The company then purportedly fired the two employees, stating they had lied. Fla. default judgment filed Aug. 11, 2015). On appeal, the Fourth Circuit decided that a reasonable jury could find that the complaints by two claimants prior to February 2006 "were sufficient to place Xerxes on actual notice of racial slurs and pranks in the plant and that Xerxes' response was unreasonable." The suit also included other Black applicants who were denied hire in favor of less qualified White applicants. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS The three-year consent decree also requires the company, which has stores in Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi, to train all managers and supervisors on preventing race discrimination and retaliation; create job descriptions for manager and assistant manager positions that outline the qualifications for each position; develop a written promotion policy that will include the procedures by which employees will be notified of promotional opportunities; report assistant manager and manager vacancies, the name and race of all applicants for the position, and the name of the successful candidate; report the names of all African Americans who are either hired or promoted to manager or assistant manager positions; and report any complaints of race discrimination and describe its investigation in response to the complaint. Both employees reported the racial harassment, but company supervisors and officers failed to address the hostile work environment. In December 2014, Swissport Fueling, Inc., which fuels aircraft at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, paid $250,000 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit for race and national origin harassment filed by the EEOC. The EEOC's findings arose from its investigation of the apprentice's appeal of his dismissal, which he filed with the court-appointed special master who monitors Local 25 and its JATC pursuant to past judicial findings of race and national origin discrimination. On January 7, 2011, the district court dismissed the claimant's state law claim without prejudice '. . After one of the women complained, her hours were cut and she was eventually terminated. Miss. 2:11-cv-02861 (W.D. 10-CV-7399 (S.D.N.Y. The evidence showed that a Black female employee reported escalating offensive verbal conduct and gestures by her White male coworker over a period of two months before he physically assaulted her at the Tennessee-based facility; four levels of Whirlpool's management were aware of the escalating harassment; Whirlpool failed to take effective steps to stop the harassment; and the employee suffered devastating permanent mental injuries that will prevent her from working again as a result of the assault and Whirlpool's failure to protect her. EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. In March 2020, Porous Materials, a manufacturer in Ithaca, NY, must pay $93,000 in monetary relief and report any future harassment allegations directly to the EEOC to settle claims that it engaged in pervasive harassment based on race, sex and national origin, according to a recent EEOC lawsuit. The EEOC contended that Dellande was denied both tenure and promotion to associate professor in 2006 because she is African-American, despite strong recommendations in her favor by many professional peers. The EEOC's suit had charged that the company unlawfully engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against American workers by firing virtually all American workers while retaining workers from Mexico during the 2009, 2010 and 2011 growing seasons. According to the lawsuit, the employee who was the only African American worker at the site was daily subjected to racial slurs by coworkers which management refused to address. The employer chose to voluntarily resolve this issue with the . In most cases, changes to procedures and policies are required to appease the charging party. In September 2010, EEOC filed a racial harassment lawsuit against a cell phone installation and testing company, asserting that the company violated federal anti-discrimination laws when it subjected an African-American employee to severe and repeated harassment. Studies of verdicts have shown that about 10% of wrongful termination cases result in a verdict of $1 million or more. Chapman University, a private university in Orange, Calif., paid $75,000 and furnished other relief to settle an EEOC race discrimination. Although it admitted no wrongdoing and said that it settled the case for financial reasons, the company agreed to hire an equal employment opportunity coordinator to provide employee EEO training, monitor future race discrimination complaints, and file periodic reports with EEOC regarding hiring, layoffs, and promotions. 1: 13-cv-00383-LG-JCG (S.D. Specifically, the suit alleged that Baker Farms gave American-born workers fewer hours and tasks compared with the foreign-born workers and discharged U.S.-born white and African-American employees based on their race or national origin. A federal jury recently delivered a eye-popping $125,150,000 verdict in a disability discrimination case against Walmart. EEOC v. Alliant Techsystems Inc., Case No. Some recent examples highlight the impact of retaliation case settlements on an organization's bottom line, not to mention . In a unanimous published opinion, a three-judge panel said it found no issue with a trial court granting summary judgment to the town of Sneads in John McAlpin's suit claiming retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the First Amendment and Florida's whistleblower law. Tex. She did so and purportedly was later told by the recruiter that Alliant wanted to hire her and that she would be contacted by the company's Human Resources Department. Ultimately, both Black employees were terminated, but the EEOC asserted that one of the employees was discharged for an infraction for which non-Black employees were not disciplined, while the other was discharged after relaying his intention to file a charge of discrimination to the company. 4:13-cv-92(SA)(JMV) (N.D. Miss. 7/6/2016). Hopkins (1989) The Supreme Court ruled that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes is recognized as unlawful sexual discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. consent decree filed Mar. Additionally, the hotel agreed to hire an outside equal employment opportunity consultant to ensure that the company implements effective policies, procedures and training for all employees to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation. The company will also provide a neutral reference letter to the terminated employee. The lawsuit also alleged that the companies discouraged non-Hispanic applicants for applying for open positions by imposing a language requirement not required for the job in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In February 2011, the EEOC settled a suit against a Portland-based seafood processor and distributor for $85,000 on behalf of a warehouse worker. The EEOC charged SFI, a fabricator and supplier of heavy-gauge steel and value-added products, with discharging three black employees on the same day because of their race. According to the EEOC's suit, Titan's highest-level managers subjected its sole Black driver, Michael Brooks, to discriminatory treatment during his employment, including assigning White drivers more favorable routes, requiring Brooks to perform degrading and unsafe work assignments. Instead, the company discharged the white driver later for an unrelated matter. A blind individual applied as a night warehouse loader after his company eliminated his previous position as a driver's aide. The Commission found that the agency's reasons were not sufficiently clear so that complainant could be given a fair opportunity to rebut such reasons. The decree also requires Emmert International to post notices explaining federal laws against workplace discrimination. The company also must revise its anti-discrimination policy; provide employee training on the revised policy; and develop a procedure for investigating complaints of race discrimination and harassment and evaluating supervisors' compliance with the revised anti-discrimination policy. Additionally, Black workers were terminated because of their race, female workers were subjected to a sex-based hostile work environment, which included male managers making sexual advances and calling them gender-related epithets such as "b-----s.", and all complainants suffered retaliation for reporting the discrimination. 1:07-cv-2829 (N.D. Ohio consent decree entered Apr. The EEOC's suit also alleged that, about a week after the distributor finally removed the graffiti, a second message appeared, this time stating "KKK I hate N*****s." The EEOC alleged that this second message remained visible for over three months after the employee alerted the EEOC to the situation. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit unanimously rejected the facility's argument that Indiana's patient-rights law permitted such practice and remanded the case for trial because the "the racial preference policy violates Title VII by creating a hostile work environment and because issues of fact remain over whether race motivated the discharge.". In June 2011, a district court ruled that the EEOC could proceed with its two Title VII cases alleging race, national origin, and religion discrimination by a meatpacking firm against a class of Black Somali Muslim workers at its facilities in Greeley, Colo., and Grand Island, Neb. The decree also provides for posting anti-discrimination notices, record-keeping and reporting to the EEOC. The EEOC also alleged that the company retaliated against other employees and former employees for opposing or testifying about the race discrimination, by demoting and forcing one out of her job and by suing others in state court. In 2017, Ruby Tuesday paid $45,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the U.S. In October 2007, a trial court determined that EEOC is entitled to a trial on its claim that a Toyota car dealership engaged in a wholesale elimination of Blacks in management when it demoted and ultimately terminated all of its African American managers because of their race. The company also agreed to provide annual training for two years for its employees, including managers and human resources employees. The record showed that complainant was not rated as "marginal" and that the Manager who made the decision to terminate complainant conceded that complainant passed all required tests. As background, the EEOC filed suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race discrimination. In April 2011, the EEOC and a Bedford, Ohio, auto dealership reached a $300,000 settlement of a case alleging that the dealership permitted a general manager to harass Black employees and also discriminated against Black sales employees with regard to pay. The EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. Walmart Stores East LP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. The agency maintains that neither they nor the non-Black employees who actually caused the damage to the light fixture were terminated. In March 2006, a commercial coating company agreed to pay $1 million to settle an EEOC case that alleged that a Black employee was subjected to racially hostile environment that included frequent verbal and physical abuse that culminated in him being choked by a noose in the company bathroom until he lost consciousness. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has asked a Colorado federal judge to alter a judgment, or at least grant a new trial, in its disability discrimination lawsuit against a Denver trucking company, arguing that a jury came to an illogical and unjust verdict. The Commission also noted that the agency did not produce any rating sheets from the interview panel, and that complainant appeared to possess similar qualifications to the other selectees. Furthermore, the company must conduct training on federal anti-discrimination laws, report on company responses to complaints, and post a remedial notice. Airline Settles EEOC Suit Claiming It Fired Pregnant Worker; March 01, 2023. In July 2006, EEOC settled a Title VII action against a Dallas-based HIV service agency, in which four Black employees were allegedly racially harassed by the center's founder and former Executive Director, who is also African American. Ultimately, the EEOC filed a lawsuit on Spaeth's behalf in January 2017. 19, 2011). EEOC v. Emmert Industrial Corp., d/b/a Emmert International, No. Discrimination cases filed by the U.S. EEOC also alleged that when the engineer declined to relocate, the provider discharged him. Says; February 28, 2023. 7:15-CV-00151-F (E.D. In this race-based action, an Indiana nursing home housed a White resident who did not want any assistance from Black health-care staff. 131 M Street, NE The plant where the discrimination occurred had closed during the litigation period. CHICAGO - An eight-member jury in Green Bay, Wisconsin returned a verdict of $125,150,000 in favor of the U.S. In its lawsuit, the EEOC said the Clearwater strip club and its successor corporation, Executive Gentlemen's Club, fired a bartender because its owner said he didn't want a Black bartender working at the club. EEOC v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 1:11-cv-09682 (S.D.N.Y. Maritime allegedly failed to offer them promotion or advancement opportunities to key employee or cashier positions, despite their tenure and outstanding job performance, and paid many class members only the minimum wage despite years of service, while paying non-Hispanic workers higher wages and promoting them. In May 2010, an apartment management company paid $90,000 in monetary relief and agreed to provide affirmative relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company violated Title VII by firing a White manager in retaliation for hiring a Black employee in contravention of a directive by one of the owners to maintain a "certain look" in the office, which did not include African Americans. Under the two-year consent decree, U-Haul Company of Tennessee must maintain an anti-discrimination policy prohibiting race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation, and provide mandatory training to all employees regarding the policy. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the companys employees and warehouse manager verbally harassed an African American employee based on his race by calling him racial slurs and making offensive comments about Black people in his presence. Nonetheless, the court rejected AutoZone's argument, accepted by the district court below, that the absence of an "adverse employment action" defeats a claim under 2000e-2(a)(2). The EEOC also found that the company retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment or discrimination. The court "assume[d] for the sake of argument" that the evidence created a material factual dispute about whether AutoZone intentionally segregated its Black employee Kevin Stuckey because of his race when it transferred him out of a predominantly Hispanic-staffed store. Employers, no matter how large, have an obligation under the law to evaluate the individual circumstances of employees with disabilities when considering requests for reasonable accommodations, said Chicago District Director Julianne Bowman. Despite at least eight years of efforts by the EEOC, which included two EEOC charges, three prior lawsuits and contempt proceedings and three consent decrees Danny's continued to discriminate against the dancers. In January 2007, EEOC settled a racial harassment lawsuit against AK Steel Corporation, a Fortune 500 company, for $600,000. The decree also requires the provider to draft and distribute written polices against employment discrimination in English and Spanish, which provide for effective complaint and investigation procedures, including a toll-free number and e-mail address for complaints, to all employees and independent contractors who work for defendant in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. 7, 2015). In May 2009, the federal district court in Minnesota dismissed the EEOC's lawsuit alleging that a Minneapolis-based company provided contract human resources services to more than 37,000 entities, allegedly disciplined and fired a Ph.D. social worker because of his race (African American) and his complaints about race discrimination. That lawsuit was resolved by a 2009 consent decree which prohibited Grand Central Partnership from retaliating against Rastafarian security officers for their participation in the lawsuit, but the developer's current conduct constituted a breach of the earlier consent decree. The EEOC alleged that the Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. In August 2006, the EEOC resolved this Title VII/Equal Pay Act case alleging that the largest electronic screen-based equity securities market in the United States failed to promote its only Black female into higher level Research Analyst positions in its Economic Research Department and paid her less than White male Research Analysts, on the basis of race and sex. The Supreme Court ruled in cases involving age discrimination and traffic stops. No. EEOC v. Bankers Asset Mgmt. Co., No. In January 2009, a cocktail lounge agreed to pay $41,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the lounge engaged in race and religious discrimination when it refused to promote an African American employee who wears a headscarf in observance of her Muslim faith to be a cocktail server because the owner said she was looking only for what she termed "hot, White girls." The EEOC lawsuit alleged that Black employees assigned to fracking and coiled tubing oilfield service operations in Pleasanton, Texas, were subjected to a hostile work environment based on race since at least 2012 and that Nabors and C&J Well Services Inc. retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment. The jury found that the retailer failed to accommodate Marlo Spaeth, a longtime employee with Down syndrome, and then fired her in July 2015 because of her disability. In February 2006, the Commission affirmed an AJ's finding that complainant had been subjected to hostile work environment discrimination based on race (African-American) when a noose was placed in his work area. They also alleged that they were subjected to racial insults and harassment when they complained. Under the decree, which settles the suit, MPW Industrial Services is required to pay $170,000 to the two former employees who experienced the racial harassment. info@eeoc.gov 1999) (holding employee stated a claim under Title VII when he alleged that company owner discriminated against him after his biracial child visited him at work). The Commission claimed that the company illegally granted placement preferences to Hispanic temps over African American temps. See. The 2-year consent decree enjoins sex and race harassment and discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and age discrimination under the ADEA. The posting and training provisions of the Decree were also extended by two years. consent decree filed July 11, 2014). According to the EEOC complaint, two employees at one of the company's North Carolina salons were allegedly fired for opposing what they reasonably believed was an unlawful employment practice. The case, Yarbrough, et . EEOC v. PBM Graphics Inc., No. In April 2004, a letter carrier prevailed in part on his federal sector complaint alleging employment discrimination based on race/national origin (Asian), disability (PTSD), and retaliation. The foreman also said about Black people, "just hang them and burn a cross on the homes." Further, the Commission found that the agency failed to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating complainant because the responsible management official failed to specify a standard to which complainant was compared when he determined that complainant was not performing at an acceptable level. The settlement also requires Hillshire to designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in racial bias or behavior related to it. 4:10-CV-002070-SWW (E.D. In September 2010, the largest uniform manufacturer in North America and provider of specialized services agreed to pay $152,500 to settle a racial harassment claim. In November 2010, a nationwide provider of engineering and janitorial services to commercial clients entered into a 4-year consent decree paying $90,000 in backpay and compensatory damages to settle the EEOC's claim that it discharged a building services engineer at a mall in Bethesda, Maryland in retaliation for complaining of race and sex discrimination. In addition, the company must submit two written reports to the EEOC regarding any future retaliation complaints and all pertinent information related to potential complaints. Erwin B. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. In this case, a jury found that two employees of Seattle City Light, a Vietnamese-American and an African-American, had been discriminated against and faced a hostile work environment because of their races . ) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. Specifically, the company allegedly violated federal law by failing to place a class of African American workers into temporary shipping positions at a FedEx SmartPost location in Southaven, Mississippi. In August 2011, New York University agreed to pay $210,000 in lost wages and compensatory damages to settle a racial and national origin harassment lawsuit by the EEOC, alleging that an African NYU Library employee from Ghana was subjected to racial slurs, such as "monkey" and "gorilla" and insults such as "do you want a banana," "go back to the jungle," and "go back to your cage" by his mailroom supervisor. In May 2008, the Sixth Circuit ruled that two Black male dockworkers had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The agency was ordered to, among other things, offer complainant reinstatement into the next training program, with back pay. The alleged racial harassment largely involved a serial harasser who continually used racial slurs, including various permutations on "nigger," made references to the Ku Klux Klan openly and on a daily basis, and left a threatening message on a coworker's husband's answering machine. In the lawsuit, the EEOC asked for Spaeth to be reinstated, as well as back pay, compensatory damages and punitive . Lastly, EEOC asserted that dozens of employees complained about the discriminatory treatment and harassment and were subsequently given the harder job assignments, were passed over for promotion and even fired as retaliation. The two-year decree enjoins Ready Mix from engaging in further racial harassment or retaliation and requires that the company conduct EEO training. In its lawsuit, the EEOC said that Atsalis retaliated against a journeyman painter, who complained about the use of the "N-word" by his foreman, by not bringing him back to work for the 2008 work season. On September 22, 2010, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court on all federal law claims and remanded the claimant's state law claim. In a press release on Friday, the U.S. The company will also provide employee training designed to prevent future discrimination and harassment on the job. In August 2010, the EEOC and the largest commercial roofing contractor in New York state settled for $1 million an EEOC suit alleging the company discriminated against a class of Black workers through verbal harassment, denials of promotion, and unfair work assignments. The EEOC said that a noose was displayed in the worksite, that derogatory racial language, including references to the Ku Klux Klan, was used by a direct supervisor and manager and that race-based name calling occurred. If the case is too serious for mediation or the employer declines mediation, then the EEOC may sue the employer. A Puerto Rican employee reported that a coworker said that the company was starting to look like an immigration camp because of all the Black and Hispanic employees.