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.
Showing posts with label sexual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexual. Show all posts
Friday, July 9, 2010
Pedophiles and Sexual Harassers
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.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Allstar Fitness Sued by EEOC for Sexual Harassment
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.
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
EEOC to Announce Anti-discrimination Activities in Korean Community
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.
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.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Major Washington Apple Grower Sued for Sexual Harassment
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.
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.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Monterey Gourmet Foods Sued for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Atherton settles sexual harassment, discrimination lawsuit
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...
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...
Monday, December 7, 2009
EEOC Sues M. Slavin & Sons, Inc. for Male-On-Male Sexual, Racial & National Origin Harassment
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.
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.
Friday, November 27, 2009
EEOC Sues Dunkin’ Donuts For Sexual Harassment
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.
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.
Friday, August 4, 2000
EEOC SETTLES SAME-SEX HARASSMENT SUIT FOR A HALF MILLION DOLLARS AGAINST MAJOR COLORADO AUTO DEALERSHIP
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)