eeoc discrimination cases won

Ala. consent decree announced Feb. 21, 2012). The foreman also said about Black people, "just hang them and burn a cross on the homes." Charges of discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") (and similar charges with state and local human relations agencies) are a critical first step in an employee's discrimination claim. EEOC claimed that Yellow and YRC also subjected Black employees to harsher discipline and closer scrutiny than their White counterparts and gave Black employees more difficult and time-consuming work assignments. In March 2008, the Commission affirmed the AJ's finding of race (Native American) and national origin (Cherokee Nation) discrimination, where complainant had his life threatened by a client and the agency never took necessary actions to stop the harassment. The EEOC had alleged that the provider had recruited through media directed at Eastern European immigrants and Hispanics and hired people from those groups over African Americans, and that the provider's use of subjective decisionmaking had a disparate impact on African Americans. Lee complained to the owner, who told Lee to take the doll down if he did not like it. In August 2007, a San Jose body shop agreed to pay $45,000 to settle a sexual and racial harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC, in which a male auto body technician of Chinese and Italian ancestry was taunted daily by his foreman with sexual comments, racial stereotypes and code words, including calling him "Bruce Lee." In September 2014, the EEOC appealed the dismissal of its race discrimination complaints alleging that an employer's withdrawal of a job offer from a qualified Black applicant because she refused to cut off her dreadlocks constituted race discrimination under Title VII. When the Black employees complained about the discriminatory treatment, the manager fired them. Ala. Dec. 2016). Ultimately, the EEOC filed a lawsuit on Spaeth's behalf in January 2017. In October 2007, EEOC obtained $290,000 from an Oklahoma-based oil drilling contractor for seven African American men who alleged that, while on an oil rig, they were subjected to a hostile work environment, which included the display of hangman nooses, derogatory racial language, and race-based name calling. The manager allegedly made continually disparaging comments to the former attorney, saying that she needed to assimilate more into the local culture and break up with her boyfriend at the time, also White, in favor of a local boy. Selected Noteworthy Federal Sector Appellate Decisions - US EEOC The company will also provide a neutral reference letter to the terminated employee. Miss. In November 2007, the Commission upheld an Administrative Judge's finding of discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and disability (cervical strain/sprain) when complainant was not accommodated with a high back chair. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that Olympia subjected Adrian Soles, Anthony Moorer and George McWilliams to racial slurs and intimidation. They also referred to Black children or mixed-race children as 'porch monkeys' or 'Oreo babies.' The two year consent decree requires Regis to report the action it takes in response to any employee's complaint about discrimination and to post a notice to employees concerning their rights under federal, anti-discrimination laws. EEOC alleged that the company refused to hire Black applicants because it was concerned that its customers would be uncomfortable with a Black man coming to their home and would be intimidated by him. Should Maritime reopen and reactivate its Maryland facilities, it shall be enjoined from creating or maintaining a hostile work environment and inferior economic terms and conditions of employment on the basis of national origin or race. The harassment included racial slurs, explicit sexual comments and gestures and threats. The EEOC's guidance recommends evaluating: the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct; the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence; and the nature of the job sought prior to disqualifying a candidate with such a record. In September 2013, a Kentucky coal mining company paid $245,000 to 19 total applicants and amend its hiring practices to settle a racial discrimination suit brought by the EEOC. Corp., No. . The company agreed to establish an effective anti-discrimination policy and to provide anti-discrimination training to its employees. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, BBI also will conduct anti-discrimination training for its Illinois sales force; put in place systems to further encourage diverse applicants for open positions; revise its anti-discrimination policy to expressly reference that it prohibits segregating or making assignments based on race and/or national origin and distribute the revised policy to its Illinois sales force; hire a monitor to track the demographics of employees applying for and receiving offers for specified Illinois sales positions; provide periodic reporting on the demographics of its Illinois sales force for the next two years; and post an internal notification to its Illinois employees of this resolution. 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 this case, the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American available workforce in the Newark area. The company must distribute copies of its revised written anti-harassment policy to all current and future employees and post the policy in the break room of its San Antonio manufacturing facility. The consent decree also requires River View to refrain from any future racial discrimination in its hiring procedures. Liggins v. Archdiocese of Los Angeles: Pregnancy And Discrimination. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the U.S. Department of Transportation discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American) and color (Black), when on November 11, 2016, she was subjected to harassment by a coworker. 20, 2012). The non-White physicians represented different races and national origins, including Asian, Native American, Nigerian, Puerto Rican, and Pakistani. The decree also required the company to report future complaints of race harassment and any measures taken to investigate and remedy such complaints. EEOC v. Matrix L.L.C., Civil Action No. EEOC v. Rosebud Rest., No. In May 2013, a Tyler, Texas-based petroleum and gas industry equipment provider paid $150,000 and furnished other relief to settle an EEOC racial harassment and retaliation suit. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination. The agency also found that the company discriminated against black and Hispanic employees in the selection of lead positions at the St. Paul facility. In January 2018, the EEOC reversed an agencys decision, holding on appeal that an African-American Senior Officer Specialist (SOS), GS-8, at the Department of Justices Low Security Correctional Institution (LSCI) in North Carolina had been subjected the SOS to disparate treatment regarding promotions. The decree also mandates training of employees and reporting to the EEOC any future complaints of race harassment. Evidence showed that management generally condoned racially related comments made by African-American supervisors and co-workers who frequently voiced a "Black versus White" mentality at the work place. But in a race . Congress did so by defining "religion" to "include[] all aspects of reli-gious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasona-bly accommodate to an employee's or prospective em- 2:15-cv-03812-AB (E.D. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. The allegations included that the Postal facility forced him to remain in a plywood shack for hours each day; disabled postal workers were routinely assigned to "the Box," as it was called, while non-disabled workers were never assigned to "the Box;" employees consigned to "the Box" did not have a telephone, radio, computer, or any other equipment with which to perform any work and were not given any work assignments; and the disabled employees were required to knock on a little window in "the Box" when they needed to use to the restroom. Although this can potentially happen, typically, you may be able to resolve the matter earlier through negotiations directly between your counsel and counsel for your employer or mediation. The NAACP filed an EEOC charge on behalf of some employees and the EEOC's investigation found that a top company official subjected employees to derogatory racial comments and that there was a noose hanging in the facility. The lawsuit also alleged that the estimator was told that his religion (Islam), was "f---ing backwards," and "f---ing crazy," and was asked why Muslims are such "monkeys." Ohio Aug. 5, 2011). The EEOC presented evidence that a change Walmart made to Spaeths longstanding work schedule caused her significant difficulty. Washington A lawsuit challenging the abortion pill filed by anti-abortion rights advocates in federal court in Texas has put the spotlight on the judge . Although the assistant complained repeatedly to NYU management and human resources personnel, NYU took months to investigate and then took virtually no action to curb the supervisor's conduct. Under Pepsi's former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense." info@eeoc.gov EEOC Violations: Four Discrimination case Studies from which to learn The district court dismissed the EEOC's case, ruling that Xerxes had "acted quickly and reasonably effectively to end" the harassment. In August 2010, an aircraft services company settled for $600,000 the EEOC's suit claiming the company permitted the unlawful harassment of Black, Filipino, and Guatemalan employees at a Burbank, California airport. . 7:11-cv-134 (M.D. May 23, 2018. In December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The two employees complained to management but the harassment allegedly continued. In October 2012, a federal district court in Texas ordered AA Foundries Inc. to take specific measures to prevent racial harassment of Black employees at its San Antonio plant following a $200,000 jury verdict finding the company liable for race discrimination under Title VII. Ready Mix will be required to modify its policies to ensure that racial harassment is prohibited and a system for investigation of complaints is in place. In March 2014, a federal district court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the EEOC and ruled that Sparx Restaurant of Menomonie, Wis., must provide back pay with interest of more than $41,000 in addition to the jury's award of damages of $15,000 to a former employee who was fired in retaliation for complaining about a racist display in the workplace. 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. The harassment included a life size noose made of heavy rope hung from a beam in a class member's work area for at least 10 days before it was removed; the regular use of the "N-word"; racially offensive comments made to Black individuals, including "I think everybody should own one" and "Black people are no good and you can't trust them" and "Black people can't read or write." Equal . According to the EEOC, the general manager of the Hampton Inn hotel advised her employees that she wanted to get "Mexicans" in who would clean better and complain less than her black housekeeping staff, even if the Hispanic hires were equally or less qualified than Black candidates. Should a court find a Title VII violation and issue such an injunction, Peabody and the Navajo Nation could file a third-party complaint against the Interior Secretary under Rule 14(a) to prevent the Secretary from seeking to enforce the lease provisions or cancel the leases, it said. In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. The Selection Official, however, rejected Complainant, noting she was the second-ranked candidate, and the top-ranked candidate, also an African-American, and directed the panel to re-interview the candidates. EEOC had alleged that the company refused to hire a Black female applicant for a part-time customer service position, even after she was designated best qualified and had passed the requisite drug test. The persistent same-race harassment - which was reported to management and the Board of Directors - included graphic language, racial slurs and pejorative insults. Told that they needed to learn Spanish because they were in South Texas, the employees said that instead of addressing their complaints of discrimination, they were fired. EEOC Wins Disability Discrimination Case for Non-Disabled Man In March 2016, a manufacturing company based in New Ulm, Minn., paid $19,500 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC, alleging that Windings, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it refused to hire a biracial (African-American and White) applicant for a vacant assembler position, and instead hired a White applicant. In July 2016, the Fourth Circuit reversed summary judgment in an employment discrimination case alleging race, national origin, religion, and pregnancy discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. In addition to prohibiting race discrimination and retaliation against Black employees at YRC's Chicago Heights facility, the decree also requires YRC to provide all Chicago Heights employees annual training on racial harassment and race discrimination and engage a Work Assignment Consultant and a Disciplinary Practice Consultant to assist it in reviewing and revising the company's work assignment and disciplinary policies and practices at the Chicago facility. The agreement follows conciliation between the EEOC and Reliable Nissan over claims that two Reliable Nissan Managers repeatedly used the "N-word" during a sales meeting, and referred to African, African-American, Native American, Muslim and Hispanic employees in a derogatory manner. The EEOC currently has a number of on-going lawsuits and settlements of lawsuits. The consent decree also enjoins The Original Hot Dog Shop from creating, tolerating, or fostering a hostile work environment based on race. 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. The company also must submit reports to the EEOC demonstrating its compliance with the consent decree. In 2017, almost 49% of all EEOC filings involved workplace retaliation. In each incident, the assistant manager made references to African-Americans using the N-word. The lawsuit alleged that a Swissport manager routinely called the African fuelers "monkeys" in various degrading ways. In June 2008, a landmark New York City restaurant in Central Park settled an EEOC Title VII lawsuit filed on behalf of female, Hispanic, and Black employees for $2.2 million. The EEOC had charged the company with subjecting a Black Liberian employee to harassment because of his race and national origin and two Hispanic employees, one Colombian and the other Puerto Rican, to harassment based on national origin at one of its work sites in Greensboro, N.C. After the Black sales manager complained about the derogatory comments, two White managers asked the consultant to stop his discriminatory behavior. The company has agreed to adopt an online employee handbook and other documents spelling out company policies and practices; to post all vacancies for marketing company president; to provide training on discrimination and retaliation to all board members; and to provide periodic reports to the EEOC. 11-cv-11296 (E.D. Harassment of the teen included calling him a "Black [S.O.B. 19, 2011). In February 2019, the Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local 122, IAFF agreed to pay $4.9 million to settle a race discrimination lawsuit. The consent decree also requires Laquila to set up a hotline for employees to report illegal discrimination, provide anti-discrimination training to its managers, adopt revised anti-discrimination policies and employee complaint procedures and report all worker harassment and retaliation complaints to the EEOC for the 42-month duration of the agreement. 1981, in which the EEOC filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff. In November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. In August 2015, the EEOC won a judgment of more than $365,000 against the Bliss Cabaret strip club and its parent company this week after a Black bartender was allegedly fired based on her race. The general manager also talked about a noose and having "friends" visit in the middle of the night as threats to Floyd. The traffic clerk asserted that, prior to his discharge, his coworker, a White woman, expounded on her view that African Americans are more athletic than Whites because they were inbred as slaves and have an extra muscle in their legs, that she was afraid to be around certain people of color, and that a customer was entitled use the "n-word" in reference to the clerk based on freedom of speech. Hurley also agreed to pay about $200,000 in March to settle a lawsuit filed by three nurses. The Agency was ordered, among other things, to offer Complainant the position, pay him appropriate back pay and benefits, and pay him $5,000 in proven compensatory damages. In September 2007, a federal district court in Arizona granted a motion to dismiss the EEOC's race discrimination case against a northern Arizona hospital. 2000e-2(a)(2), Title VII's subsection prohibiting the limiting, classifying, or segregating of employees based on a protected trait. In addition to the monetary relief for an estimated 10,000 class members, the consent decree prohibits store assignments based on race. The supervisor also allegedly threatened Robinson, that he would "get back at" him for the "terrible things whites had done to blacks" in the past and allegedly berated him for being "too old" for the job and "washed up" in the industry. The settlement included a donation of $10,000 value of books or 1000 books relevant to the EEOC's mission, which will be given to a non-profit organization with an after-school program. The lawsuit alleged that a Black employee was asked if he could read because a lot of you guys cant read, and that a general manager referred to Black employees as monkeys or Africans and many other accusations. The EEOC also alleged that Emmert International retaliated against Black employee for complaining about the harassment. Based on its investigation, the EEOC had found reasonable cause to believe that BBI discriminated against Illinois sales employees by offering them account and territory assignments that, when accepted, resulted in national origin or race discrimination, which violates Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964. Racial Discrimination Cases That Changed Recent History - DoNotPay Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.) disclosed on their resumes, could have served as proxies for race. In July 2007, EEOC and Walgreens agreed to a proposed settlement of $20 million to resolve allegations that the Illinois-based national drug store chain engaged in systemic race discrimination against African American retail management and pharmacy employees in promotion, compensation and assignment. In September 1998, an EEOC AJ properly decided that a Black male hospital director who abused all employees was not insulated from liability for racially harassing an African American female where evidence showed that she was the target of more egregious and public abuse than other employees. consent decree approved Dec. 1, 2017). ) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. A class of African-American employees was subjected to racial harassment by co-workers when workers in a specific division were referred to as the "ghetto division," and were called derivations of "chocolate" or "chocolate delicious," conduct that went uncorrected. 1:17-cv-00070 (E.D . The lawsuit also alleged that Baker Farms segregated work crews by national origin and race. When the employee complained, she was told to "pray about it" or "leave" by the owner; the employee resigned. Additionally, at the conclusion of her final interview, defendant's managing director allegedly told the Black applicant she was "obviously qualified for the position." More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the restaurant will establish a telephone hotline which employees may use to raise any discrimination complaints, distribute a revised policy against discrimination and retaliation, and provide training to all employees against discrimination and retaliation.