"In the Matter of U.S. In October 2010, Austin Foam Plastics, Inc., (AFP) a producer and distributor of corrugated box and cushion packaging, agreed to pay $600,000 to resolve a number of racial and sexual harassment charges. 09-30558 (5th Cir. In August 2010, a North Carolina poultry processor entered a two-year consent decree agreeing to pay $40,000 to resolve an EEOC case alleging that the company engaged in unlawful retaliation. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and report on the company's compliance with certain training, management evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. Lee complained to the owner, who told Lee to take the doll down if he did not like it. Hire a Qualified Attorney. The district court decided that the companies were a single employer. The EEOC also alleged that Lee's supervisor pointed to the doll and said "Hey Clint look! Along with a monetary settlement, the three-year consent decree requires the company to disseminate and post a modified anti-discrimination policy; designate specific individuals to whom raced-based discrimination complaints should be directed; provide at least three hours of anti-discrimination training by a compliance specialist for all management and supervisory personnel; and submit a written report to the EEOC after one year identifying all race-based discrimination complaints. EEOC v. Prestige Transp. The consent decree also requires four hours of Title VII training for all Video Only employees. 0120170218 (Dec. 21, 2017) . For example, "circle dots" referred to the clients that preferred Caucasian caregivers. 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 . 103, 103 (1972). 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017). In April 2019, a Jacksonville-based licensed sports merchandise company agreed to pay a Black former employee $57,050 in back pay and $265,000 in compensatory damages, a total of $322,050 as part of a consent decree to settle an EEOC lawsuit. In October 2007, the EEOC resolved a discrimination lawsuit alleging race and age discrimination for $48,000. The terms of the agreement were designed to enhance the College's commitment to the recruitment of African-American and Hispanics and to engage in meaningful monitoring of the College's efforts to reach its recruitment and hiring goals. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. The Commission's evidence included inculpatory tester evidence and expert testimony indicating that the names and voices of the Black applicants, as well as some of the organizational affiliations (e.g. The manager complained and the company disciplined and fired him. EEOC alleged that initially the owner offered the Black employee money and the use of a limousine if the employee agreed not to testify in the discrimination case. The EEOC claims that the company wanted to broaden the number of Hispanics at the store to better reflect its customer base. June 20, 2017), reh'g en banc denied (7th Cir. The company also must provide equal employment opportunity training for all of its employees and post a remedial notice. In September 2012, the County of Kauai in Hawaii paid $120,000 to settle a federal charge of race harassment filed with the EEOC. Under the consent decree, the principal of the company must attend an eight-hour training session on equal employment opportunity laws. In addition to the monetary relief, the new consent decree requires the developer to conduct extensive training on investigating discrimination complaints, including methods for proper documentation and unbiased assessment of witness credibility. In another recent California case, Kourtney Liggins sued the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for wrongful termination related to her pregnancy. In January 2020, Jacksonville Plumbers and Pipefitters Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust (JPPJATT), which sponsors an apprenticeship program that trains participants to work in the plumbing and pipefitting industries in Northern Florida, revised its selection process, paid $207,500 and provided other significant equitable relief to settle EEOCs class race discrimination lawsuit which sought relief for applicants who allegedly were denied apprenticeship positions because they were Black. In reversing the Agency's decision finding no discrimination, the Commission found that the issuances of the disciplinary actions giving rise to these claims was motivated by discriminatory animus based on Complainant's race. May 28, 2013). The consent decree enjoins the video store from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin and requires the store to post a remedial notice in the store in question and the EEO Poster in all locations across the country. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp., No. When the Black employee complained, no action was taken and the mistreatment continued. Following a hearing, the AJ found that the Agency failed to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Complainant's non-selection. In November 2004, in a case against an upstate New York a computer parts manufacturer, EEOC alleged that Native American employees were subjected to frequent name-calling, war whoops, and other derogatory statements (comments about being "on the warpath" and about scalpings, alcohol abuse, and living in tepees). In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree requires the company will repaint the restrooms and train employees on race discrimination within 45 days. A Black, non-Hispanic man told the EEOC that the company refused to provide him with a job application after it learned he couldn't speak Spanish. Cal. In March 2004, EEOC settled a failure to promote case for $45,000, in which the company's president and CEO defended its action by arguing that the company was in "redneck country" and customers would not accept a Black man as an account manager. As part of the agreement terms, the company admitted no liability, and Pier 1 Imports agreed to revise its policies, which include eliminating its background screening processes and removing the question about convictions from its job application. The EEOC had alleged that the restaurant refused to hire an African American employee for a bartender position because of his race. Although numerous Black employees complained about these conditions, Yellow and YRC failed to act to correct the problems, EEOC alleged. J.B. Hunt also reached a private settlement with the alleged discrimination victim, who filed an EEOC charge after being denied a job at J.B. Hunt's San Bernardino, Calif., facility in 2009. These practices led to all American workers receiving less pay than their foreign born counterparts. In November 2019, a federal judge approved a $1.2 million settlement resolving the EEOCs racial harassment suit against Nabors Corporate Services Inc. and another Houston-based oil field services company. The Commission noted that, while complainant was asked to provide additional information concerning child care and told that she would have to submit to a home inspection, a White male employee who also had children at home was not asked to do so. Racially offensive pictures targeted against minority employees were also posted in the workplace. 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. ADP LLC, under a conciliation agreement signed before any lawsuit was filed, also will enhance its recruitment, hiring and promotion of racial minorities, the EEOC announced July 29. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Prewett and Desoto supervisors and managers subjected African American employees to daily harassment and humiliation because of their race by calling them racially offensive and derogatory names and assigned Black employees the more dangerous job duties. Discrimination cases filed by the U.S. EEOC v. for American Casing & Equipment Inc., Civil Action No. In September 2010, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against a Union City, Tenn., pork company, alleging that the company engaged in race discrimination by paying an African-American maintenance worker less than non-Black employees, subjecting him to a hostile work environment, and forcing him out of his job. For employers, the importance of responding strategically to such charges cannot be understated. EEOC v. AA Foundries Inc., No. EEOC v. Pioneer Hotel, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Hotel and Gambling Hall, Case No. In March 2007, EEOC reached a $60,000 settlement in its Title VII lawsuit against Stock Building Supply d/b/a Stuart Lumber alleging that defendant did not give Charging Party a salary increase when he was promoted to a managerial position while White employees who were promoted were given salary increases. In September 2012, an Indianapolis hotel agreed to pay $355,000 to settle a job discrimination case with the EEOC. The applicant was qualified for the job as he passed the job-related assessment tests, and had previous work experience as an assembler. 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. The four-year consent decree also includes provisions requiring anti-discrimination training, reporting, and postings. In February 2009, the Sixth Circuit published a favorable decision in a Title VII associational discrimination case in which the EEOC participated as amicus curiae. In pertinent part, the EEOC alleged that Black employees at AFP were subjected to intimidation, ridicule, insults, racially offensive comments and jokes, and cartoons and images that denigrated African-Americans. EEOC alleged that the company failed to accommodate the Muslim workers' religious beliefs by hindering their prayer breaks and Ramadan observances, and that supervisors and co-workers harassed the Somali workers by uttering vulgar epithets and throwing bones, meat, and blood at them. In September 2011, the EEOC filed suit against Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, alleging that the nationwide retailer of sporting goods, apparel, and other miscellaneous products has been discriminating in its hiring since at least November 2005. The company also agreed to fulfill notice-posting, training, and reporting requirements. In January 2007, EEOC settled a racial harassment lawsuit against AK Steel Corporation, a Fortune 500 company, for $600,000. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS Under the two-year consent decree, the company is enjoined from engaging in retaliation, must instate a new policy on retaliation, and provide two hours of Title VII (including retaliation) training to all personnel in Little Rock. According to one discrimination victim: "My supervisors often referred to my fellow African-American employees and me as 'n-----rs' and 'porch monkeys' and forced us to play so-called 'Civil War games' where employees were divided into North and South. You should also consider the "present value" of money. Complainant had filed a formal EEO complaint alleging he was subjected to discriminatory harassment while in Iraq on the basis of his race (African-American) when, among other things, the word "DAN" was used by a coworker, which he learned meant "Dumb Ass Nigger," and management took no action. According to the EEOC, the six-year employee had his work scrutinized more critically than non-Black employees, was placed on a performance improvement plan because of his race, and was fired when he complained despite his excellent performance history and numerous awards. Inc., No. Similar to discrimination based on race, age, gender, religion, and LGBTQ status, treating people with disabilities differently in the workplace is prohibited under: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ala. consent decree announced Feb. 21, 2012). On these bases, the EEOC found that a class of individuals were harassed and discriminated against because of their race, Black; their national origin, Hispanic; or their association with a Black or Hispanic employee in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Bahama Breeze managers committed numerous and persistent acts of racial harassment against Black employees, including frequently addressing Black staff with slurs such as "n.r," "Aunt Jemima," "homeboy," "stupid n.r," and "you people." Blacks were termed "n-----s" and Hispanics termed "s---s;" offensive graffiti in the men's restroom, which included racial and ethnic slurs, depictions of lynchings, swastikas, and White supremacist and anti-immigrant statements, was so offensive that several employees would relieve themselves outside the building or go home at lunchtime rather than use the restroom. 1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone), Call 1-800-669-4000 One week before the class was to graduate, the third and last Black student was removed from the program. In October 2010, a South Point, Ohio-based contractor that constructs and installs water and sewer lines entered into a 5-year consent decree to settle claims that it violated Title VII when it failed to stop a White foreman and employees from racially harassing and retaliating against a Black laborer working at defendant's sewer installation site in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially offensive comments and physical assault. verdict filed Jan. 28, 2013). Co., No. June 20, 2014). Cardwell, who is now 65, is pleased with the settlement, but he says he has faced many more experiences of age discrimination before and after the Ruby Tuesday interview. The racial hostility manifested as racist graffiti, racial epithets, and the hanging of a noose at a Salt Lake City rail yard. In January 2008, the EEOC settled a race and national origin discrimination case against a Nevada U-Haul company for $153,000. In March 2011, EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that a provider of preventive maintenance for residential and commercial heating and air conditioning systems, which has approximately 247 employees at 13 locations within Florida, Georgia, the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia and Maryland, violated federal law by discriminating against non-Caucasian employees based on their race when it paid them less than their Caucasian colleagues. Retaliation claims remain the most common of all discrimination charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to the lawsuit, White employees were harassed because of their association with Black coworkers and family members, including being referred to as "n----r lovers" and "race traitors" by White managers. 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. In July 2017, the largest producer of farmed shellfish in the United States, paid $160,000 and implemented other relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit. In July 2010, Area Temps, Inc., a northeast Ohio temporary labor agency, agreed to pay $650,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a systematic practice of considering and assigning (or rejecting) job applicants by race, sex, Hispanic national origin and age. The trainee stressed by the harassment and retaliation after reporting the harassment to upper management, took leaves from work and was eventually fired. filed 1/17/12 - The Commission appealed a decision by the Western District of Tennessee awarding attorney's fees to Memphis Health Center after granting its motion for summary judgment in an age discrimination and retaliation case. Consent decree entered Dec. 10, 2012). The three-year consent decree enjoins Maritime from retaliating in the future against any individual for asserting his or her rights under Title VII or otherwise engaging in protected activity. EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. and McCormick and Schmick Restaurant Corporation, No. The court denied Dollar General's motion for summary judgment and the parties ultimately entered a two-year consent decree requiring Dollar General to maintain effective anti-discrimination policies, distribute the policies to all newly hired employees, and provide management training on anti-discrimination laws and other injunctive relief to ensure discrimination complaints are promptly reported and investigated. In accordance with the five-year consent decree, the company is enjoined from engaging in racial and religious discrimination or retaliation and must implement and enforce anti-discrimination policies, procedures, and training for all employees. Because of this finding, the decision found it unnecessary to address the basis of retaliation. EEOC v. Scully Distribution Servs. Remedial relief included back pay, benefits including reimbursement of leave, compensatory damages and attorney's fees, posting of a notice, training, and recommended disciplinary action against the responsible management officials.