$82K Settlement in EEOC Action Against Ariz. Employer in National Origin, Retaliation Case

Minority employees in this work zone shouldn’t have to worry about harassment any more.

Trafficade Service, Inc., a Phoenix-based work zone services company, has agreed to pay $82,390 and provide other equitable relief to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging it harassed emp­loyees based on national origin and then retaliated against them for complaining, the federal agency announced Wednesday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Trafficade managers and employees repeatedly used racial slurs when referring to two Mexican American employees and created an unsafe workplace for them. The EEOC also contends that Trafficade retaliated against them for com­plaining to management about the harassment and filing charges of discrimination with the EEOC.

Trafficade’s alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin and retaliation for complaining about it. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (EEOC v. Trafficade Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01545) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.

Under the two-year consent decree settling the suit, signed by Chief Judge Murray Snow, Trafficade will pay compensatory damages and back pay to the two employees. In addition to the monetary relief, Trafficade will review and revise its polices and provide training on federal employ­ment laws to its human resources director, executive managers and all line staff. It will also issue letters of regret to the harmed employees.

“We are pleased Trafficade has made a commitment to educate its workforce and to encourage an environment free of discrimination and retaliation,” said Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “We continue to be concerned about race discrimination and retaliation in workplaces, but we hope this is a positive step to ensure employees can feel safe.”

Elizabeth Cadle, district director of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, added, “Employers must equip their managers with the tools to ensure that complaints of discrimination and harassment are taken seriously instead of retaliating against people who complain or who participate in investiga­tions.”

The EEOC’s Phoenix District Office has jurisdiction over Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and part of New Mexico (including Albuquerque).

Wise Idea: Store Settles Age Bias Case, Pays $20K to 57-Year-Old Worker Told to Take a Rest

Ageist comments would have sunk the employer had it taken this case to court.

M1 5100 Corp., a grocery store doing business as JUMBO in Greenacres, Fla., has agreed to pay $20,000 and provide equitable relief to settle an age discrimination suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced October 20.

The EEOC alleged that the 57-year old cook manager arrived to work for her regularly scheduled shift and discovered that her replacement — someone approximately 20 years younger — had already been hired to do her job. At the time of her termination, JUMBO’s general manager told her, “Look, old lady, we have to give opportunities to new people … it is time for you to rest.”

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers 40 years and older from discrimination on the basis of age. The EEOC filed its suit (Civil Action No. 9:19-CV-81320) in U.S. District Court is the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The three-year consent decree requires JUMBO to train managers and employees on anti-discrimination laws, implement a hotline number for discrimination complaints, and provide bi-annual reports to the EEOC on its investigation of employee discrimination complaints.

“Reliance on outdated notions, assumptions, and stereotypes about older persons should be avoided since it leads to unlawful discrimination on the basis of age,” said Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Miami District Office.

Bradley Anderson, acting district director of the EEOC’s Miami’s District Office, added, “Now more than ever our aging workforce needs advocates like the EEOC to defend against violations of the ADEA and employers’ bias that older workers are unable to do their jobs.

Pit Stops: EEOC Drives $39K Settlement With N.C. Rest Area Operator In Age Bias Hiring Case

There was age bias in employment at the rest stop, the feds alleged.

Liberty Support Services, Inc., a Raleigh-based North Carolina corporation that maintains state-owned rest areas through contracts with the North Carolina Department of Trans­portation, will pay $39,139 and provide other relief to settle an age discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Emp­loyment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Friday.

The EEOC had charged that Liberty Support violated federal law when it fired or refused to rehire four rest area attendants employed at the Cherokee County Rest Area. In 2016, the state closed the rest area for ren­ovations and the attendants expected to return to their jobs when renovations were completed. Five months later, the attendants– all of whom were over the age of 40–learned they had been discharged and replaced with sub­stantially younger workers. The EEOC asserted that Liberty Support discharged or failed to rehire the employees because of their respective ages.

Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which protects individuals age 40 and over from employment discrimination because of their age and makes it illegal for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual because of his or her age. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division (EEOC v. Liberty Support Service, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00204) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.

In addition to the monetary relief for the four attendants, the three-year consent decree settling the suit requires Liberty Support to adopt an anti-discrimination policy and provide training for its owners and employees on the ADEA and its prohibition against discrimination in the workplace because of age. The company will also post an employee notice about the lawsuit and employee rights under federal discrimination laws and provide periodic reports to the EEOC on its applicant pool and hiring during the decree’s duration.

“The EEOC will continue to challenge age bias and robustly enforce the ADEA,” said Kara Haden, acting regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District. “Employment decisions must be based on ability and not age.”

Emergency: EEOC Alleges Female EMTs Repeatedly Harassed by Operations Manager

EMTs have it tough enough without having to worry about being harassed.

MedicOne Medical Response, an independent medical transport company providing ambulance services, violated federal civil rights laws when it failed to correct ongoing sexual harassment at its Nashville branch and retaliated against a woman who complained about sexual harass­ment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Friday.

MedicOne Medical Response, headquartered in Farmers Branch, Texas, operates three ambu­lance services in Tennessee and has facilities in Mississippi and Illinois.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the company’s operations manager repeatedly subjected female paramedics to unwelcome sexual advances, comments and touching. The manager routinely massaged his female subordinates’ shoulders, made inappropriate comments about their bodies, and requested sex in exchange for better work hours. He also sent inappropriate pictures of himself to a subordinate and told her he wanted to have sex. When a woman complained of the harassing behavior, Medic One fired her soon after her complaint.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits dis­crimination on the basis of sex and protects workers from sexual harassment and retaliation. The EEOC filed its suit against Medic One in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division (Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-00912), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its con­ciliation process. The EEOC’s suit seeks monetary relief in the form of back pay and compensatory damages, as well as an injunction intended to prevent MedicOne from engaging in further discrimination and retaliation.

“Employers who tolerate persistent sexual harassment and punish victims for exercising their right to oppose such behavior violate federal law,” said Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, which has juris­dic­tion over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi.

Senior Center Sued by EEOC for Tolerating Clients’ Sexual Harassment of Female Staff

Nursing homes mustn’t let their residents sexually harass staff members.

SSC Montrose San Juan Operating Co., LLC, SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services, LLC, and Sava Senior Care LLC (collectively, “Sava”) violated federal law by tolerating the sexual harassment of female employees by Sava’s clients at the San Juan Living Center in Montrose, Colorado, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged in a lawsuit filed Friday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, clients at the San Juan Living Center repeatedly subjected female employees to sexual harassment. The EEOC alleged that Sava’s clients would grab female employees’ breasts and buttocks, ask them for sexual favors, and use inappropriate sexual language around them. The EEOC further alleged that female employees complained about the harassment to Sava management and that Sava was aware of the ongoing harassment. According to the EEOC, Sava did nothing to stop the harassment or prevent future harassment.

The EEOC also alleged that Sava retaliated against a female employee who reported the harassment by suspending her without pay and firing her within days of her complaint.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (EEOC v. SSC Montrose San Juan Operating Co., LLC, SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services, LLC, and Sava Senior Care LLC, Civil Action No.20-CV-03162) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit seeks compensa­tory and punitive damages for the female employees subjected to the sexual harassment, backpay for the employee subjected to retaliation, and appropriate injunctive relief to prevent similar discrimination in the future.

“Employers must ensure that their employees can work in an environment free from sexual harassment,” said regional attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “When an employer learns that an employee is being sexually harassed, the employer must act immediately regardless of whether the alleged harasser is a manager, employee, or client.”

Amy Burkholder, director of EEOC’s Denver Field Office, added, “It is absolutely critical that employers develop policies and procedures to ensure that employees who report harassment are not punished for doing so. Employees should be applauded for coming forward but, too often, we see employees punished for protesting illegal discrimination.”

EEOC’s Phoenix District Office has jurisdiction for Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and part of New Mexico (including Albuquerque).

Lockheed Out $115K in Settlement With EEOC Over Denied Accommodation to Admin Assistant

Stiffing an employee who wanted a reasonable accommodation proved costly for an aerospace giant.

Lockheed Martin Corporation and Lockheed Martin Enterprise Operations have agreed to pay $115,000 and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Friday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Lockheed Martin subjected a former administrative assistant at its Crystal City, Va., facility to disability discrimination when it refused to grant reasonable accommoda­tions for her disability. The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that Lockheed Martin failed to engage in the required interactive process with the disabled employee to identify and provide reasonable accommo­dations, and instead placed her on long-term disability leave and eventually fired her. The EEOC also charged that, because of her disability and in retaliation for her opposing to discrimination, Lockheed Martin refused to reassign or rehire her to vacant positions for which she was qualified.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from discriminating against job applicants and employees with disabilities, such as by failing to provide them with reasonable accom­modations for their disabilities or discharging them or failing to hire or reassign them to vacant positions on the basis of their disabilities. The ADA also prohibits retaliation against employees for exercising rights under the ADA, such as opposing disability discrimination or seeking reasonable accommodation. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-02976) after attempting to reach a pre-suit settlement through EEOC’s conciliation process.

The two-year consent decree resolving EEOC’s lawsuit has been approved by the federal court. In addition to paying $115,000 in monetary relief to the employee with a disability, Lockheed Martin will provide specialized training on reasonable accommodation processes to managers and human resources; post a notice of employee rights under the ADA; and report employee reasonable accommodation requests to the EEOC.

“We commend Lockheed Martin for working collaboratively with the EEOC to resolve this law­suit,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “The company’s willingness to confer with the EEOC about the agency’s concerns and its agreement to provide enhanced ADA training to its employees responsible for deciding reasonable accommodation requests will benefit both workers and the company.”

EEOC Washington Field Office Acting Director Mindy Weinstein added, “There are often simple and low-cost accommodations that employers can provide to workers with disabilities that do not cause an undue hardship on an employer’s business. By engaging in an interactive communication process with disabled workers, employers can identify such accommodations, accurately assess the ability of the workers to perform their jobs, and enable those workers to continue contributing to our economy. This is a not only a smart business practice but the right thing to do.”

North Bethesda, Md.-headquartered Lockheed Martin is an aerospace, defense, arms, security and advanced technologies company with worldwide interests. The company employs approximately 110,000 people worldwide as of January 2020.

The EEOC’s Washington Field Office has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and the Virginia counties of Arlington, Clarke, Fairfax, Fauquier, Frederick, Loudoun, Prince William, Stafford and Warren; and the independent Virginia cities of Alexandria, Fairfax City, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park and Winchester.

Masked Up: OSHA Touts N95 Respirators in Protecting Users From Coronavirus Exposure

No one should doubt the efficacy of N95 respirators in protecting users from coronavirus exposure, the feds said.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in a news release Monday said it has published a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on how N95 respirators effectively protect wearers from coronavirus exposure.

OSHA is aware of incorrect claims stating that N95 respirators filter does not capture particles as small as the virus that causes the coronavirus. OSHA’s new FAQ explains why an N95 respirator is effective at protecting users from the virus.

Visit OSHA’s COVID-19 webpage for further information and resources about the coronavirus.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s workers by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education, and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

Dell Denied Equal Pay to Female IT Analyst in Acquired Company, EEOC Alleges in New Suit

You’d think in this day and age, it would be a no-brainer to pay women the same pay as men for doing the same work.

But you’d be wrong to conclude that based on this case.

Dell, Inc. violated federal law by paying lesser wages to a female IT analyst than it paid to a male employee performing work that required substantially equal skill, effort and responsi­bil­ity, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed October 15.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Kea Golden was an IT analyst with 24 years of work experi­ence in the technology industry. Dell acquired the company Golden worked for and hired her and a male analyst coworker at the same time. Despite the fact both Golden and the male analyst performed the same tasks, assignments and work, Dell paid Golden $17,510 less than the male analyst.

Such alleged conduct violates the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, both of which prohibit discrimination in compensation based on sex. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-03131-L, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. In this case, the EEOC seeks back pay, com­pensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including an order barring Dell from engaging in discriminatory treatment in the future.

“Dell failed to properly pay Ms. Golden for her work,” said Joel Clark, a senior trial attorney in the EEOC’s Dallas District Office. “Dell’s approach to establishing salaries for Ms. Golden and the male employees who worked at the company acquired by Dell resulted in a wage gap between Ms. Golden and one of the male co-workers. The inequity was not corrected, despite Ms. Golden’s com­plaints to the company.”

Suzanne Anderson, supervisory trial attorney for the Dallas District Office added, “Title VII and the Equal Pay Act require the payment of equal wages for work that requires substantially equal skill, effort and responsibilities. In male-dominated technology fields, it is particularly important that emp­loyers establish fair pay for workers hired by application or through acquisition.”

Hear This: $77K Settlement in EEOC Suit Against Employer For Refusal to Interview Deaf Applicant

A deaf job applicant’s need for assistance is not proper grounds for denying an interview.

Conduent Business Services, LLC, a technology-based business services company headquartered in Florham Park, N.J., will pay $77,500 and provide other relief to settle a disability dis­crim­ination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced yesterday.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that Conduent violated federal anti-discrimination law when it refused to interview and hire a qualified deaf applicant. According to the EEOC’s complaint, the appli­cant applied for a corporate development associate position at Conduent through a recruiting firm.  Conduent expressed an interest in interviewing him, but then eliminated him from consideration after the recruiting firm said he would need an American Sign Language interpreter.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which pro­hibits employers from discriminating based on disability.  The EEOC sued Conduent in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (EEOC v. Conduent Business Services, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-18541) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.  The case was litigated by EEOC Trial Attorney Adela Santos and Supervisory Trial Attorney Nora Curtin.

In addition to the $77,500 payment to the applicant, the consent decree entered by Judge Claire Cecchi requires amendment of the company’s reasonable accommodation policy and training on the ADA. It also prohibits disability discrimination and retaliation.  The EEOC will monitor Conduent’s compliance for the next two years.

“The ADA prohibits limiting the opportunities of qualified job applicants with a disability to compete for employment,” said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for EEOC’s New York District.  “Employers must provide interpreters and other reasonable accommodations to deaf applicants when they interview for a job.”

Judy Keenan of the EEOC’s New York District Office, added, “Removing barriers in the hiring process that discriminate against individuals with disabilities is a national priority for the EEOC.”

Conduent employs about 68,000 people at dozens of locations around the world.

The EEOC’s New York District Office oversees New York, Northern New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

Offroad: Trucking Co. Pays $165K in Settlement of Retaliation Case by EEOC Over Test Challenge

Label this case, “What could this employer have possibly been thinking”?

Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc., a Minnesota-based transportation company, will pay $165,000 and furnish other relief to settle a retaliation case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced yesterday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Koch refused to rehire a former employee because she had filed an EEOC charge against Koch alleging that a strength test used by the company to screen truck drivers discriminates against women.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in Minneapolis/St. Paul (EEOC v. Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-cv-1371) in May 2019, after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through the EEOC’s pre-lawsuit conciliation process.

Under the 33-month consent decree settling the suit, agreed to by the parties and entered by the court, Koch will pay $165,000 to the former employee and issue her an apology for how she was treated by the company. The decree further mandates that Koch adopt a more comprehensive anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policy, train its corporate office employees on Title VII’s protections against discrimination and retaliation, and report to the EEOC all future complaints of Title VII discrimination and retaliation.

“Refusing to hire someone solely because she has filed a charge with the EEOC is as clear a case of retaliation as you are ever going to see,” said Gregory Gochanour, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago. “The EEOC will continue to enforce federal laws on behalf of employees who exercise their civil rights by contacting our agency to report workplace discrimination.”

Julianne Bowman, the EEOC’s district director in Chicago, added, “Retaliation has a chilling effect that deters employees from coming forward to assert their rights and interferes with our mission to eradicate discrimination in the workplace. Addressing and remedying this type of conduct in the workplace is a core purpose of the agency.”

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.