The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a company involved in raspberry farming in which the EEOC had alleged that employees were subjected to regular sexual harassment. The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that both male and female employees endured a sexually charged hostile work environment that included a supervisor making repeated inappropriate sexual comments and unwanted touching. Indeed, the lawsuit further alleged that these comments and inappropriate touching sometimes occurred in front of other managers and supervisors, who did nothing to stop the hostile work environment and even retaliated and discouraged employees from making additional complaints. Such behavior is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaints of discrimination or sexual harassment. See EEOC v. Tres Hijas Berry Farms, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01919-MWF-Ex (C.D. Cal.).
Retaliating Against Employees Who Participate in Investigations of Discrimination Is Illegal5/20/2024
The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a recycling, removal, and disposal company, TCI, in which the EEOC claimed that TCI retaliated against an employee who participated in an internal investigation with the company. The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that a Charge of Discrimination was filed against TCI claiming that TCI's hiring practices were discriminatory against females, which prompted an internal investigation by TCI. The lawsuit further alleges that a TCI employee who had been with the company for 28 years participated in the investigation, and their employment was terminated in retaliation for their involvement in this investigation. Such alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation against employees who make complaints of discrimination and participate in investigations of discrimination. See EEOC v. TCI of Alabama, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-1200-CLM (N.D. Ala.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement agreement with a company that provides insurance products, after the EEOC sued the company for retaliation. One of the employees of the company, Proctor Financial, filed a Charge of Discrimination against Proctor alleging that she was not given a promotion due to her race. Later, she amended that Charge of Discrimination and added a new claim alleging that she was paid less because of her race. Shortly after this, Proctor suspended the employee. The EEOC alleged that the suspension (the employee’s first discipline in more than eight years) was in retaliation for the EEOC Charge and Amended Charge of Discrimination. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and retaliation on the basis of an employee’s race. See EEOC v. Proctor Financial, Inc., Case No. 2:19-CV-11911 (E.D. Mich.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit alleging retaliation against Keystone Foods LLC, in which the EEOC alleged that Keystone retracted a job offer after it learned that the applicant had previously filed a Charge of Discrimination against it. The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that, during a job fair, Keystone offered jobs to seventeen applicants who previously worked for them. Keystone offered the employee in this lawsuit a job the same day as the job fair, and the applicant accepted the job offer on the spot. After making the offer and it being accepted, however, Keystone learned that this employee had previously complained about pregnancy discrimination at Keystone and filed an EEOC Charge of pregnancy discrimination against the company. Upon realizing this, Keystone immediately retracted the job offer. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation for complaints of discrimination and the filing of Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC. See EEOC v. Keystone Foods LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00629-MHT-JTA (M.D. Ala.).
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against an airline, which it alleges subjected one of its female employees to a sexually hostile work environment and then retaliated against her after she complained. The EEOC's lawsuit claims that company created an environment in which sexually explicit conversations occurred regularly. Male employees also suggested that she perform demeaning sexual acts, and they made repeated jokes about rape. After the employee complained about this hostile work environment, the airline retaliated against her by putting her on an indefinite leave, which lasted months before she finally resigned, seeing no option to return to work. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-1807 (N.D. Tex.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a headhunting company, Jivaro Professional Headhunters. The EEOC's lawsuit claims that the company discriminated against one of its employees, who worked for Jivaro as a senior technical engineer, and then later retaliated against her. The lawsuit alleged that the employee was hospitalized and fired because of that hospitalization. In addition, after she filed her EEOC charge, the company retaliated against her by giving prospective employers misleading and negative job reviews and further retaliated by filing a lawsuit against her, because she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. Such actions are prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which prohibits discrimination against an employee due to their disability and which further prohibits retaliation for complaints, including the filing of an EEOC charge, of disability discrimination. See EEOC v. Jivaro Professional Headhunters, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00461-CWD (D. Idaho).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against Long John Silver's after it alleged that the restaurant subjected a teenage employee to sexual harassment and retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment. The lawsuit claimed that two adult male managers sexually harassed a female teenage employee by making numerous sexual comments, propositioning her for sex, making unwanted physical touching with her, and sending sexually explicit and inappropriate text messages. The teenage employee complained about the sexual harassment, but Long John Silver's did not investigate and then cut her hours. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment as well as retaliation against employees who make complaints about sexual harassment. See EEOC v. LJS Opco Two, LLC d/b/a Long John Silver’s Store #70250, No. 3:21-cv-00717 (C.D. Ill.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a security services firm in which the EEOC had claimed that the company had subjected female employees to sexual harassment and at least one employee to retaliation as well. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that one of the company’s site managers had subjected a female security guard to unwanted touching, inappropriate and lewd sexual comments, and that he had cornered this guard in an elevator and kissed her without consent. The guard complained to management. Instead of addressing the manager’s inappropriate and illegal behavior, the company fired the guard in retaliation for her complaints. The EEOC further alleged that this manager had also sexually harassed a class of female employees at the company with similar behavior including sexual advances, inappropriate sexual comments, requests for explicit pictures, and an attempt to kiss another employee. Other managers saw this harassment, but the company did nothing to stop it. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex, as well as complaints about such discrimination and harassment. See EEOC v. MVM, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-02881 (D. Md.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit against a steel-fabrication company, Moore & Morford, Inc. The EEOC had previously filed a lawsuit against the company alleging harassment based on her sex and retaliation for her complaints of harassment. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Moore & Morford subjected one of its female employees to a hostile work environment based on her sex. Male employees of the company regularly used offensive and derogatory terms to the female employee that were based on her sex, and they told her that “women don’t belong on the floor.” The female employee complained to the owners, but that only resulted in the company’s foreman treating her even worse (grabbing her by her shirt collar, denying her tools, and making her clean feces in the women’s bathroom). Due to the continued harassment, she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, and shortly after filing the Charge, the company terminated her employment. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits harassment based on sex and retaliation for complaints of such harassment. See EEOC v. Moore & Morford, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00892 (W.D. Pa.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit against Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc. The EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that Koch refused to rehire one of its former employees because she previously filed an EEOC Charge against the company. In her previous charge, the former employee alleged that Koch discriminated against women because it used a strength test to screen for truck drivers. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that after this charge, Koch refused to allow the former employee to apply for re-employment, solely because of the previous charge of discrimination. Retaliating against an employee (or former employee) because they filed an EEOC Charge is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc., No. 19-cv-1371 (D. Minn.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a retaliation lawsuit against Brookdale Senior Living Communities after the EEOC sued Brookdale for alleged race discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that Brookdale had employed an African American caregiver who overheard her co-workers making comments with racial connotations that she found offensive. This caregiver complained about the racially offensive comments and discrimination. Shortly after her complaint, Brookdale suspended the caregiver and then eventually fired her in retaliation for the complaints. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from retaliating when an employee complains about race discrimination, even in circumstances where the discrimination is based on comments that the employee perceives as discriminatory. See EEOC v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00993 (E.D. Cal.).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has reached a settlement with St. Vincent Hospital in a lawsuit where the EEOC alleged that the hospital discriminated against an employee because of a disability and then retaliated after this employee complained of discrimination. The lawsuit claimed that one of St. Vincent Hospital’s employees, Asheley Coriz, was subjected to a hostile work environment by her supervisor because Ms. Coriz is deaf. The lawsuit further claimed that Ms. Coriz was not granted reasonable accommodations, and that St. Vincent then fired Ms. Coriz after she complained about St. Vincent’s failure to grant her requested reasonable accommodations and her supervisor’s discriminatory conduct. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA protects employees from discrimination and retaliation due to a disability. See EEOC v. St. Vincent Hospital, No. 1:19-cv-00764 (D.N.M.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against American Securities Insurance Company in which it had alleged that the company terminated an employee due to a disability. The lawsuit claimed that because the employee suffered from Type 2 diabetes, she requested that she be permitted to work from home. Although the company purported to grant this request, the EEOC claimed that the employee’s supervisor complained about her doing telework, criticized her performance, and eventually fired the employee. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See EEOC v. American Security Insurance Co., No. 1:19-CV-3411 (N.D. Ga.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity recently filed a lawsuit against a special events company that assists with weddings and other corporate events, Great Rentals and Events, LLC. The EEOC claims that this company subjected one of its female employees to a hostile work environment and then terminated her in retaliation for complaining about this hostile work environment. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that the company’s owner made repeated demeaning comments about women, such as calling women “worthless because they have kids” and referring to female employees as “little girls.” A female employee complained to human resources about these comments, and the EEOC claims that she was fired in retaliation. This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaints of sex discrimination or sexual harassment. See EEOC v. Great Rentals and Events, LLC, No. 5:20-cv-448 (W.D. Tex.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that it recently settled a lawsuit against a university because one of the school’s employees was retaliated against after he complained of age discrimination. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the school’s medical center had fired a manager working in its Information Resources Department after he complained that his boss had instructed supervisors and managers to hire young, millennial employees. Indeed, the manager claimed that the department had rejected a well-qualified 60-year-old prospective employee just because of her age. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits age discrimination and retaliation for complaints of age discrimination. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Kansas, No. 2:19-cv-02540 (D. Kan.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced that it has filed a lawsuit against a Harley Davidson dealership that allegedly subjected one of its female employees to a hostile work environment and then retaliated against her after she complained about the hostile work environment. The EEOC’s Complaint alleges that a business manager faced constant sexual harassment from her co-workers and from other managers at the company. The harassment, for example, included comments about her body, requests that she wear revealing clothing, unwelcome sexual propositions, and messages that included explicit sexual images and videos. The Complaint further claims that this manager complained about the harassment and that the company responded by terminating her employment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating or harassing employees because of their sex, and it further prohibits employers from retaliating against employees after they complain about sexual harassment. See EEOC v. DP Fox Ventures, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-1436 (N.D. Ill.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a case against Hat World, Inc. after the EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that Hat World had discriminated against one of its store managers because she complained and filed an EEOC Charge regarding sexual harassment. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the store manager had made written complains to Hat World’s corporate HR department regarding sexual harassment. In particular, this store manager claimed that her district manager was sexually harassing her. In addition to these written complaints, the employee also filed an EEOC Charge of Discrimination. Shortly after this, Hat World terminated her employment. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from retaliating for complaints of sexual harassment. See EEOC v. Hat World, Inc. d/b/a Lids, No. 2:19-cv-00314 (E.D. Va.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit with General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, in which the EEOC claimed that the company fired an employee in retaliation for complaints of race discrimination. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that Ivy Couch complained on multiple occasions to the company’s Human Resources Department that the company had discriminated against her due to her race and also retaliated against her for these complaints. Global Ministries fired her after she made these complaints. This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination and retaliation. See EEOC v. General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, No. 1:19-CV-2989 (N.D. Ga.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced that it settled a lawsuit against a Zaxby’s Restaurant franchise in which the EEOC alleged that a female cashier employee was sexually harassed by making inappropriate sexual comments and almost daily requests for sex. The cashier complained to one of the restaurants owners, and the company responded by firing her mere days later in retaliation for this complaint. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits both sexual harassment and retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment. See EEOC v. BCD Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Zaxby's, No. 1:19-cv-00903 (M.D.N.C.).
The EEOC recently reported that an IHOP franchise agreed to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that the franchise’s owner has sexually harassed female employees by groping them, stalking them and making inappropriate sexual comments to them. Female employees who rejected the inappropriate sexual advances allegedly had negative changes made to their schedules. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. Swami Pancake, LLC, No. 0:19-cv-60714 (S.D. Fla.).
|
Categories
All
|