Willamette Tree to make inquiries into [her] sexual or romantic history would intimidate [her] needlessly.” He rejected Willamette Tree’s arguments to depose the worker as to why she did not contact law enforcement after the sexual violence, by observing that the woman had already testified on record “that her supervisor threatened her and her family with violent reprisal should she tell anyone that he had raped her.”

EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “Judge Papak’s order gives hope to victims of sexual harassment at work. By refusing to re-victimize the victim with needless attack on her sexual history and immigration status, the court provides key protections not only for the individual involved in this case, but ultimately for others who have been in her situation: immigrants, females, workers driven to keep their jobs, and the targets of sexual assault and retaliation.”

“The EEOC has seen an alarming rise in harassment cases involving egregious sexual assaults being committed against female workers, particularly those from immigrant communities,” Tamayo continued. These include suits against AllStar Fitness in Seattle on behalf of a Latina janitor who allegedly had been raped multiple times; La Pianta L.C.C., which does business as Frenchman Hills Vineyard in Othello, Wash., alleging that a supervisor sexually assaulted a Latina worker; and a suit with the Oregon Law Center against Woodburn, Ore.-based Wilcox Farms resulting in a $260,000 settlement in a sexual harassment case that involved a physical sexual assault. Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict of $1,000,000 in favor of the EEOC against Coalinga, Calif.-based Harris Farms on behalf of a Latina farm worker who charged she was raped by her supervisor and retaliated against.

Mavel Morales, attorney with the Oregon Law Center, stated, “Our client had to overcome enormous challenges to speak out against sexual harassment in this case. We are grateful that Judge Papak has prohibited the defendants from pursuing a line of questioning that would needlessly intimidate her and discourage workers from coming forward with similar claims in the future.”

The case (EEOC v. Willamette Tree Wholesale, Inc. (CV-09-690-PK) is scheduled for trial on February 8, 2011.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Jerseyville Elks Lodge Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit

2010-07-16T01:00:00.000-04:00

Three Trustees Abused Bartenders, Federal Agency Charged

EAST ST. LOUIS , Ill. – Elks Lodge No. 954 in Jerseyville, Ill., will pay $107,500 and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that the lodge violated federal law by sexually harassing three female bartenders and then taking reprisals against them when they complained.

In its lawsuit (Case No. 3:09-cv-00200), filed in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis, Illinois, the EEOC claims that Vicki Vickers, Elizabeth Stemm, and Jackie Davidson (formerly Jackie Atteberry at the time of her employment) were subjected to unlawful sexual harassment while working at Elks Lodge No. 954 by three members of the Elks’ board of trustees on numerous occasions in 2005 and 2006. The abuse included repeated unwelcome sexual advances and touching, and sexually explicit comments. The suit alleged that after victims complained about the conduct, their work hours were cut, they were assigned the least desirable shifts, and they were subjected to threats and other abusive verbal comments. Davidson was terminated, the EEOC said, and the environment became so hostile that Vickers was compelled to resign.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin, and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

As part of the settlement, the Elks Lodge agreed to pay $107,500 to the former bartenders, to conduct sexual harassment training for Elks managers and employees and to report complaints of sex harassment made by Elks employees to the EEOC regional attorney for a period of three years.

“While the Elks do not admit to any wrongdoing, this settlement signals a willingness to move forward in a manner designed to prevent future sexual harassment from occurring and, if it does happen, prepare its managers to take decisive and immediate action to stop it,” said EEOC attorney Melvin Kennedy.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

The Real Reason Why JP Morgan Chase Wants Debrahlee Lorenzana To Shut Up

2010-07-13T15:27:00.000-04:00

Claiming she's tarnishing the financial industry's reputation, ex-Citibanker Debrahlee Lorenzana's current employer, JPMorgan Chase, now threatens to fire her for speaking to the press, the Voice learned today.

The real reason why JP Morgan Chase wants Debrahlee Lorenzana to shut up is probably the same reason that the executives of the now defunct Long Island brokerage Lew Lieberbaum & Co., wanted Kimberly Casper, Deanna Caliendo and Linette Cinelli to shut up. You see when people go public with sexual harassment complaints against a business it inspires other victims to come forward, as it did in the case of Kimberly Casper, Deanna Caliendo, and Linette Cinelli. Their public outcry against sexual harassment made international headline news causing others at the now defunct Lew Lieberbaum & Co., to come forward filing multiple complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and as a result of all the media attention and the multiple complaints coming from employees at Lew Lieberbaum & Co., the EEOC had no choice but to start a class action lawsuit against the now defunct company. So what started out as three women filing complaints with the EEOC, receiving right to sue letters and then suing with private attorneys, ended, in a class action lawsuit litigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In EEOC v. Lew Lieberbaum & Co., the Commission recovered $1.55 million for 17 victims of discrimination and $200,000 for future claimants in the case. EEOC alleged that the defendant subjected its African-American and female employees to a racially and sexually hostile environment; paid them less than other employees; failed to promote them; retaliated against those individuals who complained about the harassment and, in some instances, discharged them.

The Foundation Against Sexual Harassment Is Coming Soon

2010-07-10T21:34:00.000-04:00

Enough is enough! Now is the time to take action and speak out against the perverts that are hiding in plain sight in the workplace. Over the next few months I will be working hard to put together a not for profit organization that will be committed to speaking out against the sexual perverts in the workplace who sexually harass people the same way that pedophiles and rapist attack their victims. Sexual harassment, child molestation and rape are all about power. Lets fight to get the sexual predators out of the workplace.

The term sexual predator is used pejoratively to describe a person seen as obtaining or trying to obtain sexual contact with another person in a metaphorically "predatory" manner. Analogous to how a predator hunts down its prey, so the sexual predator is thought to "hunt" for his or her sex partners. People who commit sex crimes, such as rape or child sexual abuse, are commonly referred to as sexual predators, particularly in tabloid media or as a power phrase by politicians.

O’Fallon Billboard Company to Pay $55,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit

2010-07-09T15:16:00.000-04:00

Trinity Products Manager Sought to Replace Female Employee After She Complained About His Misconduct, Federal Agency Charged

ST. LOUIS – Trinity Products, Inc., a manufacturer of billboards and signposts based in O’Fallon, Mo., will pay $55,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on 07/06/2010.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC had charged that a high-level manager sexually harassed his assistant with offensive language and gestures and requests for sexual favors. Then, the EEOC said, he sought to replace her after she complained to other supervisors about his conduct, resulting in her discharge.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting it. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the suit, filed today for approval by U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (EEOC, et al. v. Trinity Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:09CV01617 CAS), also requires the company to distribute a notice on employees’ rights under federal anti-discrimination laws, provide sexual harassment training to all managers, and permit the EEOC to inspect records of internal complaints of such harassment. The decree will remain in effect for two years.

“Federal law mandates a workplace free from sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting such misconduct,” said Barbara A. Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District. “All employers must ensure that employees work in a safe environment without fear of retribution for bringing concerns of unlawful activity to the attention of management.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Pedophiles and Sexual Harassers

2010-07-09T14:47:00.000-04:00

In some cases the pedophile and the sexual harasser are alike in that they pass on their behavior to their victims, who go from being victims to predators. An example of this would be what I experienced in a sexually hostile environment when I worked for Sunrise Credit Services. When I worked for Sunrise Credit Services, I could easily see that the sexual harassers had once been victims of sexual harassment. The feeling I got was one of being hazed, or as if I were expected to pay my dues sexually (like everyone else had to do to keep their job) if I wanted to continue working at Sunrise Credit Services. My refusal to have sexual relations with any of my male supervisors and/or coworkers eventually led to my unlawful termination from Sunrise Credit Services and fueled my fight for justice and an end to sexual harassment in the workplace. After all; Sexual predators belong behind bars not in the workplace with civilized human beings.

Allstar Fitness Demandado Por El EEOC Por Acoso Sexual

2010-07-01T16:08:00.000-04:00

El Supervisor Forzó Sexo en una Empleada Latina, la Agencia Federal Cargo

SEATTLE --Allstar Fitness, que opera gimnasios en Washington y Oregon, violó la ley federal cuando su director acosó sexualmente a una empleada femenina en múltiples ocasiones, la Comisión Para la Igualdad de Oportunidades en el Empleo (EEOC) cargó en una demanda archivada hoy.

La demanda del EEOC cargó que el acoso sexual ocurrió en dos locales diferentes de Allstar Fitness en Seattle. Según la investigación de la agencia federal, el supervisor de un trabajadora Latina, que trabajaba en la limpieza, la aisló deliberadamente y la forzó a tener relaciones sexuales con él repetidas veces. El supervisor advirtió a la empleada que permanecer tranquila si quería mantener su trabajo, el EEOC dijo. Después de meses de abuso con regularidad, cuando ella le dijo “no más,” y lo amenazó con reportar los ataques, ella fue despedida.

“Mantener mi trabajo significó más que nada para mí,” dijo la empleada. “Significaba el poder de proveer a mis niños y a mi madre. Yo no quise arriesgar perder mi trabajo, y mi supervisor se aprovecho de eso; él lo utilizó contra mí.”

El acoso sexual y la despedida como represalia por hablar acerca de acoso sexual violan el Título VII del Acto Civil de Derechos de 1964. El EEOC archivó la demanda en el Tribunal del distrito de EEUU para el Distrito Occidental de Washington en Seattle (EEOC V. Allstar Fitness, LLC., CV-10-1082) después de procurar primero alcanzar un arreglo antes del litigio por su proceso de conciliación. El EEOC busca daños monetarios a favor del la trabajadora, entrenamiento de leyes anti-discriminación, anuncio en el sitio del trabajo, y otros remedios.

“Nadie debe ser forzado a escoger entre su dignidad personal y el cheque de pago que alimenta su familia,” dijo el Director de EEOC en Seattle Luis Lucero. “Por ley, los empleadores deben proteger a sus trabajadores y tomar responsabilidad para las acciones de sus supervisores, pero Allstar Fitness no tenia entrenamiento para empleados, ni ningunas pólizas escritos en el lugar de trabajo, y ningún procedimiento para poner una queja.”

EEOC Abogado Regional William R. Tamayo dijo, “Aquí, el supervisor abusó su poder y asumió que la desesperación de esta mujer y la vulnerabilidad mantendrían su silencioso. Es el deber del EEOC de defender su derecho – y los derechos de todos los trabajadores – que puedan hablar claro, y trabajar en un lugar libre del acoso sexual.”

Notando que "el EEOC ha visto una subida alarmante en los casos de acoso que implican asaltos sexuales cometidos contra trabajadores femeninos, especialmente ésos de comunidades de inmigrantes," Tamayo citó ejemplos recientes. El año pasado en Octubre 2009, EEOC archivó una demanda contra La Pianta L.C.C., que hace sus negocios como Frenchman Hills Vineyard en Othello, WA., alegando que un supervisor asaltó sexualmente a un trabajadora Latina. También en Junio 2009, EEOC archivó una demanda contra Willamette Tree Wholesale, Inc., situado en Molalla, Oregon, alegando que trabajadoras Latinas fueron acosados sexualmente, amenazadas, y en un caso, una trabajadora fue violada sexualmente repetidas veces. En 2008, en otro caso que implica la violación de un trabajador femenino por su supervisor, Audiencia de EEUU para el Noveno Circuito afirmó el juicio en un juicio del jurado de más de $1.000.000 a favor del EEOC y la trabajadora Olivia Tamayo (no relación a William Tamayo) en un pleito de acoso sexual y represalia contra la empresa Harris Farms en Coalinga, California.

El EEOC impone las leyes federales que prohíben discriminación en el empleo. Información adicional sobre el EEOC está disponible en su sitio web en www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC Sues La Crosse Pharmacy for Sex Harassment

2010-07-01T15:40:00.000-04:00

Pinnacle Pharmacy Failed to Protect Female Employees from Harasser, Federal Agency Charged

MADISON, Wis. – Omnicare, Inc., doing business as Pinnacle Pharmacy, violated federal law by subjecting a class of women to a sexually hostile work environment in its La Crosse, Wis., location, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, (EEOC v. Omnicare, Inc. d/b/a Pinnacle Pharmacy, Case No. 10-cv-364), filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the La Crosse pharmacy manager engaged in repeated, egregious acts of sexual harassment toward female employees, such as unwelcome touching that included approaching female employees from behind and grinding his crotch on them, and making sexually explicit and demeaning comments to female employees.

Several of the women complained repeatedly about the sexual harassment, but Pinnacle Pharmacy failed to assist them, the EEOC reported. Instead, the agency said, company officials accused the women of misunderstanding the manager, ordered them to return to work and to stay away from the harasser.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to harass employees based on sex, including sexual harassment, and prohibits retaliation against someone who complains about discrimination. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The agency seeks injunctive relief to end the discriminatory practices, plus back pay and compensatory and punitive damages and other relief to compensate the victims for their monetary losses and emotional pain and suffering and to deter the company from future civil rights violations.

"Every company has a duty to protect its employees from sexual harassment in its workplace, especially when it calls for remedial action against a sexual harasser who is, as in this case, a supervisor,” EEOC Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson noted. “It’s uncivilized and unlawful, and the EEOC will never flag in combating such misconduct.”

EEOC Chicago District Office Director John P. Rowe said, "No employee should have to silently endure this type of offensive sexual conduct in order to keep a job. Employees have a right to work in an environment free of sexual harassment. Employers who ignore their employees’ complaints about harassment can expect to see the EEOC in their future.”

The EEOC’s legal team in its Milwaukee Area Office will conduct the litigation under the management of the agency’s Chicago District Office. The Chicago office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, North and South Dakota with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Allstar Fitness Sued by EEOC for Sexual Harassment

2010-07-01T15:37:00.000-04:00

Supervisor Forced Sex on Latina Employee, Federal Agency Charges

SEATTLE — Allstar Fitness, which operates fitness clubs in Washington and Oregon, violated federal law when its manager sexually harassed a female employee on multiple occasions, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The EEOC’s suit charged that the sexual harassment occurred at two different Allstar Fitness facilities in Seattle. According to the federal agency’s investigation, the immediate supervisor of a Latina worker employed in housekeeping deliberately isolated her and forced her to have sex with him repeatedly. The supervisor warned the employee to stay quiet if she wanted to keep her job, the EEOC said. After months of abuse on a regular basis, when she told him “No more,” and threatened to report the attacks, she was fired.

“Keeping my job meant more than anything to me,” said the employee. “It meant being able to provide for my children and my mother. I didn’t want to risk losing my job, and my supervisor took advantage of this; he used it against me.”

Sexual harassment and termination as retaliation for speaking out about sexual harassment violate Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle ((EEOC V. Allstar Fitness, LLC., CV-10-1082) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks monetary damages on behalf of the worker, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of notices at the work site, and other injunctive relief.

“No one should be forced to choose between personal dignity and the paycheck that feeds your family,” said EEOC Seattle Field Office Director Luis Lucero. “By law, employers must protect their workers and take responsibility for the actions of their supervisors, but Allstar had no employee training, no written workplace policies, and no complaint procedure.”

EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “Here, the supervisor abused his power and assumed that this woman’s desperation and vulnerability would keep her silent. It is the EEOC’s duty to champion her right – and the rights of all workers – to speak out, and to a workplace free from sexual harassment.”

Noting that “the EEOC has seen an alarming rise in harassment cases involving egregious sexual assaults being committed against female workers, particularly those from immigrant communities,” Tamayo cited recent examples. Last year in October 2009, EEOC filed a lawsuit against La Pianta L.C.C., which does business as Frenchman Hills Vineyard in Othello, Wash., alleging that a supervisor sexually assaulted a Latina worker. Also in June 2009, EEOC filed a lawsuit against Willamette Tree Wholesale, Inc. located in Molalla, Ore., alleging that Latina workers there were sexually harassed, threatened, and in one case, repeatedly raped. In 2008, in another case involving the rape of a female worker by her supervisor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment on a jury verdict of more than $1,000,000 in favor of the EEOC and farm worker Olivia Tamayo (no relation to William Tamayo) in a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against Coalinga, Calif.-based Harris Farms.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC Reaches Voluntary Settlement for Sexual Harassment with Koreatown Restaurant

2010-07-01T15:34:00.000-04:00

Chilbo Myunok to Pay $170,000 to Victims and Participate in Joint Outreach Training With EEOC to Korean Community Small Business Owners

LOS ANGELES – Chilbo Myunok USA LLC, a Korea-based food company which owns a Los Angeles restaurant and a chain of fast-food stores in Korea, will pay $170,000 and furnish other relief to resolve sexual harassment complaints brought to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC’s investigation had found that a class of waitresses was sexually harassed at the Chilbo Myunok restaurant in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles, and that four of them were forced to quit to escape the harassment. The offending manager has since been fired.

According to the EEOC’s investigation, since the restaurant opened in April 2005 until August 2005, each of the victims faced continuous verbal and physical harassment from the restaurant’s manager. The manager repeatedly subjected the women to sexual touching with a sexual device and to unwanted hugging and kissing, the EEOC said. In addition, the agency charged, the women were forced by the restaurant manager to attend karaoke bars after work.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects all employees who have been subjected to discrimination while employed by companies operating in the United States, regardless of where the business is based.

Besides the monetary award, the conciliation agreement settling the matter provides for anti-discrimination training for all employees and posting notices about the agreement in English, Korean and Spanish at the restaurant. Also, Chilbo Myunok's owner has committed to participating in joint outreach efforts with the EEOC to small businesses in the Korean community, including a free EEOC training session to be conducted in Korean on July 8, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. at the Korean American Federation of Los Angeles (KAFLA) in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles.

EEOC Los Angeles District Director Olophius E. Perry commended Chilbo Myunok and its owner, Tu Ik Chang, for acting decisively and working with the EEOC to reach an agreeable resolution in this matter.

"By working with EEOC this way, Chilbo Myunok has clearly shown its commitment to making needed changes to policies and practices to ensure equal employment opportunities for all of Chilbo Myunok's employees,” said Perry. “I am very pleased by this agreement, which avoids litigation and sets the proper tone for a safe and harassment free workplace.”

EEOC Enforcement Manager Patricia Kane, who oversaw the investigation and negotiation of this case, added, “The courage of these workers to step forward and protest discrimination is commendable. It was an important victory, breaking through the cultural barriers that often keep immigrant workers from asserting their rights. As part of our small business initiative, the EEOC’s Los Angeles District has also been reaching out to minority small business owners to better equip them in dealing with EEO problems that may arise in the workplace.”

Chilbo Myunok restaurant owner Tu Ik Chang said, “As soon as I became aware of the problem, I felt compelled to deal with the allegations directly by firing the manager who was creating the problems for the workers. Going forward, I will ensure that all of my supervisors and managers know that they are required to maintain a work place free of sexual harassment. This experience has motivated me to share with other Korean business owners that we must be knowledgeable of the laws enforced by the EEOC and maintain a working environment free of discrimination. I hope that by partnering with the EEOC and telling my story, other small business owners will take a proactive approach to educate their managers and employees. I am happy with the resolution and believe this agreement is in the best interests of all parties involved.”

The Los Angeles District Office has been reaching out to small business owners within its jurisdictional boundaries which include Southern California, Nevada, Hawaii and the U.S. Possessions of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Wake Island. In an effort to reach out to immigrant communities, the office has hired investigators proficient in Korean, Spanish, Thai, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Portuguese and American Sign Language. The outreach efforts will continue to include assistance to small business owners within the immigrant communities regarding compliance with the laws enforced by the Commission.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC to Announce Anti-discrimination Activities in Korean Community

2010-06-30T17:19:00.000-04:00

Federal Agency to Discuss Settlement of Koreatown Sexual Harassment Case, Anti-Discrimination Training for Korean Employers

LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will announce and discuss its enhanced outreach and enforcement efforts in the Korean-American community in Southern California at a Los Angeles news conference on July 1. As part of that effort, the EEOC will announce the settlement of a sexual harassment case filed against a Korean restaurant in the Koreatown community of Los Angeles.

Further, the EEOC will discuss its upcoming free training for Korean and Korean-American employers regarding federal laws against discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. The training, to be conducted in Korean, is an element of the EEOC’s recent efforts to reach out to the Korean community. The press conference and the training will be held at the Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles (KAFLA) in Koreatown.

WHAT: EEOC news conference to announce anti-discrimination activities in the Korean community, including a successful sexual harassment settlement and free EEOC training for Korean employers on federal laws against employment discrimination and sexual harassment

WHEN: Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:00 am PST

WHERE: Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles (KAFLA) 981 S. Western Avenue, Conference Hall Los Angeles, CA 90006

WHO: Olophius E. Perry, District Director, EEOC Los Angeles District Office
Anna Y. Park, Regional Attorney, EEOC Los Angeles District Office
Patricia A. Kane, Enforcement Manager, EEOC Los Angeles District Office
Hyunwook Kim, Enforcement Investigator, EEOC Los Angeles District Office (* Mr. Kim will speak in Korean.)
Christine Park-Gonzalez, Program Analyst, EEOC Los Angeles District Office Representative from the Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles (KAFLA)

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Major Washington Apple Grower Sued for Sexual Harassment

2010-06-25T22:06:00.000-04:00

EEOC Obtains Restraining Order to Protect Witnesses

YAKIMA, Wash. – One of the largest apple producers in the United States has been placed under a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The federal agency was motivated by the immediate danger of “substantial and irreparable injury” to class members and potential witnesses in the EEOC’s sexual harassment suit against Cowiche, Wash.-based Evans Fruit Company, which was filed at the same time as the agency’s TRO request.

U.S. District Court Judge Lonny R. Suko has ordered the company and all its agents to stop all retaliatory activity against those involved and those who may become involved in the lawsuit. Under the terms of the TRO, Evans Fruit supervisors -- including Juan Marin, Alberto “Camello” Sanchez, and Simon Ramirez -- must avoid further contact with class members and potential witnesses. They must immediately cease any attempts to intimidate or tamper with current or potential witnesses, such as paying to influence testimony.

The EEOC filed suit on behalf of three individuals and a class of women, alleging sexual harassment by the ranch manager and crew leaders at the grower’s Sunnyside ranch. According to the agency’s investigation, these supervisors often singled out women for sexual advances, with work assignments that isolated them from friends and family members. The women were forced to quit, the EEOC charged, in order to get away from the ongoing sexual comments, propositioning and physical groping.

One of the workers who filed charges with the EEOC described how the ranch manager refused to let her work on the same crew as her 15-year-old daughter, whom he then targeted with unwelcome verbal and physical sexual attention. She said, “My daughter was just a child. That man should not have been touching her or whispering in her ear. There weren’t any other jobs in town, but we could not work there any longer. I do not want what happened to my daughter to happen to anyone else.”

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After first attempting to reach a settlement out of court through conciliation, the EEOC filed the lawsuit (Case No. 10CV-03033 LRS) and applied for the temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The agency seeks monetary damages on behalf of the women, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of anti-discrimination notices at the work site and other injunctive relief.

EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo said, “Filing for a temporary restraining order is not a common action for us. But in this case, we saw an urgent need to do all in our power to protect the farmworkers who participate in this case. We hope this lawsuit and the power of the court’s restraining order will encourage workers to be able to step forward with information about the discrimination with the knowledge that the law protects them and their jobs.”

Tamayo urged workers who experienced sexual harassment at Evans Fruit to contact the EEOC to determine if they qualify to be part of the class: contact Carmen Flores at (832) 364-4190, Debra Smith at (415) 238-3141 or May Che at (206) 498-9711. (All speak Spanish.)

“Our investigation revealed that sexual harassment at Evans Fruit was so widespread and accepted that it became a condition of employment for these women,” said Luis Lucero, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “The EEOC has filed and resolved similar lawsuits in the Pacific Northwest last year. We hope this case will alert employers in this industry to stop predatory sexual behavior and abuses of supervisory power.”

Last June, EEOC filed a lawsuit against Willamette Tree Wholesale, Inc. located in Molalla, Ore., alleging that Latina workers there were sexually harassed, threatened, and in one case, repeatedly raped. In October, EEOC sued Eastern Washington winery La Pianta L.C.C., which does business as Frenchman Hills Vineyard, on behalf of a Latina worker targeted for escalating sexual attention by the vineyard manager at its facility in Othello, Wash. In the fall of 2009, EEOC resolved two separate sexual harassment and retaliation suits: Wilcox Farms, which operates dairy and egg production facilities in Oregon and Washington, agreed to pay $260,000 to a female worker at its Aurora, Ore., facility, and Schiemer Farms of Nyassa, Ore., paid $14,500 to two farmworker women who alleged being fired immediately after reporting sexual harassment on their first day of work.

According to company information, Evans Fruit Company operates 11 ranches, totaling over 7,000 acres and includes apple orchards and three production facilities, and it employs 1,200 - 1,300 seasonal employees in addition to regular staff.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

O'Fallon day care sued for sexual harassment - Breaking news - bnd.com

2010-06-24T16:04:00.000-04:00

O'Fallon day care sued for sexual harassment - Breaking news - bnd.com

A former female employee of a child day care in O’Fallon has filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the company claiming a sexual relationship with her supervisor resulted in a hostile work environment and, ultimately, the end of her employment. The day care’s spokesperson said the company has polices in place to ensure employees are treated fairly.

Although, I am an advocate against sexual harassment on the job, I do think that people who have sexual relationships with co-workers and or supervisor are themselves, contributing to the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Read more...

Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar Is Being Sued For Sexual Harassment And Retaliation

2010-06-23T18:16:00.000-04:00

Agency Says General Manager Abused Women for Six Years And Punished Employees Who Complained

BISMARCK, N.D. – The Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar – Bismarck South, owned and operated by Apple Core, Inc. and Food Management Investors, Inc. (FMI), violated federal civil rights laws by permitting a former store general manager to create a pattern and practice of sexual harassment and retaliation against employees, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed late yesterday.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, between 2002 and the end of 2007, the general manager of Bismarck South Applebee’s routinely groped female employees, solicited sexual relations, told sexually explicit stories and jokes and made highly personalized sexual comments designed to demean and humiliate female employees. The EEOC’s investigation indicated that on at least one occasion, the harasser coerced an employee into giving him oral sex in exchange for a raise. Additionally, the EEOC’s complaint alleges that the manager systematically retaliated against female employees who rebuffed his sexual advances, and retaliated against both female and male employees who complained about his behavior.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC’s suit was docketed before Judge Daniel L. Hovland in the Southwestern Division of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Apple Core, Inc. and Food Management Investors, Inc. d/b/a Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar; Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00048 DLH/CSM) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process.

John Rowe, director of the EEOC’s Chicago District, which includes North Dakota, said that the EEOC’s administrative investigation which preceded the lawsuit revealed that the manager provided various employment-related rewards and punishments to female employees, dependent on whether they accepted or rebuffed his sexual advances.

“No one should ever have to endure the abuse that these workers did just to try to make a living,” said Rowe. “It’s uncivilized and unlawful, and the EEOC will never flag in combating such misconduct.”

John Hendrickson, the EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, said, “It appears from our investigation -- and our task will be to prove it in court -- that Apple Core/FMI knew about this man’s unlawful behavior, but still allowed him to create a hyper-sexualized, toxic workplace to serve his sexual appetite.”

“At the heart of what EEOC alleges,” Hendrickson added, “is our contention that, despite repeated complaints and warnings about the general manager’s behavior at Applebee’s -- year in and year out -- this company, which cultivates a wholesome family-friendly,neighborhood image could not bring itself to call a halt to sexual harassment by one of its managers.”

In this case, the EEOC is seeking injunctive relief that will require Apple Core/FMI to adopt an effective sexual harassment prevention policy that complies with federal law and will seek back pay, compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the charging parties and a class of approximately 20 former employees of the Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar – Bismarck South.

The EEOC’s lawsuit stems from charges of discrimination that were filed by five former employees of the Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar – Bismarck South, located at 434 South 3rd Street in Bismarck.

According to its website, (http://nglobe.com:78/) Apple Core Enterprises, Inc. is “a franchisee of Applebee’s International, which owns and operates Applebee’s restaurants in North Dakota, Minnesota, Arizona and California.” Also according to its website, Food Management Investors, Inc. is “a restaurant management company located in Minot, North Dakota [and is] responsible for accounting management for Applecore Enterprises, Inc.” Myron D. Thompson of Minot, N.D., has been the president, CEO and director of Food Management Investors, Inc. and the president and director of Apple Core, Inc. since 1990.

The EEOC’s legal team in Minneapolis Area Office will conduct the litigation under the management of the agency’s Chicago District Office. That office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

Plastics Molding Companies to Pay $190,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

2010-06-22T22:53:00.000-04:00

EPI Subjected Female Workers to Verbal and Physical Abuse, Federal Agency Charges

OXFORD, Miss. – A St. Louis-based plastic injection molding company will pay $190,000 and provide other relief to resolve a sexual harassment and constructive discharge lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on 06/21/2010.

According to the EEOC’s suit, EPI Advanced, LLC and Engineered Products Industries, LLC allowed Dean Miller, a male supervisor, and another male co-worker to harass press operator Cathy Johnson and seven other women at its Sherman, Miss., plant. The women claimed that they were forced to endure a myriad of sexually explicit comments and propositions, and some were grabbed and touched as well by Miller. Several women quit because of the harassment, and one woman quit her job after Miller phoned her at work threatening to sexually assault her in the employee parking lot. Although several complaints were made by victims to management, the company failed to properly investigate complaints and stop the misconduct, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-00108) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process.

In addition to the monetary relief, EPI Advanced, LLC and Engineered Products Industries, LLC are required, under the publicly filed consent decree, to develop and maintain a policy prohibiting sexual harassment; to distribute the policy and complaint procedure to all employees; to provide mandatory training to its employees within six months of the decree; to post a notice of the settlement at the Sherman plant; to maintain records of discrimination complaints; and to report such complaints to the EEOC, together with any actions taken in response, for three years. The decree resolving the case also enjoins EPI Advanced, LLC and Engineered Products Industries, LLC from subjecting any female employee to sexual harassment.

The litigation in U.S. District Court at Oxford was a joint effort of the legal units of the EEOC’s Memphis and Birmingham District Offices. Both offices have jurisdiction and provide services in the state of Mississippi. Celia Liner, from the Memphis District Office, and Maricia Woodham, from the Birmingham District Office, are the Commission attorneys who headed up the litigation team.

Celia Liner, EEOC senior trial attorney, said, “The environment at EPI was simply intolerable. Women should be able to report to work and do their jobs without being subjected to harassment. No one should have to deal with such conduct in order to get a paycheck. Employers must understand that sexual harassment simply cannot be condoned or tolerated at work. The EEOC will continue to combat harassment in the workplace so that women can work in environments free from sexual abuse.”

Maricia Woodham, EEOC trial attorney, added, “We are encouraged that the defendants will train supervisors and managers to handle any future complaints of harassment promptly and properly.”

EPI Advanced, LLC, wholly owned by Engineered Products Industries, LLC, specializes in plastic injection molding. EPI is a custom plastic injection molding company founded in 1953 with headquarters in St. Louis and divisional operations in Sherman, Miss., and DeQueen, Ark. The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Federal Court Enters Consent Decree Resolving EEOC Sex Harassment Suit Against Biewer Sawmill

2010-06-16T16:07:00.000-04:00

Supervisor Repeatedly Exposed Himself to Female Employees, Federal Agency Charged

MADISON, Wis. – Judge William M. Conley of the federal district court in Madison has entered a consent decree resolving a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Biewer Wisconsin Sawmill, Inc. (BWS) of Prentice, Wis. The EEOC had charged that BWS, a major Midwestern lumber supplier, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it did not take immediate and appropriate action to stop a supervisor’s sexual harassment after learning that he had repeatedly exposed his genitals to female employees over several years.

The decree provides that BWS will pay employees Verna Weber and Patricia Stade a total of $55,000, prohibits future sexual harassment and requires that BWS provide anti-discrimination training to its managers and human resources personnel.

Wisconsin court records indicate that on November 12, 2009, several months after the EEOC filed its civil lawsuit, the supervisor, Billy J. Decker, was convicted in a criminal case (Case No. 08-CM-106) in Price County Circuit Court of two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior for twice exposing himself to Weber in 2008.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that when an employer learns of sexual harassment, it must take immediate, appropriate, and effective action to stop it,” said Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office which is responsible for EEOC litigation in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota. “Here the EEOC contended that supervisors were aware of the harassment but did not take immediate action, and women suffered as a result. We appreciate BWS’s willingness to work with us to provide relief for the victims and to ensure that harassment does not recur.”

The case was litigated by Senior Trial Attorney Dennis McBride of the Milwaukee Area Office, part of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office.

According to its web site, BWS is one of several affiliated companies engaged in the lumber business under the Biewer name in Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois and headquartered in St. Clair, Mich. The companies manufacture and distribute products for a wide variety of building applications. They have sawmills in Prentice, Wis. and McBain, Mich., and manufacturing and distribution facilities in Seneca, Ill., and Lansing, Mich. They are affiliated with Biewer Logistics, which offers custom transportation and shipping management, and with Biewer Industrial Lumber, LLC, which is described as the companies’ “business-to-business” branch.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Two Sonic Franchises Sued By EEOC For Sexual Harassment To Pay $55,000

2010-06-15T20:39:00.000-04:00

Teen-aged Female Carhops Were Routinely Abused by Male Managers, Federal Agency Charged

HOUSTON – Two Sonic Drive-In franchises in the Kingwood-Humble area with common ownership and management will pay $55,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that S.D.I. of Kingwood, doing business as the Kingwood Sonic Drive-In, and S.D.I. of Lee Rd., doing business as the Lee Road Sonic Drive-In, violated federal law by routinely subjecting teenaged female employees to abuse by a manager and others, including threatening one young worker with a knife.

The EEOC’s suit said that the franchises’ primary owner promoted a young, unqualified family member to consecutively higher management positions within the restaurants and allowed him to use his position of power to sexually harass the teens starting in 2006. The EEOC also contended that this manager permitted and encouraged other male employees and managers to join in the harassing conduct.

According to the EEOC, Aracely De Leon, a 16-year-old employee, was forced to quit due to harassment by the manager, and another young employee, Elizabeth Maxwell, then age 17, was also subjected to sexually harassing conduct by the manager. The EEOC claimed that, after she rejected his advances, the manager became abusive to Maxwell, even threatening her with a knife in the restaurant’s kitchen. Maxwell was subsequently fired from her job for opposing the illegal conduct, according to the EEOC. The agency also charged that other teenaged female employees were subjected to or witnessed sexual harassment within the workplace.

Sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 4:08-cv-02874 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

The settlement terms of the lawsuit, set forth in a consent decree signed and entered by U.S. District Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore on June 8, 2010, require the defendants to pay $55,000 in relief to compensate Maxwell, De Leon and other class members for the sexual harassment and retaliation. The decree also contains provisions to ensure that the owner, managers and employees of the two franchises are properly trained to fully comply with employment discrimination laws. In addition, the two defendants are required to develop and implement new policies and procedures for addressing illegal discrimination in the workplace, as well as guidelines for investigating complaints of discrimination. These policies and guidelines must be approved by the EEOC prior to implementation.

“This lawsuit was filed in order to protect some of our nation’s most vulnerable and impressionable workers – teenagers who, often, are newcomers to the workplace,” said Jim Sacher, the EEOC’s regional attorney. “The unchecked actions of the young manager in this case clearly put young women at risk. This settlement is an important step in ensuring that such workers are able to enter the workplace for the first time without fear of harassment or retaliation.”

Anyone who believes he or she has been subjected to a discriminatory employment practice is encouraged to contact the EEOC’s Houston District Office, which is located in downtown Houston on the seventh floor of the Mickey Leland Federal Building at 1919 Smith Street.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Ann Arbor Days Inn Sued by EEOC for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

2010-06-08T01:28:00.000-04:00

Supervisor Attempted Sexual Assault on Employee, Federal Agency Charges

ANN ARBOR, Mich. – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has filed a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against Ann Arbor Nights, Inc., doing business as Days Inn Hotel of Ann Arbor, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (Case No. 2:10CV12197).

The EEOC’s suit charged that the Days Inn violated federal law when a supervisor subjected a female housekeeper to a sexually hostile work environment including inappropriate sexual comments, physical assaults, and at least one attempted sexual assault. The EEOC also said that the housekeeper was discharged following her repeated attempts to complain about the harassment.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking to recover monetary compensation in the form of compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction enjoining Days Inn from further subjecting its employees to a sexually hostile work environment or retaliating against individuals who complain.

“Attempted sexual assault is one of the most egregious forms of sexual harassment,” explained EEOC attorney Nedra Campbell. “When it’s at the hands of a supervisor, it’s even worse,” she added.

The Ann Arbor Days Inn is a franchise of Days Inns Worldwide, which is part of the Wyndham Worldwide family of hotels.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Overland Park Restaurant Sued By EEOC For Sexual Harassment Of Teen Worker

2010-05-20T20:26:00.000-04:00

KANSAS CITY, Kan. – Cactus Grill, Inc., violated federal law when it allowed a manager to sexually harass an 18-year-old server at its restaurant in Leawood, Kan., the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today in federal court.

According to the EEOC’s suit, an assistant manager at the restaurant asked the server for sex, touched her, and made unwelcome sexual advances toward her. The harassment was so intolerable that the server was forced to quit her job, amounting to an unlawful constructive discharge, the EEOC said.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based upon gender, including sexual harassment. The EEOC filed this suit, Case No. ****, in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. In addition to Cactus Grill, Inc., the suit names other related corporations as defendants.

“Sexual harassment in the workplace is always wrong, but harassment of teenage workers, who are often in their first ‘real’ job, is even more egregious,” said James Neely, director of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office. “Employers must provide safe, harassment-free workplaces for all of their employees, including teenagers.”

Barbara A. Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, added, “Training is key to preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is especially crucial for employers with teenage employees. All employees must be trained that sexual harassment is unlawful and will not be tolerated. But all employees, and especially teenagers, must also be trained to recognize sexual harassment and to know what to do if it happens to them.”

The EEOC St. Louis District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and southern Illinois, with Area Offices in Kansas City and Oklahoma City.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC Collects on $471,000 Jury Award after Winning Appeal from Waterproofing Company In Sex Harassment Case

2010-05-05T21:19:00.000-04:00

NEW YORK – The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that Everdry Marketing and Management has paid $471,096 in damages, plus $86,581 in post-judgment interest, to 13 victims of sexual harassment. The payout satisfies a judgment obtained by EEOC against Everdry in October 2006 following a four-week trial in Rochester, N.Y. (case # 01-CV-6329). The individual payouts range from about $24,000 to $56,000, including the interest, which covers the time the women had to wait to receive their jury awards. Everdry was required to pay the substantial interest after the ultimate resolution of the case was delayed by an appeal Everdry filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging various aspects of the jury’s verdict and other district court rulings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict and award of damages.

Cleveland-based Everdry provides basement waterproofing services through various franchises. The case concerned a prolonged period of physical and verbal sexual harassment of mostly teenage telemarketers by male managers and co-workers at Everdry’s Rochester, N.Y., location. The EEOC charged that the harassment included repeated demands for sex, frequent groping, sexual jokes and constant comments about the bodies of women employees. On one occasion, a male manager requested sex from a teenager with the promise of a raise if she consented.

“Many of the victims in this case were young and especially vulnerable,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “We are gratified that the appeals court has now paved the way for these harassment victims to finally receive the relief the jury awarded.”

The jury awards consist of compensatory damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages designed to punish and deter Everdry from engaging in further sexual harassment. The payout was made by Everdry’s corporate headquarters.

“The 13 women in this case had to endure vicious sexual harassment and then live it again through their testimony in pre-trial depositions and the trial,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Robert D. Rose. “The EEOC appreciates their courage and endurance in seeing this case all the way through. For them, justice was delayed, but ultimately not denied.”

Spencer H Lewis, Jr., district director for the EEOC’s New York District Office, added, “This case demonstrates how the EEOC will not relent in its efforts to redress discrimination wherever it occurs, no matter how long it takes.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws banning workplace discrimination. Further information about the agency is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Lafayette College Agrees To Pay $1 Million To Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit

2010-04-23T21:19:00.000-04:00

PHILADELPHIA – Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., has agreed to pay $1,000,000 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a federal sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that the college’s supervisor in charge of “loss prevention” engaged in repeated and unwelcome sexual harassment of five women in the public safety department. The supervisor’s abusive treatment included groping female employees and forcibly kissing them; making lewd comments and gestures regarding sexual activities he wanted to perform on them; displaying or e-mailing pornography and sexually explicit materials; and making other crude sexual remarks. One employee was forced to quit because of the unrelenting harassment, the EEOC said.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement prior to filing suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil Action No. 08-CV-4709).

“No one should have to endure the abuse these women faced at work,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “This significant settlement shows that the EEOC will insist on meaningful relief for workers who are victims of harassment.”

In addition to the $1 million in monetary relief to the five class members, the two-year consent decree settling the case also provides substantial equitable relief, including enjoining Lafayette from engaging in sexual harassment or retaliation. The college will provide annual training for all managers and supervisors and post a notice regarding the settlement. Lafayette did not admit liability in the consent decree, which was approved by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas M. Golden on April 22, 2010.

“Sexual harassment remains a serious problem in the workplace,” said Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “We are pleased that Lafayette College worked with the EEOC to negotiate a fair settlement resolving this matter. We believe that the equitable relief provided by the consent decree, and especially the training, will benefit many employees at the college.”

In Fiscal Year 2009, EEOC received 12,696 charges alleging sexual harassment, accounting for about 14 percent of the agency’s private sector caseload.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC Settles Lawsuits for Sex and Race Harassment Against Preston Hood Chevrolet

2010-04-21T19:47:00.000-04:00

GULFPORT, Miss. – Biloxi, Miss.-based Preston Hood Chevrolet has agreed to pay a total of $120,000 to settle two employment discrimination lawsuits, one for sexual harassment and one for race harassment, filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

In the sexual harassment case (SD MS Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1266), the EEOC charged that during 2006 and 2007 Preston Hood subjected a class of female employees to harassment based on their sex and forced one employee to quit. In the race harassment lawsuit (MS Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1265), the EEOC asserted that during 2007 Preston Hood subjected an African American employee to harassment based on his race. The EEOC said that the harassment in both cases was perpetrated by both management and non-management employees.

The women alleged they were subjected to sexually explicit, provocative and insulting language, pornographic material and unwelcome sexual advances. The black male employee alleged that he was subjected to racial slurs and racially derogatory language. In both cases the employees reported that they complained to management but no corrective action was taken.

Race and sexual harassment violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach pre-litigation settlements.

The consent decree settling the race harassment case requires Preston Hood to make payment to Rickey Hayes of $35,000 and to provide significant injunctive relief. In the gender discrimination case, the dealership will pay $85,000 to Lisa Battaglia, Rebeca Gonzalez and a class of former female employees.

In both cases, Preston Hood also agreed to provide significant injunctive relief, such as implementing and disseminating anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and procedures; providing training to managers and employees; posting a notice in the workplace explaining Title VII employee rights and employer obligations under the statute; promptly and thoroughly investigating and addressing complaints of race or sex based harassment; and taking steps to ensure that there will be no retaliation against employees who complain about conduct believed to be discriminatory.

“Every employee deserves the freedom to work in an environment free from any form of harassment,” EEOC Birmingham District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas said. "We are pleased that Preston Hood is now taking affirmative steps to improve the work environment. Employers should recognize that upon first receipt of a complaint of harassment, they must take prompt action to ensure that the misconduct stops.”

EEOC Birmingham Regional Attorney C. Emanuel Smith added, “Workplace harassment is one of the most egregious and demeaning forms of discrimination. Employers who allow their employees to be victimized by this type of behavior need to know that serious repercussions may follow their inaction.”

According to its website, Preston Hood Chevrolet serves the Biloxi, Miss., and Mobile, Ala., areas and specializes in the sale of new and used Chevrolet vehicles.

In 2009, the EEOC received 12,696 charges of sexual harassment and 33,579 charges alleging race-based discrimination, the latter accounting for 36 percent of the agency's private-sector caseload. Historically, race-based charges have been the most frequent type of filing with EEOC offices nationwide.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Company To Pay $30,000 To Settle EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit

2010-04-20T19:38:00.000-04:00

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – A Los Angeles-based insurance company that services policyholders in 12 states will pay $30,000 and furnish other relief to settle an unlawful retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the Charlotte, N.C., facility of Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Company demoted William Barringer from associate sales manager to the position of sales associate in retaliation for reporting a complaint of sexual harassment that he had received from an employee he supervised. The report of the complaint was made to a vice president and agency director of Golden State. The EEOC also charged that Barringer was demoted in retaliation after he informed the alleged harasser, who was his supervisor, that he had reported the complaint.

Such retaliation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit on March 16, 2009 (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-105, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

In addition to requiring Golden State to pay $30,000 to Barringer, the one-year consent decree resolving the case enjoins Golden State from engaging in any further retaliation against employees based on their opposition to unlawful employment practices or employment practices which the employee reasonably believes to be unlawful under the federal EEO statutes enforced by the EEOC. The company will also provide a positive letter of reference for Barringer, redistribute a copy of its written anti-discrimination policy to each of its employees, and make periodic reports to the EEOC.

“Employees should be confident that they can make their employers aware of violations of federal anti-discrimination laws without fear of reprisal,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “The anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII are indispensable to the attainment of a workplace free of discrimination.”

In addition to Barnes, the EEOC was represented by Supervisory Trial Attorney Tracy H. Spicer and Trial Attorney Edward O’Farrell Loughlin.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Athens Sonic Owner to Pay $70,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit

2010-04-15T13:16:00.000-04:00

Female Employee Was Abused by Store Manager, Federal Agency Charged

ATLANTA – SDI Athens East, LLC, doing business as Sonic and Tomco Management, LLC, will pay $70,000 to settle a sexual discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The federal agency had charged that a the store manager of a Sonic drive-in restaurant located in the eastern part of Athens, Ga., subjected a female carhop to a barrage of sexually charged comments and repeated sexual overtures. The EEOC further asserted that the manager subjected the carhop to unwelcome touching that became increasingly menacing and ultimately forced her to resign. The EEOC first filed the suit on July 2, 2008 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

The consent decree settling the suit, in addition to the monetary relief of $70,000, includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting, and postings. In the suit and consent decree, SDI Athens and Tomco Management denied any liability or wrongdoing.

“The abuse suffered in this case is precisely the kind behavior that Title VII was enacted to stop” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “The Commission is pleased that the defendants committed to resolving this matter and setting in place a method of addressing similar problems in the future.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Sonic Drive-In Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit

2010-04-09T01:39:00.000-04:00

General Manager Subjected Teenage Carhop to Sexual Touching, Federal Agency Charged

DALLAS, Texas – A Sonic Drive-In in Grapevine, Texas, has agreed to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), for $31,000, the agency announced today. The EEOC’s suit charged that SDI of Grapevine [2240 Hall Johnson Road], A Texas Partnership, subjected 17-year-old carhop Erin Schwarzbach to a sexually hostile work environment created by the general manager of the restaurant.

According to the EEOC, General Manager Shawn Sadler, who was in his mid-20s at that time, subjected Schwarzbach, an academic standout at Colleyille Heritage High School, to unwanted sexual conduct. The harassment by the manager included puckering his lips as if to give Schwarzbach a kiss and telling her how a woman should perform oral sex on a man. When Schwarzbach would ask Sadler to review her receipts so she could leave, he told her that he would do so in exchange for oral sex. Schwarzbach provided the EEOC with information that when she would bend down to put on her roller skates at the beginning a shift, the manager would grab her head and push it down in an attempt to simulate oral sex.

After Schwarzbach’s mother reported the conduct to company officials, the EEOC said, defendant failed to conduct a proper investigation and did not appropriately discipline the manager, even though the company found that he had engaged in “harassing behavior.”

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In October 2006, Ms. Schwarzbach filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, initiating an investigation by the agency’s Dallas District Office. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1606-L) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

Under the settlement, besides the monetary award, SDI of Grapevine is enjoined from further discrimination on the basis of gender, including sexual harassment, and from retaliating in any way against person for reporting or complaining about discriminatory practices. Further, the company will take corrective measures for the next five years, including anti-harassment training and notice posting. The company will also place in the manager’s personnel file a written notice stating that a young worker has alleged sexual harassment, including forced physical touching, and that any further complaints will be fully investigated according to defendant’s procedures and, should there be evidence to support such claims, he shall be subject to immediate termination.

Schwarzbach, now a junior at the University of Texas, said, “Although the process to get where we are today was long and trying at times, the opportunity to stand up for myself -- and for other girls who have been or may be in the same situation -- made it worth my commitment to initiate change. And I hope I have set an example for other young women in the working world.”

“Young workers are often vulnerable in part because of they are taught or accustomed to respect and obey persons in position of authority,” said Robert A. Canino, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Dallas District Office. “The other part of the equation is that high school-aged workers are typically unfamiliar with the laws that protect them. In this case, the young lady did the right thing by discussing her concerns and discomfort with her mother.”

Devika Seth, senior trial attorney with the EEOC’s Dallas office, said, “To have a high-level manager subject a teenage employee to such mistreatment has the potential to establish the acceptance of such behavior in the workplace. We hope this settlement shows that there will be accountability when such an abuse of power occurs. We are proud that Ms. Schwarzbach came forward and asserted her right to work in a harassment-free environment.”

During Fiscal Year 2009, the EEOC and state and local fair employment practice agencies (FEPAs) received a combined total of 12,696 sexual harassment charge filings nationwide.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the agency is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

How To file A Sexual Harassment Complaint With The New York State Division Of Human Rights

2010-03-27T08:47:00.000-04:00

How to File a Complaint | Complaint Form

To file a complaint, please contact the nearest regional office. Click here to find your nearest regional office. You can also request a flyer for more information on filing a complaint.

IF YOU FEEL YOU HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST … Click here to download the form and mail it to your nearest regional office.

… because of your race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, age, marital status, domestic violence victim status, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics or prior arrest or conviction record, or if you believe you have been retaliated against for opposing unlawful discriminatory practices, you may be able to file a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights. The New York State Human Rights Law forbids discrimination in employment, apprenticeship and training; purchase and rental of housing and commercial space; places of public accommodation, resort and amusement; non-sectarian; tax-exempt educational institutions; and all credit transactions.

How to File a Complaint:

1. You can download a complaint form. Once completed, signed and notarized you can mail the complaint form to the nearest regional office of the Division of Human Rights. There is no filing fee. You may retain private counsel, but it is not necessary. You may file a complaint within one year of the unlawful

To assist us in expediting your complaint please be prepared to provide us with the following information:

a. Have names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of all persons alleged to have discriminated against you.

b. Provide photocopies of any documentation that supports the allegations made in your complaint.

c. If possible, supply the correct names and addresses of any witnesses to the alleged act(s) of discrimination.

Investigative Procedure:

The regional office will:

1. Receive your complaint of discrimination and notify the respondent(s).

(A respondent is a person or entity about whose action you complain). If you are unable to file, a complaint will be prepared and forwarded to you for your review and notarized signature.

2. Resolve questionable issues of jurisdiction.

3. Forward, upon your request, a copy of your complaint will sent complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

4. Investigate through appropriate methods (written inquiry, field investigation, investigatory conference, etc.)

5. Determine whether or not, there is probable cause to believe that an act of discrimination has occurred, and will notify you and the respondent(s) in writing.

Procedure Following an Investigation:

If there is a finding of no probable cause, or lack of jurisdiction, the matter is dismissed and the complainant may appeal to the State Supreme Court within 60 days.

Public Hearing:

1. A Division attorney or agent will present the case in support of the complaint, or you may elect to retain outside counsel.

2. A Notice of Hearing will be issued. The case may be adjourned only for a good cause.

3. An Administrative Law Judge presides over the hearing. It may last one or more days.

4. A Recommended Order is prepared and sent to the parties for comment.

5. A Commissioner's Order either dismisses the complaint or finds discrimination. In the latter case, the Commissioner may order the respondent to cease and desist and take appropriate action. The Division may order damages and/or back pay. The Order may be appealed by either party to the State Supreme Court within 60 days.

Within one year, the Compliance Investigation Unit investigates whether the respondent has complied with the provisions of the Order.

EEOC Sues Medical Transportation Company For Sex Harassment and Retaliation

2010-03-07T11:06:00.000-05:00

Federal Agency Says Jay Medicar Allowed Harassment of Female Employees

CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a class lawsuit here today charging that Jay Medicar Transportation tolerated the sexual harassment of a number of female employees by one of its senior managers and retaliated against one employee after she complained about the harassment. The company provides medical transportation services in the Chicago area.

John Rowe, EEOC district director in Chicago, said that the EEOC’s administrative investigation which he directed revealed that a top manager at the company allegedly frequently made comments of a sexual nature to subordinate female employees and on at least one occasion demanded sexual favors from an employee in exchange for a pay raise.

“Several people complained to the company’s management repeatedly,” Rowe said of the investigation. “These complaints were allegedly ignored, and one female employee who complained appears to have been fired shortly after the company learned that she had filed a charge with the EEOC.”

The EEOC’s lawsuit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination (including sexual harassment) as well as retaliation, in employment. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The case, EEOC v. Jay Medicar Transportation, LLC, a/k/a Jay Transportation, f/k/a Jay Medi-Car, Inc, Civil Action No. 10 cv 01477, was filed today in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge William J. Hibbler and U.S. Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown. EEOC Trial Attorney Justin Mulaire and Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour will litigate the case on behalf of the government.

The EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, John Hendrickson, said, “Unfortunately, even in times of economic stress, some employers continue to penalize themselves through harassment and retaliation. Both may well involve exposure to awards of damages, loss of good will, significant attorneys’ fees, and other litigation costs—not to mention major distractions from the conduct of business itself. From our perspective at the EEOC, it would seem that, in a competitive business environment in tough times, compliance with federal law is surely a better investment.”

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Monterey Gourmet Foods Sued for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

2010-01-14T19:11:00.000-05:00

EEOC Says Male and Female Food Packers Fired After Reporting Harassment at Salinas Plant

SALINAS, Calif. -- Monterey Gourmet Foods, Inc., a major producer of refrigerated gourmet food products, violated federal law when it allowed a supervisor to sexually harass four Latino workers at its Salinas plant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit. The EEOC also alleged that the company unlawfully retaliated against each worker by terminating them after they reported the harassment.

According to the EEOC’s suit, three women and one man who worked as packers in the lasagna, tamale and ravioli production units for several years faced sexual harassment from the same male supervisor. Starting in August 2006, their new crew leader’s conduct included sexual comments, gestures simulating sex with female workers, texting pornography, exposing himself, and grabbing the private body parts of workers. Although the employees reported the harassment to management and the human resources department, the company failed to take corrective action. In May 2008, all four workers were discharged or laid off just weeks after two of them filed discrimination charges with the EEOC.

The male worker, in his 80s, was mortified by the painful sexual groping. He said, “I needed to keep my job. Especially because of my age, I doubt I’ll ever be able to find other work.” One of the women added, “It got to the point where you just did not want to go in to work each day. I felt degraded and humiliated by my supervisor's endless sexual talk, the pornography, the gestures and touching. It was an abuse of power. That's why we decided to find help from the EEOC and California Rural Legal Assistance — to make it stop, if not for us, then for other workers.”

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, which also forbids retaliating against employees who oppose such conduct. The EEOC filed this suit (EEOC v. Monterey Gourmet Foods, Inc., No. C10-152-HRL in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) only after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation. The suit seeks monetary damages, supervisor accountability, training on anti-discrimination laws, reporting of retaliation complaints to the EEOC, and other injunctive relief to prevent future harassment and retaliation.

EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “Sexual harassment is often a matter of power. As Mexican immigrants and first-generation citizens in low-wage positions, these workers were particularly vulnerable. Once they put the harasser and Monterey Gourmet Foods on notice that the harassment was offensive and unwelcome, the company had a legal responsibility to take immediate and appropriate action to stop the misconduct. When an employer fails to do so, the EEOC must and will hold that employer accountable.”

EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado noted, “Employers do not solve a discrimination problem by getting rid of the people who speak out about it – that’s like throwing gasoline onto the places you smell smoke. When your employees come to you with news of harassment, take this as an opportunity to protect your human resources. Send a clear message that sexual harassment will not be tolerated in your workplace.”

According to its web site, www.montereygourmetfoods.com, Monterey Gourmet Foods (NASDAQ: PSTA) has national distribution of its products, which are sold under the brands Monterey Pasta Company, CIBO Naturals, Emerald Valley Kitchen and Sonoma Foods and in more than 11,000 retail and club stores throughout the United States and selected regions of Canada, the Caribbean, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC Sues American Laser Centers for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

2010-01-04T19:29:00.000-05:00

Fresno Aesthetics Services Company Fired Manager for Complaining About Widespread Sexual Harassment, Federal Agency Charged

FRESNO – American Laser Centers violated federal law by subjecting a class of women to a sexually hostile work environment in its Fresno, Calif., clinic and by retaliating against the manager of that clinic for complaining about it, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, (EEOC v. American Laser Centers, LLC, et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-02247), filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Fresno clinic's consulting physician and landlord engaged in repeated, egregious acts of sexual harassment toward female employees including frequent, unwelcome physical touching of a sexual nature and regularly appearing in their work area with a visibly erect penis.

Several of the women complained about the sexual harassment, but American Laser Centers failed to assist them, the EEOC reported. Instead, the agency said, company officials accused the women of misunderstanding the doctor and ordered them to return to work, stay away from the harasser and avoid being alone with him. Moreover, American Laser Centers retaliated against the manager of the Fresno location for her repeated complaints regarding the unlawful harassment by firing her.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to harass employees based on sex, including pregnancy and sexual harassment, and prohibits retaliation against someone who complains about discrimination. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The agency seeks injunctive relief to end the discriminatory practices, plus back pay and compensatory and punitive damages to compensate the victims for their monetary losses and emotional pain and suffering and to deter the company from future civil rights violations.

EEOC Regional Attorney Anna Y. Park noted, "Every company has a duty to protect its employees from sexual harassment in its workplace even if it calls for remedial action against a sexual harasser who is, as in this case, its landlord and/or a consulting physician. In addition, employers must understand that their employees have a statutorily protected right to oppose unlawful harassment and discrimination and that EEOC will not tolerate any form of retaliation against employees who exercise that right.”

EEOC Fresno Local Office Director Melissa Barrios stated, "No employee should have to silently endure this type of offensive sexual conduct in order to keep a job. Employees have a right to work in an environment free of sexual harassment – and to complain if their employer fails to provide such an environment."

American Laser Centers http://www.americanlaser.com/index.aspx describes itself as the nation’s leading provider of aesthetic services, offering laser hair removal, cellulite reduction and skin rejuvenation treatments. It operates 225 clinics nationwide with more than 1,000 employees.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC Sues Sparks Steak House for Male-On-Male Sexual Harassment, Retaliation

2009-12-31T19:35:00.000-05:00

Male Employees Were Groped and Degraded by Management and Co-Workers at Upscale Eatery, Federal Agency Charges

NEW YORK – Sparks Steak House, an upscale restaurant in New York City, violated federal law by creating a hostile work environment for male employees, including physical and verbal sexual harassment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, male managers and workers at Sparks subjected male employees to ongoing abuse. The misconduct allegedly included groping their buttocks, attempting to touch their genitals and rubbing their bodies into the employees while at work. The managers and co-workers also made numerous crude, obscene comments.

The lawsuit against the eatery also charged that an employee who complained about the harassment was retaliated against by getting less desirable assignments and was ultimately terminated.

All this alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin, and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation. The EEOC filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (civil number 09 CV 10601) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court.

“The managers’ and employees’ offensive conduct at Sparks has absolutely no place in any working environment,” said Charles F. Coleman, Jr., a trial attorney in the EEOC's New York District Office. “When employees spoke out against the abuse, their pleas were either ignored or resulted in punishment. With this suit, the EEOC is sending the message that this type of behavior is illegal and will not be tolerated.”

EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. said, “The EEOC is determined to stop sexual harassment whether faced by men or women. The objectives of this lawsuit will be to obtain fair compensation for those employees who suffered harassment and to implement policies that will help prevent discrimination.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Jack In The Box Sued For Sexual Harassment

2009-12-23T23:15:00.000-05:00

EEOC Says Paradise Restaurant Manager Subjected Women to Abuse

SAN FRANCISCO — Jack in the Box franchisee Kobra Associates, Inc., which operates about 70 restaurants in Northern and Eastern California, violated federal law by allowing a manager at its Paradise, Calif., store to sexually harass female employees under his supervision, according to a federal lawsuit filed yesterday by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the harassment by the Jack in the Box restaurant manager included frequent remarks about female employees’ anatomy and unwelcome sexual advances and innuendos. The agency’s investigation found that he would refer to women as “bitches,” “sluts” and “whores,” as well as ogle and touch them inappropriately. Despite complaints, including messages left with Jack in the Box’s ethics hotline, the EEOC says, the company failed to take corrective action. Faced with ongoing harassment after a year of raising the issue to the company through multiple avenues, one woman was forced to resign in order to escape the targeted attention of the restaurant manager, the EEOC said.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Kobra Associates, Inc. d/b/a Jack in the Box) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California only after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement. The EEOC is seeking monetary relief, including emotional distress and punitive damages, on behalf of the women affected by the harassment, in addition to injunctive relief to prevent a recurrence of this type of discrimination.

EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo noted, “With a tight job market, it is especially vital that the EEOC protect the rights of all employees to work in an environment free from sexual harassment or other illegal forms of harassment. The pressure on workers to keep whatever job they have does not ease the responsibility of employers to take every complaint of harassment seriously.”

EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado said, “As they say, ‘Don’t put a fox in to guard a henhouse.’ Employers, make sure you can trust your supervisors to enforce your anti-harassment stance, and check that the channels for employees to report harassment problems don’t short-circuit just because a harasser has influence in the chain of command.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Aaron Rents Settles EEOC Sex Harassment Suit

2009-12-22T17:33:00.000-05:00

Store Manager Subjected Customer Service Rep to Sexual Assault, Federal Agency Charged

EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill.– The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of an egregious harassment case against Aaron Rents, Inc., doing business as Aaron Sales & Lease Ownership (Aaron), for significant remedial relief on behalf of a young female worker who was allegedly subjected to a sexually hostile workplace and assaulted by a store manager.

In its lawsuit, filed on September 30, 2008, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Case No. 3:08-cv-00683-MJR-DGW), the EEOC alleged that the general manager of Aaron’s Fairview Heights, Ill.-based store made sexually explicit comments and requests for sex on a regular basis to Ashley Alford, a young customer service representative. The EEOC alleged that the manager repeatedly attempted to force Alford to have sex with him and that the harassment escalated until he sexually assaulted Alford in the store’s warehouse area.

According to the EEOC’s court-filed complaint, the male manager, “…touched Alford’s body in a sexually offensive manner on a number of occasions and he exposed himself to her several times. Alford complained to her direct supervisor and called the company hotline but no action was taken to end the harassment. In October 2006, [the manager] sexually assaulted Alford in the Fairview Heights facility.”

The EEOC’s proposed consent decree was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and is subject to approval by Judge Michael J. Reagan. The decree will provide significant remedial relief, including training for all managers within Arron’s St. Louis Region, reporting of any complaints of sexual harassment in this region, and improving its company-wide discrimination hotline. Alford intervened in the EEOC’s lawsuit and is represented by Judy and David Cates of Cates Law Firm of O’Fallon, Ill. Alford’s case has not been settled and she will proceed in her private lawsuit without the EEOC.

“No one should have to face sexual harassment and assault as part of their job,” said EEOC’s St. Louis District Director James R. Neely, Jr. “Ms. Alford was the only woman working in this store for most of her tenure. She was only 20 years old at the time of the alleged attack. It is important for employers to be vigilant in protecting young employees, who are one of the most vulnerable segments of the labor force.”

According to company information, Atlanta-based Aaron Rents Inc. owns and operates more than 1,500 “rent to own” stores across the United States and Canada. The company identifies itself as “the nation’s leader in the rental, sales and lease ownership, and specialty retailing of residential and office furniture, consumer electronics and home appliances and accessories.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Sexual Harrassment Alleged at Edgewood Plant

2009-12-17T23:17:00.000-05:00

Six women who worked for nearly a decade at the Long Island division of a government contractor claim that supervisors sexually harassed them and then fired the women last year for rejecting their sexual advances.

One of the women, all of whom are El Salvadorian, described their experiences working as inspectors at the mail-equipment repair facility owned by Texas-based Alan Ritchey Inc. at news conference on Wednesday at the offices of Carle Place-based Leeds Morelli & Brown. The women are exploring the possibility of filing a federal lawsuit against the company and the men who allegedly harassed them. Read more...

Mediator makes recommendation in Bellevue Schools sexual harassment case

2009-12-16T12:03:00.000-05:00

The mediator has come to a decision in the sexual harassment case involving the Bellevue Schools' assistant to the superintendent.

Darrell Hykes, the mediator recommends, should be fired. Read more...

Confronting race and racism : social identity in African American gay men.

2009-12-16T07:27:00.000-05:00

Kudler, Benjamin A (2007). Confronting race and racism : social identity in African American gay men. Thesis (M.S.W.) Smith College School for Social Work, Northampton, Mass. Abstract, Download Page. PDF, Full Text.

This qualitative study examines how race and racism function in gay communities, looking at factors facing African American gay men in their identity formation and daily experience. Specifically, this study has examined the presence of sexual racism, sexualized racial stereotypes that affect the way men of color are viewed by white gay men... African American gay men, often considered to be cultural outlaws by both Gay and African American communities, are subjected to sexual and traditional racism, and may be made to feel ignored or excluded from mainstream Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community events and spaces. In addition to stating their challenges, the study attempts to highlight these men’s strength and resiliency... The majority of participants were highly educated and middle- to upper-middle class, which is a skewed representation of the greater African-American gay population in Boston... In participant’s experiences, the color of their skin comes first in the context of gay communities, which tend to be predominately white. Participants felt separated, stratified, made to feel “less” than their white peers, and/or were sexualized because of their race, with many assumptions put upon them because of their skin color... Another manifestation of racism in gay communities has to do with the expectation of African American gay men to hold to stereotypical roles derived from a long history of stereotypes around African American masculinity, and more recently, from hip-hop culture... Participant’s discussion of the Down Low will be addressed later in the chapter. However, participants had a lot to say about the specific assumptions that white men placed on them based on their race and sexualized racial stereotypes, often tied to the Mandingo fantasy of African American men as hyper-sexual predators with huge penises, animalistic aggression, and low intelligence (McBride, 2005; Stevenson, 1994). Several participants said that relative strangers and intimate partners had used the phrase or even referred to them as “big black dick.”

DeRango's waitress alleges sexual harassment from other employees

2009-12-16T06:49:00.000-05:00

CALEDONIA - A state agency will hold a hearing to determine whether a waitress was sexually harassed while working at DeRango the Pizza King and Steakhouse, 4621 6 Mile Road.

The woman filed a report with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development Equal Rights Division in which she outlined harassment and discrimination, and said nothing was done to correct the situation. She worked for the restaurant for about one year, from May 2008 until May 2009. Read more...

Atherton settles sexual harassment, discrimination lawsuit

2009-12-15T06:46:00.000-05:00

Atherton has agreed to shell out $230,000 to settle a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit a former police officer filed against the town and one of its employees, attorneys said Monday.

In the April documents filed in San Mateo County Superior Court, former Atherton police Officer Pilar Ortiz-Buckley accused Public Works Supervisor Troy Henderson of making salacious remarks and grabbing her in the police break room. Read more...

EEOC Sues M. Slavin & Sons, Inc. for Male-On-Male Sexual, Racial & National Origin Harassment

2009-12-07T06:47:00.000-05:00

Male Employees, Particularly Black Men, Were Consistently Abused and Degraded by Owners of Fish Market, Federal Agency Charges

NEW YORK – M. Slavin & Sons, a retail and wholesale fish market, violated federal law by creating a hostile work environment for male employees, including physical and verbal sexual harassment and offensive and degrading comments based on race and national origin, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, some of the owners and managers of M. Slavin & Sons subjected male employees, particularly black employees, including both black Americans and at least one immigrant from Africa, to ongoing harassment. The misconduct included groping their buttocks, putting fish hooks into their buttocks and unnecessarily rubbing their bodies into the employees when passing them by. The owners and managers also made numerous crude, obscene sexual and/or racist comments. One owner used the term “n----r” and another manager made comments such as “African b-----d” and “Let me see you run like you are in Africa.”

In addition to the Brooklyn location which was the focus of the EEOC charge and investigation, the company operates other locations, including Hunts Point Market in the Bronx, Rhode Island and Virginia. The original complainant, the named harassers and the class of claimants all worked at the Brooklyn location.

The lawsuit also alleges that employees left these positions because of the harassment and that the man who originally complained faced retaliation. To punish him for complaining, the EEOC said, managers instructed other employees not to speak to him, yelled at him when he spoke to others, assigned him more frequently to garbage duty and sent him home when he did speak to others.

All this alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation. The EEOC filed suit, CV 09-5330, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, only after attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

Sunu P. Chandy, a senior trial attorney in the EEOC's New York office, said, “The stunning facts of this case remind us of an ugly time in our nation’s history. The actions of these white owners, who subjected particularly men of color to horrendous physical sexual harassment and racial comments, must be challenged. When the employees said that they would fight back against the abuse, the owners consistently told them that no one would listen to their complaints and that no one would believe them. This suit shows the owners were wrong.”

Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., director of the EEOC New York District Office, said, “The EEOC is determined to stop sexual harassment whether faced by men or by women. The objectives of this lawsuit will be to obtain fair compensation for those employees who suffered harassment and to implement policies that will help prevent discrimination.”

The EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Racism Within The Gay Community?

2009-12-06T10:17:00.000-05:00

Jamez Smith, a gay black man, says racism is alive in the Twin Cities' gay community
He accuses local gay bars of singling him out for harassment because of his race.
Read more...

Racism in the LGBT community is racial prejudice within lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities. LGBT communities span all ethnicities, races, and cultures, and often these communities are a mixture of other cultures newly defined by sexual orientation and gender identity.

Racial tolerance and diversity, especially in a community which already receives discrimination from homophobia, is seen as an important issue within these communities themselves. Some feel the diversity of LGBT communities, in many cases forcing members to collaborate with people they may otherwise not work with, has strengthened these communities as a whole.
Read more...

I have always known since becoming more involved in LGBT issues that there was an underlying racism and elitism existing within LGBT activism and the community itself. I say this because I'm born and raised in Atlanta, GA which is within the traditional Rural South of the USA (The Good Ole Confederate states), and based on the images and presentation shown in the Media about LGBT life, which is mostly European-Caucasian based images.
Read more...

On December 6,2006 the third episode of MTV's The Real World Denver aired. This season, like many prior seasons of the Real World, uncovered a seldom discussed topics in America. This episode internationally exposed gay racism.
Read more...

Keith Boykin has been double marginalized.

The black New York Times best-selling author, host of Black Entertainment Television’s “My Two Cents” and editor of The Daily Voice, has reported on cases of racism in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
Read more...

Sexual Harassment At Federated Payment Systems

2009-12-05T16:33:00.000-05:00

Exposing Racial and Orientation Discrimination Within the Gay & Lesbian Closet At Federated Payment Systems.

EEOC Sues Dunkin’ Donuts For Sexual Harassment

2009-11-27T22:58:00.000-05:00

Federal Agency Charges Wynantskill Store Manager Grabbed and Verbally Harassed Teenage Employees

RENSSELAER, N.Y. —Severalfemale employees, some of whom were teenagers, were subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment at a Wynantskill, N.Y., Dunkin’ Donuts, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in an employment discrimination lawsuit announced today.

The EEOC’s lawsuit filed Wednesday, November 25, 2009, charges that the manager of the Dunkin’ Donuts on Main Street in Wynantskill grabbed female employees’ buttocks and breasts, kissed them on the neck, and hugged them against their will. He told them they were “hot” and told them he preferred virgins. He asked about their sex lives and described in explicit detail the sexual acts he wanted to perform on them, the EEOC said. He warned them not to tell anyone about what he said to them. The EEOC alleges company officials failed to take adequate measures to prevent and/or stop the harassment despite complaints.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed the suit against College View Donuts LLC, doing business as Dunkin’ Donuts, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-01320-TJM-RFT, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

The suit seeks monetary relief, effective policies and procedures against discrimination, effective training on anti-discrimination laws, and a permanent injunction against discrimination.

“The EEOC brought this action to obtain all appropriate remedies for these victims,” said Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., director of the EEOC’s New York District Office. “Companies need to understand that they must be vigilant about protecting its employees from harassment.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Adela Santos added, “The EEOC takes allegations of sexual harassment very seriously, especially when the employees being harassed are teens. For many of these employees, this is their first job and they don’t know how to complain, especially when the harasser is their manager.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Cheesecake Factory Settles EEOC Suit in Case of Severe Same-Sex Sexual Harassment

2009-11-10T07:38:00.000-05:00

Restaurant Chain Will Pay $345,000 to Six Male Employees Who Agency Alleged Were Repeatedly Sexually Assaulted

PHOENIX – Cheesecake Factory, Inc., a nationwide restaurant chain that touts itself as a place to create “lasting memories with family and friends,” will pay $345,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that six male employees were subjected to repeated sexual harassment at the company’s Chandler Mall location.

In its lawsuit (EEOC v. Cheesecake Factory, Inc., CV 08-1207-PHX-NVW), the EEOC charged that Cheesecake knew about and tolerated repeated sexual assaults against six male employees by a group of male kitchen staffers. The company denied the allegations. However, according to the agency, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the men suffered sexually abusive behavior, including abusers directly touching victims’ genitals, making sexually charged remarks, grinding their genitals against them, and forcing victims into repeated episodes of simulated rape. Managers witnessed employees dragging their victims kicking and screaming into the refrigerator, the EEOC charged.

Complaints to virtually every manager at the restaurant were made, but they never put a stop to it. Victims felt helpless, the agency said, and one finally had to call the police.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, said, “The evidence was clear, and everyone knew about it. Behind the lavish décor that the company boasts on its web site was a horribly dysfunctional workplace where male workers lived in fear.”

The two-year consent decree settling the suit, in addition to the monetary relief for the six victims, calls for the company to specifically train its employees and managers about sexual harassment and institute an ombudsman to field and address sexual harassment complaints by employees, among other injunctive measures. Failure by the company to fulfill its duties under the decree may mean court intervention and possibly sanctions.

Guy Knoller, one the EEOC trial attorneys who prosecuted this case, pointed out that the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office is prosecuting a similar case against Fleming’s Prime Steak House.

Acting District Director Rayford Irvin of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office said, “I am glad that such a severe case of same-sex sexual harassment has been resolved and that we can steer the Cheesecake Factory in the right direction toward creating a safe work environment free of sexual harassment for all employees. I’d like to commend the superb investigative and litigation efforts made by the EEOC team in Phoenix.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

DILLARD’S TO PAY $110,000 FOR SAME-SEX HARASSMENT

2009-06-11T07:42:00.000-04:00

EEOC Settles Suit Charging Male Supervisor Sexually Harassed Male Subordinates

MIAMI -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that national retail giant Dillard’s, Inc. will pay $110,000 and provide significant remedial relief to settle a same-sex harassment lawsuit involving two male victims.

According to the EEOC’s suit, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Dillard’s permitted a sexually hostile work environment for men at its Fashion Square Mall store in Orlando, Fla. The EEOC charged that a male supervisor engaged in verbal and physical sexual harassment of a male sales associate and a young dockworker when the supervisor exposed himself, propositioned the men, and made sexually explicit and derogatory comments. The EEOC said that Dillard’s ignored complaints about the harasser.

“The EEOC will hold corporate America accountable for failing to prevent and correct employment discrimination,” said Commission Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Sexual harassment charge filings by men have trended upward over the past decade. Employers must be more vigilant in ensuring that men are not subjected to sexually hostile workplaces.”

Under the terms of the EEOC consent decree resolving the case, in addition to paying $110,000 to the two male victims, the Dillard’s Fashion Square Mall store will distribute policies to the workforce on preventing sexual harassment and retaliation; conduct sexual harassment and anti-discrimination training for all employees; train employees who are responsible for investigating sexual harassment complaints; submit to monitoring throughout the decree’s three-year duration; and post a notice about the resolution of the case. Additionally, any future sexual harassment complaints will become part of the alleged harasser’s permanent work file.

The EEOC filed the litigation in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Civil Action No. 6:07-cv-1496-PCF-KRS) in September 2007 after first attempting to reach a settlement out of court.

“The Commission is pleased that the parties were able to reach an amicable resolution of this matter,” said EEOC Miami District Director Jacqueline H. McNair. “This resolution sends a strong message that employers must take appropriate corrective actions in response to harassment complaints.”

EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Nora Curtin added, “Employers must diligently enforce policies to prevent sexual harassment and ensure that managers take same-sex harassment complaints seriously. It is vital to protect both men and women from workplace harassment.”

In Fiscal Year 2008, 13,867 sexual harassment charges were filed with the EEOC and state or local agencies nationwide, an increase of 11 percent from the prior year and the highest level since FY 2002. Of the total sexual harassment charges, 16% were filed by men – up from 12% in the late 1990s.

According to its web site, Little Rock, Ark.-based Dillard’s, Inc. “ranks among the nation’s largest fashion apparel and home furnishings retailers with annual revenues exceeding $6.9 billion. The Company operates approximately 315 Dillard’s locations spanning 29 states.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

UNITED HEALTHCARE OF FLORIDA TO PAY $1.8 MILLION FOR SAME-SEX HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION

2007-10-01T05:52:00.000-04:00

EEOC Settles Suit Charging Male Former Regional Vice President With Victimizing Male Former Senior Accounts Executive

MIAMI – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that United HealthCare of Florida, Inc. will pay $1.8 million to settle a same-sex harassment and retaliation lawsuit charging that the male former regional vice president of key accounts subjected a male former top senior account executive to repeated verbal sexual harassment in Sunrise, Fla.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division (Case No. 06-61483-CIV-MOORE/GARBER), after the high ranking senior account executive complained several times to upper management, United HealthCare retaliated against him by subjecting him to discipline and denying him stock options and commissions. The account executive even complained to the former and current chief executive officers of the employer’s parent company (United HealthGroup, Inc.) who did not take remedial action to correct the unlawful discrimination. The top executive could no longer tolerate the retaliatory conduct, so he quit, the EEOC said.

The three-year consent decree settling the suit requires United HealthCare of Florida to pay $1.8 million to the former employee in back pay, damages, and his private attorneys’ fees and costs. United HealthCare must also distribute a new anti-harassment policy to all of its employees in Florida; train all its employees (including managers) at the Sunrise facility on federal employment discrimination laws including sexual harassment and retaliation; post a notice of resolution of the lawsuit; and report to EEOC twice annually about any harassment or retaliation complaints based on harassment, and the actions taken by United HealthCare to resolve such complaints.

“The EEOC will continue its comprehensive efforts to enforce its mission of eradicating sexual harassment in the workplace – whether the victim is a male or female, an hourly worker or an executive,” said EEOC’s Miami District Director Federico Costales.

Nora E. Curtin, regional attorney of the Miami District Office, added, “Employers cannot disregard a complaint of sexual harassment because it comes from a male employee. All employees are entitled to a workplace where they are not targeted because of their gender.”

Sexual harassment charge filings by men (reported to the EEOC and state/local agencies nationwide) have trended upward from 9% of all sexual harassment charges in Fiscal Year 1992 to 15% in FY 2006.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, gender (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability and retaliation. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

HILL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION TO PAY $225,000 FOR SAME-SEX HARRASSMENT AGAINST MEN

2007-02-12T05:42:00.000-05:00

EEOC Obtains Favorable Jury Verdict in Lawsuit Against Faulkner Company

OXFORD, Miss. -- A federal jury here returned a $225,000 verdict Friday against Hill Brothers Construction Company and Engineering Company, Inc. (Hill Brothers) in a rare same-sex harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of male employees who were sexually harassed by other men.

The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that Hill Brothers discriminated against Scott Beasley, Joel Graves and Douglas Smith in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by subjecting them to a sexually hostile work environment. After a week-long trial, the jury awarded $75,000 each to Beasley, Graves and Smith as punitive damages in the case, which was presided over by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills. Beasley was also represented by private counsel.

“We are pleased with the jury verdict and believe the male victims in this case were vindicated,” said Senior EEOC Trial Attorney Valerie Hicks-Powe, who led the federal agency’s litigation efforts. “Employers must take all complaints of harassment seriously, regardless of the gender of the parties involved.”

Beasley, Graves and Smith were hired as truck drivers for Hill Brothers in September 1999, July 2001 and August 2001 (respectively). All three complained of harassment from Gregg Witt beginning in 2001. EEOC alleged that the harassment was severe, pervasive, and included sexually offensive comments and unwanted physical contact.

EEOC Birmingham District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas said, “Employers need to heighten their awareness of discrimination and take the appropriate action to address and correct it. There is simply no excuse for an employer’s failure to remedy pervasive sexual harassment and physical assault of employees who have complained repeatedly to management. We strongly encourage Mississippi employers to take notice that discrimination is a costly practice and early prevention makes a better, more productive workplace.”

Although the jury did not award any back pay or compensatory damages, the EEOC will request the court to consider the award of additional damages and also will seek injunctive relief against Hill Brothers. The EEOC filed the lawsuit resulting in the jury trial after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement with Hills Brothers.

EEOC Birmingham District C. Emanuel Smith noted: “Some employers may view male-on-male harassment as ‘horseplay’ or ‘boys being boys’ but this kind of intentional discrimination can cause needless suffering and permanent scars for employees – not to mention creating liability issues for employers who violate federal law.”

Hill Brothers describes itself as a full service construction company which has bid and performed all types of construction work, both civil and defense for the Army Corps of Engineers and all types of private and public work. The company is licensed in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC SUES McDONALD'S FRANCHISES IN ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF YOUNG WORKERS

2005-02-24T05:39:00.000-05:00

PHOENIX -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced at a press conference that it has filed two employment discrimination lawsuits on behalf of teen workers against franchises of McDonald's restaurant in Arizona and New Mexico. The first suit was filed against Pand Enterprises, Inc. for same-sex harassment and retaliation against a class of young men employed at McDonald's in Albuquerque, N.M. The second suit was filed against GLC, Inc., an Arizona corporation, for sexual harassment against a class of young women at its McDonald's restaurant in Cordes Junction, Ariz.

"Employers must recognize their responsibility to assure that young workers one of the most vulnerable segments of the labor force are not harassed by supervisors or co-workers," said Chester Bailey, EEOC's Director of the Phoenix District Office, which has jurisdiction for Arizona, Utah and New Mexico. "These cases involve a clear failure of employers to abide by the law and respect the dignity of teen employees who are new to the workplace and may be unaware of their rights."

The EEOC's lawsuit, EEOC v. Pand Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's Restaurant, Civil Action No. 05-CIV-204, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, claims that a class of young men were subjected to same-sex harassment by a male supervisor, including unwanted touching, requests for sex and sexual remarks. The lawsuit further claims that one young male employee's work hours were cut in retaliation for opposing the sexual harassment.

The Arizona lawsuit, EEOC v. GLC, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's Restaurant, CIV 05-0618 PCT PGR, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Prescott division, claims that a class of teenage female employees were subjected to sexual harassment by a male assistant manager. EEOC asserts that the sexual harassment included, but was not limited to, touching female employees in an unwelcome sexual manner grabbing them around the waist; rubbing their stomachs; grabbing their breasts; backing them against a wall while rubbing their shoulders; putting his hands in their pockets; and rubbing up against them. The suit says that although employees complained to management about the unlawful conduct, no appropriate action was taken to address and correct the situation. Additionally, EEOC says that one female employee's work conditions were made so intolerable that she had no choice but to resign, and thus was constructively discharged in violation of the law.

The alleged conduct in both cases violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation.

Mary Jo O'Neill, Regional Attorney at the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, said, "Federal law protects workers, including teens, against sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination. Employers who provide after-school or weekend job opportunities for young workers have a responsibility to abide by the law and provide a work environment free of harassment. Young workers need to know they do not have to put up with any type of discrimination period in order to attain or retain gainful employment."

The EEOC filed the suits after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach voluntary pre-litigation settlements in both cases. The lawsuits ask the courts to order McDonald's to provide the harassment victims with appropriate relief, including back wages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages; to grant a permanent injunction enjoining this employer from engaging in any practice that discriminates on the bases of sex and retaliation; and to order the employers to institute and carry out policies and practices which eradicate sexual harassment, and prevent sexual harassment and retaliation from occurring in the future.

EEOC Vice Chair Naomi C. Earp, who was in Phoenix to host the press conference, said: "Each year, millions of teens work part-time or during the summer, and EEOC is committed to working with employers to help ensure that every teen's first work experience is a positive one. While the Commission strives to proactively prevent discrimination through education and outreach as a first resort, we will not hesitate to use our litigation tools when necessary."

In September 2004, Vice Chair Earp launched the agency's national Youth@Work Initiative to educate teens about their employment rights and responsibilities and to help employers create positive first work experiences for young adults. As part of that effort, EEOC recently entered into a partnership with the National Restaurant Association to promote fair and inclusive workplaces for teens in the food services industry. Further information about the Youth@Work campaign is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov. Specific EEOC-related information for teens is available on the new Youth@Work web site at www.youth.eeoc.gov.

BABIES R US' TO PAY $205,000, IMPLEMENT TRAINING DUE TO SAME-SEX HARASSMENT OF MALE EMPLOYEE

2003-01-15T07:35:00.000-05:00

NEWARK, N.J. - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced the resolution of its employment discrimination lawsuit against Babies "R" Us, Inc., a division of the toy store giant, Toys "R" Us of Paramus, N.J. The lawsuit charged the company with subjecting Andres Vasquez of Paterson, N.J., to a sexually hostile work environment because of his sex, male, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A Consent Decree settling the litigation [Case No. 02-CV-989(WGB)], which provides for $205,000 for Mr. Vasquez and comprehensive training of the company's workforce in New Jersey, was entered earlier this week with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge William G. Bassler.

The initial suit, filed on March 6, 2002, alleged that throughout his employment Mr. Vasquez was the target of unwelcome and derogatory comments as well as behavior that mocked him because he did not conform to societal stereotypes of how a male should appear or behave. The lawsuit alleged that Mr. Vasquez had no reasonable alternative but to resign in light of the unwillingness of the company's managers to prevent the behavior from continuing.

"The Commission hails the willingness of all persons involved in this matter to work thoroughly to craft a resolution to this lawsuit," said EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair. "We are confident that the training provided for in the Decree will enable Babies 'R' Us representatives to monitor their workplace environment and address harassing behavior promptly and effectively."

Title VII makes it illegal to deny a person an employment opportunity because of his or her race, color, sex, religion or national origin. This includes the opportunity to work in an environment free from sexual harassment, regardless of gender.

Babies "R" Us denies that any violation of Title VII occurred. The Consent Decree was entered into by the parties without any admission of guilt and for the purpose of resolving the matter. The terms of the Decree include payment to Mr. Vasquez of $205,000, posting of a notice about the decree, and additional forms of relief.

As part of the settlement, Babies "R" Us also agreed to create and maintain copies of records relating to any complaint of sexual harassment at any of its stores and facilities in the state of New Jersey. In addition, the company will provide annual training sessions to all its employees in the state covering the employer's obligations and the employees' rights under Title VII as well as the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The training will emphasize the law concerning harassment and prohibitions concerning retaliation for complaining about illegal employment discrimination or participating in a proceeding concerning such an allegation. Finally, specialized training for all Human Resources Department staff will address how the company intends to meet its obligation to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into any complaints of employment discrimination it may receive from its employees.

Although the EEOC does not statistically track instances of same-sex harassment per se, the Commission notes that sexual harassment charge filings nationwide by males have increased from 10% of all sexual harassment filings in Fiscal Year 1994 to 15% of such filings in FY 2002.

In addition to Title VII, the EEOC enforces Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits discrimination based on disability; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act, which calls for equal pay for equal work; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal government; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on its Web site at www.eeoc.gov.

TEXAS CAR DEALERSHIP TO PAY $140,000 TO SETTLE SAME-SEX HARASSMENT SUIT BY EEOC

2002-10-28T05:45:00.000-05:00

Male Employees Subjected to Groping and Lewd Sex-Based Remarks by Male Managers

DALLAS - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Ron Clark Ford, Inc. has agreed to pay six former male employees $140,000 to settle a same-sex harassment lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to the monetary relief for former employees William Blount, Joe Charles, John Crawford, Dusty Harrison, Ulices Herrera and Richard Epps, the Consent Decree settling the case, signed by Federal District Court Judge Sam Cummings, requires Ron Clark Ford to provide training to prevent sexual harassment and post an anti-discrimination notice at the Amarillo, Texas-based dealership.

The EEOC's lawsuit (Civil Action No. 2-01CV-0245-C) was based on charges of discrimination filed by three of the men with the the federal Agency's Dallas District Office. The men said they and others were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and different treatment because of their gender by male managers - which resulted in their constructive discharge. Blount, Charles and Crawford were also represented by private attorney Mark Wilson of Smith, Wilson & Duncan, P.C. in Amarillo.

Evidence gathered during the Commission's investigation showed that the men were subjected to lewd, inappropriate comments of a sexual nature and had their genitals and buttocks grabbed against their will by males managers. The dealership argued that the sexual conduct was "harmless horseplay" - a position that was contradicted by the evidence uncovered in the EEOC's investigation. The Commission filed suit after finding that discrimination took place and exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

"An employer should never assume that it can hide behind a gender-based double standard 'horseplay' defense," said Robert A. Canino, Regional Attorney of the Dallas District Office of the EEOC. "To do so is to trivialize what can be offensive and degrading conduct toward employees who don't find it amusing. The law doesn't provide a safe harbor when men sexually grope other men instead of groping women. Moreover, there is no free pass for employers who fail to prevent or correct such offenses on the stereotypical premise that 'boys will be boys'."

Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree, Ron Clark Ford, Inc. has agreed to establish a "Zero Tolerance" sexual harassment policy that requires supervisors to prevent and correct sexual harassment. Specifically, the policy requires that supervisors take seriously all complaints of sexual harassment made by male or female employees at the dealership.

"During the litigation, EEOC learned that Ron Clark Ford management either laughed at or ignored what was going on at the dealership, " said Bill Backhaus, Senior Trial Attorney of the Agency's Dallas office. "EEOC expects that the new Zero Tolerance policy and anti-harassment training should improve management's ability to properly respond to complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace."

Sexual harassment charges filed by men nationally with the EEOC have shown a steady rate of increase over the years from 10% of all sexual harassment filings in Fiscal Year 1994 to nearly 14% of all such filings in FY 2001. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the EEOC's longstanding position that same-sex harassment of men is a violation of Title VII.

In addition to enforcing Title VII, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal government; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's Web site at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC SUES KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR SAME-SEX HARASSMENT OF MEN

2002-10-25T07:52:00.000-04:00

Suit Says Male Workers Were Groped, Propositioned, and Sexually Assaulted by Male Supervisor

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today filed suit against global food giant Kraft Foods North America, Inc. and its subsidiary Nabisco, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of a class of male employees who were subjected to egregious same-sex harassment and retaliation by their male supervisor at a sales and distribution facility in Birmingham, Alabama. Kraft Foods, which recently acquired Nabisco in a merger, is based in Northfield, Illinois, and employs approximately 113,000 people worldwide.

The suit, EEOC v. Kraft Foods North America, Inc., filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, charges Kraft with creating a sexually hostile work environment for male employees and retaliating against them for complaining about the harassment. In particular, the suit alleges that male employees were the subject of sexual comments, were propositioned for sex, were touched and grabbed, and were sexually assaulted by a Nabisco male supervisor.

The Commission seeks monetary damages for the male employees who were subjected to this conduct as well as certain equitable relief to make certain that this conduct does not recur. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which amended Title VII, individuals are entitled to up to $300,000 each in compensatory and punitive damages - in addition to other relief - for egregious discrimination by large employers (those with 500 employees or more). The EEOC filed suit after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

"The EEOC has long held that sexual harassment of men by men at work violates federal civil rights laws - a position that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1998," said Charles E. Guerrier, Regional Attorney for the federal Agency's Birmingham District Office, which filed the suit. "No person should be required to run a gauntlet of sexual abuse in return for the privilege of being allowed to work and make a living."

Sexual harassment charge filings with the EEOC by men have shown a steady increase over the years from 10% of all sexual harassment filings in Fiscal Year 1994 to nearly 14% of all such filings in FY 2001. The Commission does not statistically track same-sex, male-on-male, harassment charges because the agency does not track the sex of the alleged harasser. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence shows that most sexual harassment allegations by men are against other men.

Cynthia Pierre, District Director of the EEOC's Birmingham office, said: "Employers have an obligation under the law to make certain that those whom they put in charge of the workplace do not create an offensive and sexually-charged environment for men or women. Additionally, when an employer learns of such unlawful conduct, that employer must take prompt and effective action to make certain that the harassment stops and the environment that fostered such harassment is dismantled. Failure to do so, will result in action by the EEOC."

In addition to enforcing Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal government; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's Web site at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC SETTLES SAME-SEX HARASSMENT SUIT FOR A HALF MILLION DOLLARS AGAINST MAJOR COLORADO AUTO DEALERSHIP

2000-08-04T07:49:00.000-04:00

Largest EEOC Settlement for Male-on-Male Harassment in Colorado

DENVER - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a $500,000 settlement of a sexual harassment lawsuit against Burt Chevrolet and LGC Management, one of the state's top auto chains, on behalf of 10 former salesmen who alleged persistent same-sex harassment by male managers.

In addition to the monetary benefits for the aggrieved individuals, the agreement requires Burt Chevrolet to provide mandatory training on sexual harassment to its executive and sales staff and report sexual harassment complaints to the EEOC for three years. The Consent Decree, signed by U.S. District Judge Clarence A. Brimmer of the District of Colorado, represents the largest settlement ever by EEOC's Denver District Office for a same-sex harassment case, and one of the biggest settlements ever by the agency on this issue.

"The scope of this settlement should put all employers on notice that sexual harassment, including male-on-male harassment, comes at a high cost," said EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro. "As the Supreme Court recognized in the Oncale case in 1998, harassment is unlawful regardless of the gender of the victim or the harasser."

In August 1999, the EEOC settled a similar lawsuit for $1.9 million against Long Prairie Packing Company, a meat packing plant in Long Prairie, Minn. The settlement, the agency's largest ever for same-sex harassment and its first class settlement on the issue, followed a precedent-setting decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 1998 in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services. In that ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Commission's longstanding policy that same-sex harassment by men against men may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment.

EEOC's lawsuit, filed on September 28, 1999, charged Burt Chevrolet with creating a hostile work environment for male employees. According to the suit, a group of salesmen were subjected to severe and repeated sexual harassment by male managers. The unlawful conduct included the touching and grabbing of genitals, pelvic thrusting on the buttocks of male employees, exposing of a manager's penis in the workplace, crude sexual language, crude sexual jokes, and referring to male employees in sexually obscene and derogatory terms.

"The allegations made are not representative of our organization and we will continue to maintain our long-standing zero tolerance' of harassment policy at the company," said L.G. Chavez, Executive Vice President of Burt Chevrolet. "We found it to be in the best interest of everyone involved to get this matter behind us and not become engaged in a protracted legal battle."

While the alleged unlawful behavior was primarily carried out by two male used car managers, the suit alleged that numerous other managers contributed to and perpetuated the hostile environment by telling sexual jokes, presenting sexual materials at sales meetings, and tolerating offensive sexual conduct in the workplace. Burt vigorously maintains that the workplace was not as described by the EEOC.

"The Commission will continue to prosecute harassment cases to the fullest extent of the law when employers reject our pre-litigation attempts at voluntary resolution," said EEOC General Counsel C. Gregory Stewart. "Even though employers may have anti-discrimination policies in place, they must make sure that such policies are taken seriously and implemented, not merely put on a shelf to gather dust."

Although Burt Chevrolet had a written policy in place prohibiting sexual harassment and stating its commitment to promptly investigate such allegations, the suit alleged that complaints by the salesmen went unheeded by management for nearly a year. Moreover, according to the suit, management generally dismissed the offensive conduct as "horseplay" or "locker room antics."

Neither of the managers were terminated or demoted out of management for the alleged harassment, although one supervisor was given a written warning. In this matter as well, Burt disputes the EEOC's claims of inaction. Burt claims it thoroughly investigated the matter and took appropriate remedial action as soon as the allegations were brought to the attention of management.

"This is an important case to dispel common misconceptions about sexual harassment and hostile work environments," said Joseph H. Mitchell, regional attorney of the agency's Denver District Office, who was responsible for prosecuting the case.

"The conduct in this case involved verbal ridicule and physical torment which created a hostile work environment designed to undermine the masculinity of male personnel," said Mitchell. "If such blatant discriminatory action was directed toward female workers, there would be no disagreement over whether it was sexual harassment. But because it happened to men, management was initially indifferent to the situation. We are pleased that Burt has agreed to work with the EEOC to better educate managers and employees about their obligations to intervene and report harassing or discriminatory conduct, so that problems may be promptly addressed. We hope that this lawsuit and the consent decree will prompt an on-going, open dialogue with Burt so that together, we can work toward solving discrimination problems before they turn into federal cases."

In addition to enforcing Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the EEOC also enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal sector; sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991; and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC SETTLES FIRST MALE-ON-MALE SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLASS ACTION

1999-08-11T07:46:00.000-04:00

*** VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT TOTALS $1.9 MILLION ***

MINNEAPOLIS -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Long Prairie Packing Company, Inc. (LPP) announced today that they have reached a voluntary $1.9 million settlement that resolves all claims in an EEOC lawsuit filed on behalf of a class of current and former LPP male employees who were alleged to have been subjected to a pattern and practice of sexual harassment.

The settlement resolves EEOC's first class action challenging a pattern of harassment by men against men and disability-based harassment, and includes a "zero tolerance" harassment policy. The settlement does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by LPP, nor does it involve any judicial findings of a violation of law.

The terms of the settlement are in a proposed Consent Decree that was submitted to United States District Judge Ann D. Montgomery in federal court in Minnesota on August 11, 1999. The EEOC reached the settlement with LPP, a meat packing plant in Long Prairie, Minnesota, that employs about 235 workers.

The agreement follows a precedent-setting decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 1998 in the Oncale case. The Supreme Court held that same-sex harassment by men against men may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment.

"This case demonstrates that the EEOC will move quickly and aggressively to respond to problems of workplace harassment, whether brought by men or women," said EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro. "The EEOC expedited investigation of this large-scale harassment claim, completing it in less than four months. With the company's cooperation, we also reached a comprehensive zero-tolerance' agreement that's fair and reasonable."

EEOC General Counsel C. Gregory Stewart said: "This settlement represents an unequivocal and welcome effort by Long Prairie Packing to place an unfortunate era behind it. This case is significant because of the extraordinary breadth of relief, reached through negotiation rather than extensive litigation, and demonstrates the commitment of the agency to eliminate sexual and disability-based harassment in the workplace, as provided in the local and national enforcement plans of the agency."

The settlement arises from an EEOC lawsuit filed on August 11, alleging that LPP engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual and disability-based harassment by men against men, as well as retaliation against individuals who opposed the alleged harassment.

"We are fully committed to providing our employees a workplace that is free of discrimination and harassment," said Tom Rosen, CEO, LPP. "We are pleased that we were able to resolve the matter without resorting to litigation."

The EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal sector; sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991; and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments.

Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.