Posts Tagged ‘sex discrimination’

EEOC: Mich. Health Care System Underpaid Women Relative to Men for Doing Equal Work

Why did this employer think it could get away with paying two men more than a woman who held the same job? The federal government wants to know.

Covenant HealthCare, a non-profit health care system based in Saginaw, Mich., is violating federal law by paying a female employee a lower wage than two male co-workers who hold the same position, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed yesterday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the female employee has worked for Covenant since 2008. When she became a business intelligence developer in February 2017, Covenant paid her a starting wage of $31.05 per hour. Three months later, in May 2017, Covenant transferred a male employee from a different department to become a business intelligence developer and paid him a starting wage of $39.16 per hour. Later that year, Covenant hired another man into the same position and paid him a starting wage of $35.05 per hour. The female employee continues to earn a lower wage than both males. All three employees perform equal work.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The EEOC seeks to recover monetary compensation for the employee in the form of back pay, liquidated damages and punitive damages.  The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Covenant HealthCare, Case No. 2:20-cv-10662) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan after first attempt­ing to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Employers cannot continue to discriminate against women and perpetuate illegal traditions but must pay female employees equal pay for equal work,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Karen Brooks. “The EEOC will litigate, when necessary, to ensure that employers recognize this basic principle.”

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

$93K Settlement With EEOC Brings Relief for Victims of Plant Manager’s Hate at N.Y. Plant

Working conditions should improve substantially for racial minorities, women, and foreign-born employees who had to put up with the venom spewed by their plant manager.

Porous Materials, Inc., an Ithaca, N.Y., manufacturer, will pay $93,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race, sex, and national origin harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced yesterday.

According to EEOC’s lawsuit, Porous subjected its employees to an ugly mix of sexism, racism and national origin discrimination. A former plant manager used racial slurs, called foreign-born employees “terrorists,” and made crude racist remarks to the only black employee involving a noose. He also said that he was “sick” of immigrants stealing American jobs, mocked emp­loyees for speak­ing other languages, and urged immigrant employees to leave America.

The EEOC’s suit also charged that the plant manager was similarly abusive toward women. He loudly called women vulgar names and said that women could not perform a “man’s job.” He made unwanted sexual advances and commented on female employees’ bodies. The company owner, rather than putting a stop to the behavior, also treated female employees more harshly than males, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits dis­crim­ination – including harassment – based on race, national origin, and sex, as well as retaliation for complaining about it. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (EEOC v. Porous Materials, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-01099) after first trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $93,000 in monetary relief, the four-year consent decree resolving the suit requires Porous to provide extensive training to its owner and all employees and managers, retain an outside entity to investigate discrimination complaints, and modify its anti-discrimination policy. Porous must also promptly report to the EEOC about its handling of discrimination complaints. The EEOC will monitor Porous’s compliance with these obligations for the next four years.

“The brave workers who came forward made this settlement possible,” said EEOC trial attorney Daniel Seltzer, who litigated this case along with supervisory trial attorney Nora Curtin. “The changes required by the consent decree should protect future Porous employees from harassment in the future.”

Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office, said, “Harassment prevention starts at the top. And just having an anti-harassment policy doesn’t cut it. When owners and executives aren’t committed to a respectful workplace, abuse can often follow.”

The EEOC’s New York acting district director, Judy Keenan, added, “Retaliating against employees who complain about harassment has a chilling effect and hurts future harassment victims. The EEOC will vigorously enforce the federal laws that prohibit such misconduct.”

The EEOC’s New York District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, northern New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Preventing systemic harassment through enforcement and targeted outreach is a national priority identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP). To learn more about the  EEOC’s strategic plan and enforcement priorities, visit https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/sep-2017.cfm

$20.5 Settlement Spells End to Bias, Retaliation by Big Insurer Against Women and Minorities

Let this massive financial settlement be a warning to the financial industry that the feds are watching how they treat their minority and female workers.

Jackson National Life Insurance Company, Jackson National Life Distributors, LLC, and Jackson National Life Insurance Company of New York (collectively, “Jackson”) will pay $20,500,000 to 21 complainants and furnish other relief to settle the EEOC’s claims in a race, national origin, and sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced January 9.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, filed in September 2016, charged that Jackson tolerated a work environment hostile to female and African American employees in Jackson’s Denver and Nashville offices. EEOC alleged that African-American employees were referred to as “lazy,” had stress balls thrown at them, and were subjected to racially demeaning cartoons. EEOC further alleged a high-level manager referred to multiple African American female employees as “resident street walkers” and that female employees endured sexual comments and leering from male coworkers. EEOC alleged that at least one high-level manager kissed subordinate females on their lips, and much of the hostile work environment involved conduct by high-level managers and executives.

EEOC’s suit also alleged that Jackson discriminated against African American and female employees in the terms and conditions of employment, such as paying them inferior compensation and regularly passing them over for promotion, and selecting less-qualified, white male employees over the complainants. Finally, EEOC charged that Jackson retaliated against employees who filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC or otherwise opposed discrimination. In particular, Jackson fired a white vice president who refused to give a negative evaluation and a disciplinary warning to two African American female employees who had complained.

All this alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race, sex, and national origin discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC filed its lawsuit, EEOC et al. v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company et al., Civil Action No. 16-cv-02472-PAB-SKC, in United States District Court for the District of Colorado after first attempting to reach a settlement through its pre-litigation conciliation process.

The four-year consent decree, which provides $20,500,000 in damages, attorneys fees, and costs to 21 former Jackson employees, is the largest monetary settlement ever reached by the EEOC’s Phoenix District and Denver Field Offices. In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree enjoins Jackson from engaging in future violations of Title VII, including creating or tolerating a hostile work environment based on race, color, sex, and/or national origin, and discrimination in promotion, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment. The consent decree requires Jackson to designate an Internal Compliance Monitor and to retain an outside consultant to review its EEO policies, promotional and compensation practices and data, and future complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Additionally, the decree requires that Jackson train employees on discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Jackson managers and supervisors will be rated on their compliance with EEO policies and laws prohibiting discrimination and retaliation.

“We hope that the results in this case will send an important message to the financial industry that race and sex harassment and refusing to promote and pay employees based on sex, race, or national origin are illegal and will not be tolerated,” said EEOC Phoenix District Office Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “We are gratified that this decree will provide significant compensation to former Jackson employees whose careers were thwarted by these discriminatory practices. These former employees have been very brave to stand up for their rights.”

Amy Burkholder, director of EEOC’s Denver Field Office, added, “Over 50% of EEOC charges contain a retaliation allegation. In this case, one white employee refused to write up black employees who had complained about discrimination, and he was fired the next day. Employers should bear in mind that retaliation is as illegal as race and sex discrimination.”

The EEOC’s Phoenix District Office has jurisdiction over Arizona, Colorado, parts of New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

$20K Settlement With EEOC Paves Way for Man to Get Work at Florida Adult Entertainment Club

Down in the Florida Panhandle, what’s a guy got to do to get hired at an adult entertainment venue? Get the government involved.

Gold, Inc., doing business as Sammy’s Gentlemen’s Club, an adult entertainment establishment based in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., has agreed to pay $20,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced Dec. 10.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Sammy’s refused to consider James Sharp for a bartender position because of his gender. When he attempted to apply at Sammy’s Fort Walton Beach location, Sharp was refused a job application. Sammy’s general manager told Sharp that Sammy’s does not hire male bartenders.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on a person’s sex. The EEOC filed its lawsuit (Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00439-RV-HTC) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division on June 29, 2017 after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the lawsuit requires Sammy’s to provide training to its employees on its obligations under the law and review its anti-discrimination policy. The decree also prohibits Sammy’s from engaging in discrimination or retaliation because of sex in the future and requires the company to post notices on its bulletin boards informing employees of their right to contact the EEOC if they feel they have been discriminated or retaliated against.

“Federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sex,” said Bradley Anderson, district director of the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office. “An employer that makes hiring decisions based on a person’s gender violates the law, except in very limited circumstances. Barring an entire gender – half the population – from a bartending job is certainly not one of those exceptions.”

EEOC regional attorney Marsha Rucker added, “A customer’s or coworker’s supposed pref­erence for an employee of a certain gender does not justify sex discrimination. This lawsuit is a reminder that employers who cater to such preferences, real or imagined, risk liability for themselves.”

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.

$450K Settlement Ends EEOC Lawsuit Against Credit Union Over Nonhiring of Qualified Women

Women looking to work at this West Coast credit union should feel better about their prospects following this civil rights settlement.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced Friday the resolution of a sex, age and retaliatory discrimination lawsuit against Tulare County-based Tucoemas Federal Credit Union. The credit union has agreed to pay $450,000, along with certain injunctive relief, to resolve the complaint.

According to the EEOC, Tucoemas failed to hire three qualified internal female applicants over the age of 50 and instead hired a younger male applicant with no prior credit union experience. The charge further claims the company retaliated against two of the female employees after they filed complaints with the EEOC, constructively forcing one employee to quit and firing another.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 17 (EEOC v. Tucoemas Federal Credit Union, 1:19-cv-00896-AWI-SKO) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation agreement through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary relief, the three-year consent decree, which sunsets at the end of the second year and remains under the court’s jurisdiction during the term, includes injunctive relief intended to prevent workplace discrimination and retaliation in the future. Tucoemas has agreed to: retain an external equal employment opportunity consultant to monitor compliance with Title VII, ADEA, and the decree; review and if necessary revise policies and procedures against all discrimination and retaliation prohibited by Title VII and the ADEA; provide training to all employees on sex and age discrimination and retaliation; and establish a centralized tracking system for recruitment, hiring, promotions, terminations, and sex and age discrimination complaints, along with the monitoring of such complaints to prevent retaliation. The EEOC will monitor compliance with this agreement.

“We commend Tucoemas for its commitment to Title VII and the ADEA and for implementing measures that will have a positive impact on applicants and employees,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, which includes Fresno in its jurisdiction. “We encourage other employers to follow the lead of Tucoemas and review their hiring policies and practices to ensure they are in compliance with federal law.”

Melissa Barrios, director of the EEOC’s Fresno local office, added, “Retaliation can chill a workforce from coming forward and reporting illegal behavior. We are encouraged that Tucoemas has taken the allegations seriously and has agreed to measures that will benefit the workplace.”

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, especially class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate against racial, ethnic and religious groups, older workers, gender, and people with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

$150K Settlement With EEOC Will Open Fast Food Jobs to Men at Southern Cal. Food Chain

Men deserve as much of an opportunity to serve fast food as women do–and when they don’t get it, expect the government to intervene on their behalf.

Burgers & Beer, a Southern California food chain based in El Centro, Calif., has agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced yesterday.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged Burgers & Beer with disqualifying male applicants and employees from server positions based solely on their sex. The EEOC contends that this practice, which has been ongoing since 2015, led to an almost all-female server workforce.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrim­ination on the basis of sex with regard to hiring and/or promotions. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No.: 3:18-cv-02014-DMS-JLB) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit, which remains under the court’s jurisdiction during the decree’s term, includes injunctive relief aimed at preventing further workplace sex discrimination. Burgers & Beer has agreed to review and revise its job descriptions for all positions, as well as create and implement a recruitment plan that increases the pool of male applicants. The company will endeavor to meet a hiring and retention rate of men into server positions. The rest­aurant ­chain has also agreed to review and revise its policies and procedures on discrim­ination and provide training to all employees on federal anti-discrimination laws with an emphasis on sex dis­crimination. Finally, Burgers & Beer is required to keep records necessary to demonstrate its compliance with this decree.

“The EEOC commends Burgers & Beer for agreeing to meaningful and comprehensive measures to correct this situation,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, whose juris­diction includes San Diego County. “There is never any justification for denying jobs to an entire gender of people. The measures put in place by Burgers & Beer should prevent further discrimination in that workplace.”

Christopher Green, director of the EEOC’s San Diego’s local office, said, “Supposed customer preference is no excuse for discriminatory behavior. Employers should take heed of this resolution and review their practices to ensure they are compliant with federal law.”

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, especially class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate against racial, ethnic and religious groups, older workers, gender, and people with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

No Garden of Eden Here: N.C. Employer Wouldn’t Hire Any Men at Adam & Eve Store, EEOC Alleges

Hiring discrimination is often directed against women; here is an unusual case in which it was directed against men.

Sactacular Holdings, LLC d/b/a Adam & Eve, a North Carolina limited liability company headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., violated federal law when it refused to hire Christopher Kilby and other similarly situated male applicants based on their sex, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed Sept. 11

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Christopher Kilby applied for a job at Sactacular Holding LLC’s Adam & Eve store on Capital Boulevard in Raleigh, N.C. in August 2017. The complaint alleges that when Kilby later returned to check on the status of his application, a female salesperson told Kilby the company does not hire men for sales positions. In October 2017, Kilby visited the company’s Clayton, N.C. Adam & Eve store where a female salesperson confirmed to Kilby that the company does not hire men for sales positions, according to the complaint. The agency further alleges Sactacular Holdings LLC did not hire Kilby and other qualified male applicants based on its policy of not hiring men for sales positions.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their sex. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division (EEOC v. Sactacular Holdings, LLC d/b/a Adam & Eve, Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00402) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

“Employers must base hiring decisions on an applicant’s ability to do the job, not on one’s gender,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “Companies that refuse to hire entire classes of applicants not only violate the law, but also deprive themselves of an entire pool of qualified workers.”

If  you are curious about what these stores sell, I suggest you Google it.