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.). 

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 EEOC recently settled a lawsuit alleging that one of Walmart’s male employees subjected a female employee to sexually inappropriate and unwanted vulgar comments, advances, and touching .  The EEOC further alleged that Walmart had known of this conduct for years through written complaints.  The lawsuit claimed that the male employee commented on female coworkers’ breasts and buttocks, that he told one female co-worker that he couldn’t wait to see her in thong underwear, that he made repeated invites to “hang out” alone with female co-workers despite repeated rejections, and that he stated he wanted to have sex with certain female co-workers who had told him they were not interested.  On one occasion, one of the victims of the harassment reported the conduct and was advised that she should “stand up for herself” and put her “big girl panties on.”  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 6:19-cv-06718 (W.D.N.Y.).

The EEOC recently sued a Sonic restaurant franchise for sexual harassment, alleging that one of the franchise’s co-managers made inappropriate sexual comments to at least three separate teenage female “carhops.”  The manager also allegedly propositioned these women and subjected them to inappropriate and unwanted physical touching.  Despite reports of this sexual harassment, Sonic took no action to prevent or mitigate the harassment.  Instead, the manager was given a promotion.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. SDI of Mineola, L.L.C., No. 6:21-CV-00226 (E.D. Tex.).

The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit in which it alleged that a male manager had targeted young female employees around the ages of 15-to-20 and subjected them to sexual harassment.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that the manager made sexual comments to these women and that he inappropriately touched and groped some of them.  The EEOC further alleged that he asked one of the restaurant’s 15 year old employees to text him nude pictures of herself.  This event led to the arrest of the manager by the local police.  Despite the accusation, arrest, and indeed a guilty plea for misdemeanor harassment, the restaurant allowed the manager to return to work and did not stop the inappropriate behavior.  The EEOC’s Complaint asserted that New China terminated the employment of at least one female employee in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment by this manager.  This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment as well as retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. New China, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00277 (D. Or.).

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 recently settled a sexual harassment lawsuit against  Nature’s Medicines.  The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that one of the General Managers  subjected multiple employees to a hostile work environment.  The lawsuit further claimed that the harassment involved unwelcome touching and offensive sexual comments to the staff and offensive sexual comments to and about customers.  On at least one occasion, the GM showed an employee a nude picture on his phone.  Multiple employees complained about this behavior.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. AMMA Investment Group, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-02786 (D. Md.).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a sexual harassment lawsuit against a Korean restaurant chain.  The EEOC had filed a lawsuit against the restaurant claiming that the owner and chef subjected one of his female employees to sexual harassment and that he had offered her money in exchange for sex.  The EEOC further alleged that the harassment eventually rose to sexual assault and forced the employee to resign.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment.  See EEOC v. 3501 Seoul, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00277 (S.D. Ohio).

The EEOC filed a lawsuit against three Ohio restaurants with the same owner.  The EEOC claims that the owner and chef of the restaurants subjected a female waitress to unwelcome, offensive, and repeated sexual comments and advances to the waitress that became so severe it eventually led to her being forced to resign her job.  The owner allegedly offered money in exchange for sex and sexually assaulted the waitress, and these actions reached a level that forced the waitress to resign from her job.  These alleged actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII prohibits sexual harassment and sexual discrimination, including propositioning an employee for sex in exchange for money or promotions.  See EEOC v. 3501 Seoul, LLC, SushiNati, LLC, Korea House, LLC, No.1:20-cv-00277 (S.D. Ohio).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against Ceviche House, in which the EEOC claimed that the company subjected a female server to sexual harassment, retaliated against her, and then forced her to resign.  The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that one of the company’s owners would regularly discuss sex at work, refer to female employees as whores, display nude pictures of women, and talk about female genitalia.  One of the company’s female servers complained about this behavior, but the restaurant did nothing to stop it.  Indeed, the EEOC further alleged that the owner actually retaliated by ramping up the inappropriate and harassing behavior, which forced the server to resign.  This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment.  See EEOC vs. Limeños Corp., 3:20-cv-01143 (D.P.R.).

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 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.).