Posts Tagged ‘sex discrimination’

Fla. Car Dealer to Be More Open to Hiring Women Following Settlement of Gender Bias Allegations

Expect to see more women and minorities hawking cars at this Florida dealership.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The Collection, a South Florida automobile dealership, have reached a voluntary conciliation agreement to resolve allegations of gender discrimination raised by an unsuccessful female job applicant, the federal agency announced June 6.

Following an investigation, the EEOC found that the company had discriminated in its hiring practices on the basis of gender by failing to hire enough females into the position of sales representative.

To demonstrate their support of the EEOC and without admitting liability, the company will pay a monetary settlement to the affected females; hire qualified external trainers to conduct anti-discrimination training for all employees; create the position of director of diversity and inclusion to act as a liaison with the EEOC; and implement new recruiting tools and resources to attract female candidates for open positions, amongst other anti-discrimination hiring tactics.

“We commend The Collection for its cooperation in working to resolve this matter,” said the district director for the EEOC’s Miami District Office, Michael Farrell. “This agreement is a step toward addressing concerns regarding access to job opportunities for women in an industry where those opportunities have historically been limited. This agreement shows that we strive to work with employers willing to establish policies and practices that ensure equal opportunity, and I applaud The Collection for its efforts.”


$625K Settlement for EEOC in Hostile Work Environment Suit Against Louisville, Ky Printer

This printing company was on place for women to work, according to federal investigators.

LDDZ, Inc., doing business as DDZ CA, Inc., formerly known as Zoo Printing, Inc., will pay $625,400 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Zoo Printing failed to hire female applicants for the position of boxer/packer at its Louisville facility between January 2013 and December 2015. The EEOC also alleged that female employees were subjected to a hostile work environment because of their sex.

Failing to hire applicants because of their sex and subjecting employees to a hostile work environment because of their sex violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit against DDZ, Inc., dba DDZ CA, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division (EEOC v. DDZ, Inc., dba DDZ CA, Inc., formerly known as Zoo Printing, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-199 (JHM-CHL)) on March 30, 2018. The parties reached agreement and filed a joint motion to approve a consent decree that same day. The motion was approved by the court and the consent decree was entered on April 13, 2018.

Under the consent decree settling the suit, DDZ is required to pay $625,400 to women who unsuccessfully sought employment as boxer/packers at the Louisville, facility between January 2013 and December 2015, and to women who were employed at the facility and determined by the EEOC as having been subjected to gender harassment.

The assets of Zoo Printing, Inc., including its name and Kentucky operations, were purchased by PrintBuyer, LLC in an asset purchase transaction in November 2016. PrintBuyer, LLC subsequently closed the Kentucky operations of Zoo Printing, Inc. in 2017. PrintBuyer, LLC is not a party to the consent decree.

“We are pleased the parties were able to resolve this matter without prolonged and expensive litigation,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Kenneth Bird. “This case demonstrates the EEOC’s ongoing commitment to eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring. We hope this settlement furthers the public’s understanding that hiring decisions need to be based on the applicant’s ability to do the job, regardless of gender.”

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring that discriminate against women or other protected groups is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan.

The Louisville Area Office is part of the EEOC’s Indianapolis District, whose jurisdiction includes Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and parts of Ohio.

EEOC Says Waste Co. Wouldn’t Hire Woman

Women have as much right as men to equal treatment when they apply for a job, no matter the industry.

American Pride Waste Solutions, Inc., a Bluffton, S.C., waste collection company, violated federal law by discriminating against a qualified female job applicant because of her sex, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it recently filed.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, American Pride rejected the woman’s truck driver application in favor of less-qualified male applicants.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Pride Waste Solutions, Civil Action No. 9:18-cv-912-DCN-JDA) in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The federal agency seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the discrimination victim, as well as injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.

“Federal law clearly requires employers to give equal opportunity to all applicants for positions, regardless of the applicant’s sex,” said Bernice Williams-Kimbrough, director of the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “That goes for all jobs — truck drivers, computer programmers, police officers and CEOs. No exceptions.”

Antonette Sewell, regional attorney for the Atlanta District Office, added, “Denying people equal employment opportunity because of gender has been against federal law for more than 50 years. It’s distressing that some employers still try to get away with such misconduct, but the EEOC will keep combating it.”

EEOC: Gender Bias Cost Woman Chef’s Job

We’d like to think that these retrograde views on women no longer affect employers’ promotion decisions, but if the allegations in this case are proven that’s clearly not the case.

Morrison Management Specialists Inc., a division of Compass Group USA Inc., unlawfully denied a promotion to a female shift supervisor to an open sous chef position because of her gender, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Patricia Joyce was employed the company’s University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) location in Galveston, Texas, when a sous chef position opened. Joyce applied and was interviewed for the position, along with two male applicants. Thereafter, in a meeting with Executive Chef Jeff Inman, Joyce learned that an external male applicant had been selected for the position. Inman informed Joyce that he believed that the professional kitchen is a “man’s world” and he wanted to get it back to being that way. Joyce objected to the sentiment. Inman told her she needed to transfer to another of the company’s locations because she was no longer a good fit at the Galveston location. He subsequently reiterated these beliefs in an email to her.

A few weeks later, following a complaint to the company’s human resources department about his actions towards Joyce, Inman sent her a second email, again confirming his position that the kitchen is a “man’s world,” telling her that she would never be a sous chef with the company and she had better take the transfer to the other location. He also very strongly objected to human resources having been contacted about him, telling her that he was a “god” at Compass Group USA and that the company would not believe her. As a result, Joyce was subjected to a compulsory transfer and demotion since, following the transfer, she was no longer a supervisor and experienced a cut in her pay.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex with regard to promotions. In addition, employers are prohibited from retaliating against an employee or applicant because the person opposed discriminatory conduct. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division (Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00057) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation processes.

The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief to prohibit the Compass Group USA from engaging in future unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex, instatement of Joyce into a sous chef position, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for Joyce and any other relief the court deems proper.

“Employers’ biased views and stereotypes about gender roles have no place in the workplace,” said Rayford O. Irvin, district director of the Houston District Office of the EEOC. “The Houston District will vigorously enforce the laws that prohibit sex discrimination and retaliation against workers who have the courage to stand against it.”

Rudy Sustaita, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Houston District Office, added, “Employers cannot act on their own stereotypic assumptions and perceptions about gender when making employment decisions. Such conduct is illegal.”

EEOC’s Houston District Office is located on the sixth floor of the Leland Federal Building at 1919 Smith Street Houston, Texas.

$105K Owed to Female Sales Rep at Calif. Company Who Was Paid Less Than Male Rep

It took a year for a California company to make good on its obligation to pay a female salesperson the same as her male counterpart.

Spec Formliners, Inc., a Santa Ana, Calif.-based business, will pay $105,000 and provide other relief to settle an equal pay lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced on Wednesday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, filed in November 2016, Spec Formliners paid a female sales representative less than a male sales representative in base pay. The EEOC also contended that the company required the female sales representative to sell more to earn the same commission as her male colleague.

Such alleged conduct violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed its lawsuit on Nov. 17, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (EEOC v. Spec Formliners, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-02066-BRO-AJW) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

As part of the consent decree settling the suit, Spec Formliners will pay $105,000 to the former employee. In addition to the monetary relief, Spec Formliners also agreed to retain external equal employment opportunity consultants who will assist the company in creating, reviewing and revising its policies and practices to ensure compliance with Title VII and the EPA. The external EEO consultants will also assist the company in conducting fair pay audits, reviewing and revising its recruitment practices, and preparing annual reports for the EEOC on the company’s progress. Spec Formliners further agreed to conduct anti-discrimination training and distribute the revised policies to all employees. The EEOC will monitor Spec Formliners’ progress with the 2.5-year decree.

“We commend Spec Formliners for agreeing to put measures in place that will help remove barriers for female sales representatives and ensure equal pay for equal work,” said Anna Park, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, which includes Orange County in its jurisdiction. “Employees will do their best work when they know that their efforts are fairly compensated.”

Rosa Viramontes, director of the agency’s Los Angeles District Office, added, “The changes that will be implemented as part of this settlement will ensure that female sales representatives will receive fair compensation for sales equal to those of their male counterparts. This not only benefits female employees, but also the company as a whole.”

According to the company’s website,, Spec Formliners creates and customizes form liner patterns for concrete projects.

Male Employee Denied Position in Maternity Home Program Has EEOC in His Legal Corner

The Children’s Home, Inc., a Tampa non-profit children’s organization, violated federal law when it refused to consider a male employee for a management position in a maternity home program based on his sex, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged in a lawsuit it filed October 3. Further, after voicing his concerns about not be considered because he is a male, he was excluded from applying for any other positions with the organization, the EEOC said.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Children’s Home’s upper management and human resources personnel discouraged a male manager, Luis Vasquez, from internally applying to a position in a newly created Adolescent Motherhood Program, which was similar to his then-existing position. The EEOC said that Vasquez was told that management “wasn’t sure if they would accept males to work at the new motherhood program,” and asked, “… can you imagine males changing pampers, working with babies and with pregnant girls?”

Vasquez sought a new position with the organization because the program where he was employed didn’t receive renewed funding. Soon after complaining about the refusal to consider him because of his sex, he was advised that there were no other positions available at the organization for him. Vasquez’s less-experienced female subordinate was selected for the newly created position, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. The Children’s Home, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-02262-EAK-JSS) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division after attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Just as Title VII protects women in the workplace from the gender-based assumption that they always have to be familial caretakers, it also protects men from the stereotype that they cannot hold positions viewed to have such caretaking functions,” said Evangeline Hawthorne, director for the Tampa Field Office.

Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney for the Miami District Office, added, “Employees must not be prevented from work opportunities based on outdated stereotypes of ‘a man’s role’ in maternity and childcare matters. Employment decisions based on such stereotypes violate federal law and the EEOC will vigorously oppose them.”

The Children’s Home is a non-profit organization that provides programs and services to children-in-need and their families in Central Florida.

EEOC: Company Took Back Job Offer After Finding Out Male Applicant Was Transgender

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is sticking to its position that sex discrimination includes against persons who are transgender.

A&E Tire, Inc., a Colorado chain of automotive service shops, violated federal law by retracting a job offer and refusing to hire a male applicant once it was discovered that he was transgender, the EEOC charged in a lawsuit filed Sept. 29.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Egan Woodward applied for a services manager position at A&E Tire’s Denver location, and after his interview he was offered the position pending a drug test and background check. The application and background screening paperwork used by A&E Tire asked Woodward for his sex and for any other names he used in the past. In completing the application and paperwork, Woodward identified his assigned sex at birth and indicated he used another name typically associated with the female sex in the past.

Less than an hour after A&E Tire extended Woodward a job offer, he received a call from a manager asking him if there were a mistake in his paperwork, the EEOC said. When Woodward stated there was not, A&E never got back to him about completing the screenings or a start date and ultimately hired someone else for the position, the agency said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, including transgender status and sex-based stereotypes. The EEOC filed its lawsuit, EEOC v. A&E Tire, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:17cv-02362-STV, in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado after first attempting to reach a settlement through its pre-litigation conciliation process. The lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent similar such discriminatory practices in the future.

The lawsuit announced today is part of the EEOC’s ongoing efforts to implement its Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP), which it renewed in 2016. The SEP includes “[p]rotecting lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender (LGBT) people from discrimination based on sex” as a Commission enforcement priority.

“Despite the significant legal and cultural progress we have made as a country in recent years respecting the rights of transgender workers, a lot of work remains to be done in rooting out stereotypes and prejudice,” said the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, Mary O’Neill.

Elizabeth Cadle, district director for the Phoenix District Office, said, “Transgender individuals want to work and give to the economy, sharing their skills and ideas just like anyone else. They should not be deprived of the right and ability to do so just because of unfounded fears, misconceptions, and biases.”