Posts Tagged ‘settlement of EEOC lawsuit’

EEOC Recovers $65K For Harassed Worker

Justice was done for this temporary worker who was allegedly the target of harassment and retaliation.

Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA, Inc., which operates a roasting facility in Suffolk, Va., has agreed to pay $65,000 and provide other relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced August 20. The EEOC had charged that Massimo Zanetti discriminated against a temporary worker when it subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment and then fired her for opposing the abuse.

According to the EEOC’s suit, LaToya Young was a temporary worker supplied by a third-party staffing agency to work at the Suffolk facility. The EEOC alleged that around February 2015, a male co-worker began harassing Young. The alleged harassment included requests for sex and sexual favors, as well as other crude sexual comments and gestures. Young reported the sexual harassment on at least three occasions, but the harassment continued. After Young’s third report to her supervisor, her assignment at Massimo Zanetti was terminated due to her complaints.

Such alleged conduct violates the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division (EEOC v. Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-499) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to providing monetary relief to Young, Massimo Zanetti entered into a two-year consent decree requiring the company to conduct annual training for its Suffolk employees, supervisors, and managers on the requirements of Title VII and its prohibition against sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace. Massimo Zanetti must also post an employee notice in the Suffolk facility and provide periodic reports to the EEOC.

“Employers must take appropriate action to stop harassment of all employees, including temporary workers,” said Kara G. Haden, acting regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District. “We hope that this case sends a clear message that the EEOC will hold accountable employers who fail to protect all employees from workplace harassment.”

Employer Concedes in ADA Medical History Suit

This employer threw in the towel rather than duke it out in court over its alleged improper use of employees’ medical history to justify taking away their jobs.

Birmingham, Ala. – Zachry Industrial, Inc., formerly known as Zachry Construction Corporation, which staffs the Chevron Refinery in Pascagoula, Miss., has agreed to pay $135,000 and provide other relief to settle a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced July 26.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Zachry violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it terminated at least four employees based on their medical history following an occupational health examination, despite the employees having adequately performed their jobs. The EEOC further alleged that Zachry violated the ADA by failing to engage in an interactive dialogue with the employees prior to termination to assess whether they could perform the essential functions of their job with or without a reasonable accommodation.

The ADA protects employees from discrimination based on their disabilities or perceived disabilities when the employees can perform the essential functions of their job with or without a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC filed suit in the Southern District of Mississippi (EEOC v. Zachry Industrial, Inc., 1:18-cv-58-HSO-JCG) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to providing monetary relief, the three-year consent decree requires the company to implement an anti-discrimination policy that prohibits disability-based discrimination. The decree further requires the company to conduct annual training on the ADA. Zachry must also post an employee notice about the lawsuit and employee rights under federal anti-discrimination laws, and must provide periodic reports to the EEOC.

“The ADA prohibits employers from terminating employees who are performing their jobs based on their medical history,”said EEOC Birmingham District Director Bradley Anderson. “Once on notice of a disability, an employer must perform an individualized inquiry to determine whether a reasonable accommodation will help the employee to work.”

Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District, said, “The ADA is clear-, employers cannot blindly defer to a company physician’s opinion without first pausing to assess the objective reasonableness of the physician’s conclusions. When this happens, as in this instance, the EEOC will intercede to protect the rights of employees to work without threat of termination when they are performing their jobs.

The EEOC’s Birmingham District Office has jurisdiction over Alabama, Mississippi (all but 17 counties in the northern part of Mississippi), and the Florida Panhandle.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at The Birmingham District consists of Alabama, Mississippi (except 17 northern counties) and the Florida Panhandle

Good Number: Phone Co. Settles ADA Suit

A deaf employee at a west coast phone company is getting a new chance to do his job with a reasonable accommodation from the company.

Pacific Bell  Telephone Company, formerly known as AT&T Pacific Bell, will pay $15,000  and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought  by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced July 12.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit,  Pacific Bell violated federal law when it did not effectively accommodate a  deaf employee at its Fresno, Calif., location. Despite the employee’s numerous  requests for a sign language interpreter, managers chose to provide inadequate  accommodations for the worker by standing close to him during meetings so he  could read their lips, or by jotting down notes explaining the contents of the  meeting after the fact. The EEOC contends that such behavior deprived the  worker of equal employment opportunities, privileges and benefits of  employment, which negatively affected him as an employee.

Such alleged conduct violates the  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District  Court for the Eastern District of California (EEOC v. AT&T Pacific Bell  Telephone Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-01059-LJO-EPG) after first attempting to  reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition  to monetary relief, Pacific Bell agreed to a two-year consent decree to provide  effective accommodations to the employee, and to ensure against future  incidences of discrimination against workers with disabilities. As part of the  decree, the company will provide the employee with an interpreter; ensure a  work environment free from disability discrimination, especially as it pertains  to reasonable accommodation of hard-of-hearing and deaf employees; provide  training to the employee’s immediate supervisor, subsequent supervisors, and  human resources personnel; and ensure appropriate record keeping, reporting and  monitoring of disability complaints.

“Subjecting workers to different  terms, conditions and privileges of employment because of deafness is a direct  violation of the ADA,” said Melissa Barrios, director for EEOC’s Fresno Local  Office. “The EEOC is here to fight for the rights of employees with disabilities.”

Anna Park, regional attorney for  the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, whose jurisdiction includes California’s  Central Valley, added, “We commend Pacific Bell for its willingness to put in  place meaningful relief that will allow all employees with disabilities to  participate in all aspects of the work environment.”

Mopping Up: EEOC Settles Title VII Lawsuit Against Goodwill Industries, Affiliate for $850K

This case is an object lesson in not allowing sexual harassment and retaliation to take root in the workplace.

Goodwill Industries of the East Bay Area and its affiliate, Calidad Industries Inc., will pay $850,000 to eight former and current employees to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced yesterday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, six female janitors assigned to work the night shift at the Oakland Federal Building faced routine sexual harassment by their direct supervisor. The claimants included young women with developmental disabilities who were relatively new to the workforce, and were employed by Goodwill/Calidad’s janitorial operations under a federal government contract. The EEOC also charges that two managers were unfairly criticized and disciplined in retaliation for supporting the women’s sexual harassment claims, and one manager was compelled to resign.

“I was only 19 years old when I worked at Calidad — it was my first job, and I enjoyed being able to earn my own money,” said former employee Crystal Edwards. “But after my boss put his arms around me, I did not feel safe at work. My complaints were ignored. I am so glad the EEOC filed this lawsuit to stop the harassment and to make sure it doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

Former employee Phyllis Sloan said, “I reported the harassment as soon as it started, but nothing changed. So I went to the EEOC, and they were able to help me. I just wanted justice, so that other disabled workers know that they don’t have to put up with harassment from their bosses.”

Former manager Lisa Short added, “Within weeks of my start date, my employees trusted me enough to describe the harassment they faced on the nightshift. I knew my job could be on the line, but I needed to make sure my workers were safe.”

Concerned when higher management failed to take effective action, Short sought help from the Federal Protective Service and ultimately assisted the women in filing discrimination complaints with the EEOC.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from subjecting their employees to sexual harassment and specifically protects employees from retaliation for reporting or otherwise supporting claims of sexual harassment in the workplace. The EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay, Inc. and Calidad Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-07093) after an investigation conducted by EEOC investigator Christopher Green and attempting through its conciliation process to reach a settlement out of court.

According to the consent decree signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers, Goodwill/Calidad will pay $850,000 to the claimants. The employers will also revise their EEO policies and complaint and investigation procedures; institute supervisor accountability policies concerning discrimination issues; conduct comprehensive training of their workforce; and hire a consultant to monitor any responses to future complaints. The companies are also required to provide reports to the EEOC regarding adherence to the decree’s terms.

EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney Roberta Steele said, “The EEOC vigorously defends people like Lisa Short, the courageous supervisor who spoke out on behalf of her employees, as well as the individuals who are harassed. Whether you are a target or a bystander, if you see harassment in the workplace, please take action now and call on the EEOC as a resource to end workplace abuse. And if you’re an employer, know that EEOC offers technical assistance programs to prevent and remedy harassment.”

EEOC San Francisco District Director William R. Tamayo added, “The #MeToo movement illustrates that sexual harassment impacts people across industries, from white collar to blue collar work, across class, race, age, gender and abilities. In this case, there were many factors that contributed to the vulnerability of these janitors – all were African-American, many were young females new to the workplace, with disabilities, working the isolated night shift. Employers must take proactive measures to stop predators who would abuse their power over vulnerable workers.”

Protecting vulnerable workers from harassment, disparate pay, and other discriminatory policies is one of the priorities identified in EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP). The EEOC’s Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace provides practical resources for employers who want to address workplace harassment.

According to its website, Calidad Industries is a subsidiary of Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay and provides vocational training and employment to those with significant disabilities.

EEOC Gets $70K for Male Harassment Victim

While reports of sexual harassment of women by prominent men dominates the news, men sometimes are victims of harassment also.

Rocky Mountain Casing Crews (RMCC), a Wyoming company that formerly did business in the North Dakota oil patch, has agreed to pay $70,000 to settle a sexual harassment and sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2016, the agency announced on Dec. 20.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, RMCC, which formerly maintained a workforce in Williston, N.D., subjected a male employee to harassment because of his sex, male, and his sexual orientation. The agency said that coworkers called the employee by offensive and homophobic slurs, and the office manager made him the target of derogatory sex-based comments, including giving him a Santa cap with a Spanish slang word for “homosexual” on it.

The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Rocky Mountain Casing Crews (RMCC), 1:16-cv-00428-DLH-CSM (D. N.D.), alleging that RMCC had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by this misconduct. The consent decree settling the suit provides that RMCC will pay the discrimination victim $70,000 and adopt and enforce a policy against sexual harassment in the future. RMCC management and employees will undergo training on the prohibitions against harassment in the workplace.

“Sexual harassment is illegal whether it is against women or men,” said Julianne Bowman, the EEOC’s district director in Chicago, who managed the federal agency’s pre-suit administrative investigation. “Employers must respond appropriately when they receive complaints of this kind of abuse.”

Greg Gochanour, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District, added, “Employers have to not only be reactive in responding to complaints of harassment, but they must be proactive too. They should make sure that their workplace is inhospitable to acts of harassment, and that their employees know that such misconduct violates federal law and has no place there.”

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of employment 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.

Restaurant Dishes Out $35K in Settlement With EEOC in Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit

This restaurant has committed itself to rid pregnancy discrimination from the menu.

Ichiban Japanese Restaurant, LLC, a hibachi-style restaurant doing business as Ichiban Japanese Steakhouse in Jackson, Mich., will pay $35,000 and commit to training its employees to resolve a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Dec. 15.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, an employee who worked at the restaurant as a server and bartender was fired because she was pregnant.

Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Michigan (EEOC v. Ichiban Japanese Restaurant, LLC, dba Ichiban Japanese Steakhouse, Case No. 2:17-cv-13164) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The three-year consent decree resolving this case requires the company to pay $30,000 to the employee who filed a complaint with the EEOC, and $2,500 each to two other women who the EEOC also determined had been harmed by Ichiban’s personnel practices when they became pregnant while working for the company.

“Employers who fire employees because they are pregnant are violating federal law,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Nedra Campbell. “Ichiban should be commended for agreeing to an early resolution of this case and committing to training its staff on pregnancy discrimination laws.”

The restaurant company has other locations throughout southeastern Michigan.

The EEOC’s Detroit Field Office is part of the Indianapolis District Office, which oversees Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, and parts of Ohio.

EEOC Wins Equal Pay Suit Against Pizzaria That Paid Men and Women Unequally For Same Work

And while we are on the topic of equal pay for equal work, two high school students have something in common with the female technician in yesterday’s blog about a lawsuit against a San Diego pharmacy.

They were victims of alleged equal pay violations also.

And the EEOC again came to their rescue and won.

A federal district judge in Kansas entered judgment Thursday in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a lawsuit alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act. This federal law prohibits companies from paying women and men unequally and retaliating against those who complain about or support a claim of unequal pay.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. PS Holding LLC, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-02513 CM-GEB), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in September 2017, two high school friends, Jensen Walcott and Jake Reed, applied to work at Pizza Studio as “pizza artists” in 2016. After both were interviewed and offered jobs, Walcott and Reed discussed their starting wages. Upon learning that Reed was offered 25¢ more per hour, Walcott called the restaurant to complain about the unequal pay. When she did so, the company immediately withdrew its offers of employment from both Walcott and Reed.

[Read my prior post on the case here.]

Federal District Judge Carlos Murguia’s order awards both Walcott and Reed back pay for lost wages as well as liquidated, compensatory, and punitive damages. Although PS Holding LLC no longer operates a restaurant in Kansas City, Kan., it still owns and operates other Pizza Studio restaurants nationwide. Therefore, today’s order also requires it to implement significant policy changes, conduct training, collect and analyze pay and other data, and report data and complaints to the EEOC, each in order to prevent future violations of the law.

“As this case against Pizza Studio demonstrates, the EEOC will thoroughly investigate and enforce this critical federal law,” said EEOC St. Louis District Director James R. Neely, Jr. “It is particularly impressive that these younger workers had the courage to stand up and challenge what they saw as illegal treatment.”

Andrea G. Baran, the EEOC’s regional attorney in St. Louis, said, “Although there has been much in the news recently about sexual harassment in the workplace, unlawful sex discrimination takes many forms. Paying women less than men for equal work is not only illegal, it demeans female workers.”

Compensation discrimination is one of six national enforcement priorities highlighted in the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan, accessible at

The EEOC’s Youth@Work website (at presents information for teens and other young workers about employment discrimination, including curriculum guides for students and teachers and videos to help young workers learn about their rights and responsibilities.