PHOENIX —The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has charged The Terminix International Company and The ServiceMaster Company with violating federal law by subjecting a class of female employees to a sexually hostile work environment at its Salt Lake City, Utah facility.
The EEOC’s lawsuit, (EEOC v. The ServiceMaster Company and The Terminix International Company, L.P., Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-00705 DAK), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Northern Division), alleged that Terminix and ServiceMaster permitted a class of female employees to be repeatedly sexually harassed by a supervisor.
The EEOC alleges that, on at least one occasion, a supervisor suggested to the female employees that they come to work not wearing a top. On another occasion, this same supervisor allegedly suggested that the women should wear nothing but Vaseline. This supervisor also allegedly made repeated comments to female employees about their ability to be strippers and perform lap dances for him. According to the EEOC, managers knew about the comments and failed to address the harassment.
This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which prohibit employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin, as well as retaliation. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the victim who filed a charge with the EEOC and for the other females affected, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent discriminatory practices.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Area Temps Agrees to Pay $650,000 for Profiling Applicants by Race, Sex, National Origin and Age
CLEVELAND – Area Temps, a Northeast Ohio temporary agency, agreed to pay $650,000 to resolve a class discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC charged in its lawsuit (1:07-CV-02964) that the temporary agency violated federal law by considering and assigning (or declining) job applicants by race, sex, Hispanic national origin, and age. The EEOC also alleged Area Temps unlawfully complied with discriminatory requests made by its clients based on race, sex, national origin and age, and unlawfully fired two of its employees in retaliation for their opposition to Area Temps’ discriminatory practices and for one employee’s participation in the EEOC’s investigation.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin both by employers and placement agencies, and protects employees who complain about or oppose such discrimination from retaliation. It also violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits discrimination based on age against people 40 years of age or older as well as retaliation.
The three-year consent decree settling the suit, in addition to monetary relief, requires the company to post a notice of resolution regarding this lawsuit, visible to employees. The company must also provide a notice-of-resolution letter to all applicants, management and selecting officials and to outside clients on the obligations of the company under federal anti-discrimination laws, as well as Area Temps’ commitment to abide by such laws.
The EEOC charged in its lawsuit (1:07-CV-02964) that the temporary agency violated federal law by considering and assigning (or declining) job applicants by race, sex, Hispanic national origin, and age. The EEOC also alleged Area Temps unlawfully complied with discriminatory requests made by its clients based on race, sex, national origin and age, and unlawfully fired two of its employees in retaliation for their opposition to Area Temps’ discriminatory practices and for one employee’s participation in the EEOC’s investigation.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin both by employers and placement agencies, and protects employees who complain about or oppose such discrimination from retaliation. It also violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits discrimination based on age against people 40 years of age or older as well as retaliation.
The three-year consent decree settling the suit, in addition to monetary relief, requires the company to post a notice of resolution regarding this lawsuit, visible to employees. The company must also provide a notice-of-resolution letter to all applicants, management and selecting officials and to outside clients on the obligations of the company under federal anti-discrimination laws, as well as Area Temps’ commitment to abide by such laws.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
What should be included in a sexual harassment policy?
By Denise Kay, Esq, EPS Senior Consultant
A strong written policy is the foundation of a good sexual harassment prevention program. It sends a clear message to the workforce and any other interested outside parties that the organization prohibits sexual harassment and any other form of unlawful harassment. It also instructs victims on reporting procedures and guarantees that corrective action will be taken to remedy unlawful behavior if and when it occurs.
Components of a Sexual Harassment Policy:
A critical component is that the victim has options with respect to whom to make the report. The policy should also include a statement that every complaint will be investigated. A commitment to remedying sexual harassment is paramount and the policy should include a strong statement that corrective action will be taken against anyone deemed to have violated the sexual harassment policy.
The policy should also address confidentiality. Due to the employer’s obligation to investigate and address any known concerns of sexual harassment, the employer should not guarantee complete confidentiality; however, the policy should state that confidentiality will be maintained to the extent possible, and the confidentiality clause extends to all parties involved. A fear of retaliation often inhibits complaints so the policy should make clear that the company prohibits retaliation and explain that a prohibition against retaliation means that no adverse employment action will be taken against anyone who makes a report or assists in an investigation of sexual harassment.
The policy should direct anyone who experiences retaliation to report it immediately through the policy’s complaint procedure. Finally, a sound policy should require a written employee acknowledgement that the employee has read and understands the policy and has had the opportunity to ask questions regarding the policy.
A strong written policy is the foundation of a good sexual harassment prevention program. It sends a clear message to the workforce and any other interested outside parties that the organization prohibits sexual harassment and any other form of unlawful harassment. It also instructs victims on reporting procedures and guarantees that corrective action will be taken to remedy unlawful behavior if and when it occurs.
Components of a Sexual Harassment Policy:
- Prohibition of harassment
- Definition of harassment
- Complaint/Investigation procedures
- Corrective action
- Prohibition against retaliation
- Written acknowledgment
A critical component is that the victim has options with respect to whom to make the report. The policy should also include a statement that every complaint will be investigated. A commitment to remedying sexual harassment is paramount and the policy should include a strong statement that corrective action will be taken against anyone deemed to have violated the sexual harassment policy.
The policy should also address confidentiality. Due to the employer’s obligation to investigate and address any known concerns of sexual harassment, the employer should not guarantee complete confidentiality; however, the policy should state that confidentiality will be maintained to the extent possible, and the confidentiality clause extends to all parties involved. A fear of retaliation often inhibits complaints so the policy should make clear that the company prohibits retaliation and explain that a prohibition against retaliation means that no adverse employment action will be taken against anyone who makes a report or assists in an investigation of sexual harassment.
The policy should direct anyone who experiences retaliation to report it immediately through the policy’s complaint procedure. Finally, a sound policy should require a written employee acknowledgement that the employee has read and understands the policy and has had the opportunity to ask questions regarding the policy.
Appeal Settled on EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit Against 7-Eleven
HONOLULU – 7-Eleven of Hawaii will pay $10,000 and furnish other relief to settle an appeal and underlying federal disability discrimination lawsuit, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC had charged that 7-Eleven failed to keep a former employee’s medical information confidential by disclosing the information to a prospective employer, which is a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and which caused the prospective employer to rescind a job offer.
The EEOC filed its original lawsuit in September 2007 in U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii (EEOC v. 7-Eleven of Hawaii, Inc., Case No. CV 07-00478-SPK-BMK). After the District Court ruled in 7-Eleven’s favor, the EEOC appealed the decision in August 2008 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 08-16903).
In addition to the monetary relief, 7-Eleven agreed to annual training of its human resources personnel and managers in equal employment opportunity, with an emphasis on the confidentiality provisions of the ADA. For a period of two years, 7-Eleven will also be required to report annually to the EEOC regarding the company’s policies and proposed training programs with respect to disability discrimination, medical disclosure, non-retaliation, and reasonable accommodation for its Hawaii personnel. The agreement settles both the appeal and the underlying District Court suit.
The EEOC filed its original lawsuit in September 2007 in U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii (EEOC v. 7-Eleven of Hawaii, Inc., Case No. CV 07-00478-SPK-BMK). After the District Court ruled in 7-Eleven’s favor, the EEOC appealed the decision in August 2008 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 08-16903).
In addition to the monetary relief, 7-Eleven agreed to annual training of its human resources personnel and managers in equal employment opportunity, with an emphasis on the confidentiality provisions of the ADA. For a period of two years, 7-Eleven will also be required to report annually to the EEOC regarding the company’s policies and proposed training programs with respect to disability discrimination, medical disclosure, non-retaliation, and reasonable accommodation for its Hawaii personnel. The agreement settles both the appeal and the underlying District Court suit.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Google Age Bias Suit Going to Trial
A former manager at Google Inc. has been given the green light to pursue his claim that he was fired by the search engine because of his age after the California Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision.
Brian Reed, a former associate professor at Stanford University, filed a suit against Google in 2004 after he lost his job as the director of operations in 2004 at the age of 54. Reid claims he was told he wasn’t a good “cultural fit” for the company.
A lower court dismissed the case saying there was not enough evidence. The California Supreme Court stated that alleged comments by Reid’s co-workers, referring to him as an “old guy” and “fuddy-duddy” should have also been considered.
Brian Reed, a former associate professor at Stanford University, filed a suit against Google in 2004 after he lost his job as the director of operations in 2004 at the age of 54. Reid claims he was told he wasn’t a good “cultural fit” for the company.
A lower court dismissed the case saying there was not enough evidence. The California Supreme Court stated that alleged comments by Reid’s co-workers, referring to him as an “old guy” and “fuddy-duddy” should have also been considered.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Virginia Beach Plastering Company Sued by EEOC for Same-Sex and National Origin Harassment
NORFOLK, Va. – A plastering and drywall company doing work at Norfolk Naval Base and MacArthur Center mall violated federal law when it subjected an employee of Salvadoran origin to a hostile work environment based on both his sex and national origin, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.
The EEOC’s suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Tidewater Plastering and Drywall Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00369), filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, charged that Virginia Beach-based Tidewater Plastering and Drywall Company, Inc. created and maintained a hostile working environment for Jorge Calderon based on both his gender and Salvadoran national origin. According to the complaint, from around September 2008 until February 2009, a male foreman for Tidewater Plastering subjected Calderon to unwelcome sexual conduct. The conduct included calling Calderon “sexy,” blowing him kisses and caressing his hands and back. The complaint also alleged that on one occasion the foreman also told Calderon that Calderon would have to sleep with the foreman in order to work at Tidewater Plastering’s next job site.
The same foreman also made derogatory comments to Calderon based on his national origin, including calling him a “stupid Salvadoran.” According to the complaint, when Calderon sought the help of his employer to end the harassment, the president of the company told him that nothing could be done. Consequently, Calderon quit his job.
The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Calderon, as well as an injunction enjoining Tidewater Plastering from engaging in similar discrimination again and requiring it to take other measures to ensure a workplace free of discrimination for future employees. The agency filed suit after first attempting to settle the matter informally.
The EEOC’s suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Tidewater Plastering and Drywall Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00369), filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, charged that Virginia Beach-based Tidewater Plastering and Drywall Company, Inc. created and maintained a hostile working environment for Jorge Calderon based on both his gender and Salvadoran national origin. According to the complaint, from around September 2008 until February 2009, a male foreman for Tidewater Plastering subjected Calderon to unwelcome sexual conduct. The conduct included calling Calderon “sexy,” blowing him kisses and caressing his hands and back. The complaint also alleged that on one occasion the foreman also told Calderon that Calderon would have to sleep with the foreman in order to work at Tidewater Plastering’s next job site.
The same foreman also made derogatory comments to Calderon based on his national origin, including calling him a “stupid Salvadoran.” According to the complaint, when Calderon sought the help of his employer to end the harassment, the president of the company told him that nothing could be done. Consequently, Calderon quit his job.
The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Calderon, as well as an injunction enjoining Tidewater Plastering from engaging in similar discrimination again and requiring it to take other measures to ensure a workplace free of discrimination for future employees. The agency filed suit after first attempting to settle the matter informally.
Friday, August 20, 2010
What steps and procedures should employees take if they feel they are victims of sexual harassment?
By Denise Kay, Esq, EPS Senior Consultant
Employers have a legal duty to prevent and remedy all forms of unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment. Two Supreme Court opinions clearly state that an employer must take reasonable steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment or be left with little or no defense for a claim of sexually harassing behavior by a supervisor. The foundation of a prevention program is an effective anti-harassment policy that clearly prohibits harassment, including sexual harassment, and provides procedures for reporting and correcting harassment. Because employers will bear the burden of proving that reasonable steps were taken to prevent harassment, an effective, written policy is a must.
Elements of a Harassment Prevention Program include:
Employees should be encouraged to report inappropriate conduct faced in the work environment and by those who work with them. The reporting could be done in person or through a confidential mechanism (such as a hotline) and all employees should have several avenues for reporting in case their direct chain of command is the person they are uncomfortable with. Once reported, all complaints should be given utmost sensitivity and concern and a determination made as to who is the most appropriate party to investigate the complaint. The employee should cooperate with the investigation and provide all factual detail as to why they feel that they have been treated inappropriately. If the employee has reported the behavior and does not see any action taken to investigate or does not notice a behavioral change by the alleged harasser, the employee is encouraged to report to a higher person in charge, including Human Resources, In-house counsel, or an officer of the organization.
Employers have a legal duty to prevent and remedy all forms of unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment. Two Supreme Court opinions clearly state that an employer must take reasonable steps to prevent and remedy sexual harassment or be left with little or no defense for a claim of sexually harassing behavior by a supervisor. The foundation of a prevention program is an effective anti-harassment policy that clearly prohibits harassment, including sexual harassment, and provides procedures for reporting and correcting harassment. Because employers will bear the burden of proving that reasonable steps were taken to prevent harassment, an effective, written policy is a must.
Elements of a Harassment Prevention Program include:
- A written policy
- Hiring safeguards
- Training
- Reporting mechanisms
- Audit of employment decisions
Employees should be encouraged to report inappropriate conduct faced in the work environment and by those who work with them. The reporting could be done in person or through a confidential mechanism (such as a hotline) and all employees should have several avenues for reporting in case their direct chain of command is the person they are uncomfortable with. Once reported, all complaints should be given utmost sensitivity and concern and a determination made as to who is the most appropriate party to investigate the complaint. The employee should cooperate with the investigation and provide all factual detail as to why they feel that they have been treated inappropriately. If the employee has reported the behavior and does not see any action taken to investigate or does not notice a behavioral change by the alleged harasser, the employee is encouraged to report to a higher person in charge, including Human Resources, In-house counsel, or an officer of the organization.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Mobile Community Action Sued by EEOC for Retaliation
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Management of a Mobile County, Ala., non-profit corporation unlawfully retaliated against a male employee because he complained about being sexually harassed by a female supervisor, according to a lawsuit filed on July 30 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit (Case No. CV-10-403) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Mobile Community Action, Inc., fired Donte Bumpers when he resisted sexually harassing behavior by a female supervisor. Bumpers was fired after he reported the sexual harassment and requested a transfer in a letter to Executive Director Jimmy Knight.
The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The agency is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages as well as other relief, including a permanent injunction to prevent Mobile Community Action from retaliating against any employee for reporting harassment or discrimination.
Mobile Community Action, Inc. operates a Head Start program and provides other community services to qualifying families in the Mobile area.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit (Case No. CV-10-403) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Mobile Community Action, Inc., fired Donte Bumpers when he resisted sexually harassing behavior by a female supervisor. Bumpers was fired after he reported the sexual harassment and requested a transfer in a letter to Executive Director Jimmy Knight.
The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The agency is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages as well as other relief, including a permanent injunction to prevent Mobile Community Action from retaliating against any employee for reporting harassment or discrimination.
Mobile Community Action, Inc. operates a Head Start program and provides other community services to qualifying families in the Mobile area.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
President Pushes for Action on Paycheck Fairness Act
President Obama has urged the U.S. Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 182), which will strengthen the Fair Labor Standards Act’s equal pay provisions by tightening existing protections and increasing penalties against violators. The House has already passed a version of the bill (H.R. 12).
Equal pay provisions prohibit discrimination based on sex in the payment of wages. In 2010, women make 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. Opponents of the bill argue that additional equal pay regulations unduly burden employers by subjecting them to steep penalties and increased litigation.
The U.S. Department of Labor plans to launch a new public education resources, including an “Equal Pay Checklist” and a self-audit tool for employers.
Equal pay provisions prohibit discrimination based on sex in the payment of wages. In 2010, women make 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. Opponents of the bill argue that additional equal pay regulations unduly burden employers by subjecting them to steep penalties and increased litigation.
The U.S. Department of Labor plans to launch a new public education resources, including an “Equal Pay Checklist” and a self-audit tool for employers.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Arizona Truck Stop to Pay $70,000 to Settle EEOC Suit Charging Sex Harassment by Customers
PHOENIX –Love’s Travel Stops and Country Stores, Inc. will pay $70,000 as part of a settlement of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC had charged that Love’s subjected two young female cashiers to repeated and serious sex-based abuse by customers.
According to the EEOC, two cashiers working at Love’s Buckeye, Ariz., truck stop, aged 18 and 20 at the start of their employment, were sexually harassed frequently by truck drivers, some of whom were regular customers of Love’s. The alleged harassment, some of which was purportedly committed in front of other customers, included unwanted sexual touching and pressing; crude and obscene remarks; sexual demands and innuendos; handing one victim an obscene card; and demands for personal information.
The EEOC maintained that Love’s not only knew about and tolerated this sexually hostile work environment caused by its customers, but at least one manager laughed about it, and another manager said the harassment was to be expected because it is a truck stop. Managers also told the victims to “deal with it” and in particular to tolerate the misconduct of one repeat offending customer because “he’s always like that.”
Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (EEOC v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., Civil Action No.CV-07-1843-ROS), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process.
In addition to the settlement requiring Love’s to pay $70,000 to the former cashiers, Love’s also must investigate complaints of sexual harassment, provide training for managers and supervisors on conducting sexual harassment investigations, and post a warning that harassment of Love’s employees will not be tolerated.
“Employers are liable for the harassment of their workers by non-employees on their property, when they knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take corrective action,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District Office, which originated the legal action. “This settlement agreement sends a message to Love’s and other companies that they must promptly address the harassment of employees by their customers.”
According to the EEOC, two cashiers working at Love’s Buckeye, Ariz., truck stop, aged 18 and 20 at the start of their employment, were sexually harassed frequently by truck drivers, some of whom were regular customers of Love’s. The alleged harassment, some of which was purportedly committed in front of other customers, included unwanted sexual touching and pressing; crude and obscene remarks; sexual demands and innuendos; handing one victim an obscene card; and demands for personal information.
The EEOC maintained that Love’s not only knew about and tolerated this sexually hostile work environment caused by its customers, but at least one manager laughed about it, and another manager said the harassment was to be expected because it is a truck stop. Managers also told the victims to “deal with it” and in particular to tolerate the misconduct of one repeat offending customer because “he’s always like that.”
Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (EEOC v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., Civil Action No.CV-07-1843-ROS), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process.
In addition to the settlement requiring Love’s to pay $70,000 to the former cashiers, Love’s also must investigate complaints of sexual harassment, provide training for managers and supervisors on conducting sexual harassment investigations, and post a warning that harassment of Love’s employees will not be tolerated.
“Employers are liable for the harassment of their workers by non-employees on their property, when they knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take corrective action,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District Office, which originated the legal action. “This settlement agreement sends a message to Love’s and other companies that they must promptly address the harassment of employees by their customers.”
Monday, August 16, 2010
New Ohio Leave Law Protects Military Families
OHIO – The Ohio Military Family Leave Act (Ohio Rev. Code §5906.01-03, 99) now requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide up to 80 hours or 10 days annually of unpaid leave to an employee who is the spouse, parent, or legal guardian of a member of the armed services called to active duty or injured while on active duty.
To qualify the employee must have been employed for at least 12 consecutive months and for at least 1,250 hours in the 12 months immediately preceding the start of the leave. The employee must provide the employer with at least 14 days notice of intent to take leave due to a call to active duty, or at least two days notice for leave taken due to an injury. No notice is required if the servicemember’s injury is critical or life-threatening.
To qualify the employee must have been employed for at least 12 consecutive months and for at least 1,250 hours in the 12 months immediately preceding the start of the leave. The employee must provide the employer with at least 14 days notice of intent to take leave due to a call to active duty, or at least two days notice for leave taken due to an injury. No notice is required if the servicemember’s injury is critical or life-threatening.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Safelite Glass Company Sued By EEOC For Sexual Harassment And Retaliation
RALEIGH, N.C. – Safelite Glass Co., the nation’s leading provider of auto glass repair and replacement, violated federal law by subjecting a female employee to a sexually hostile work environment and then firing her after she complained, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Lee Laraviere-Steele, who worked as a human resources assistant in Safelite’s Enfield, N.C., facility, was subjected to sexual harassment from March 2007 until March 2008 by the facility’s male human resources manager. The suit alleges that the human resources manager made unwelcome sexual comments to Laraviere-Steele such as calling her pretty and sexy, asking her the color of her panties and commenting on her breasts. The suit further alleges that the human resources manager rubbed Laraviere-Steele's shoulders and tried to kiss her and pull her into his lap. When Laraviere-Steele complained about the sexual harassment to upper management at the company in March 2008, the company failed to investigate the complaint or take action to stop the harassment. Instead, the company retaliated against Laraviere-Steele by firing her, according to the EEOC's complaint.
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Raleigh Division ( Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Safelite Glass Co. , Civil Action No. 4:10cv00102) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement with Safelite. The agency seeks back pay for Laraviere-Steele as well as compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
“Once an employee complains about harassment in the workplace, the employer is required under federal law to act reasonably to prevent further abuse,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Charlotte District. “This case is especially egregious because the alleged harasser is the human resources manager, the person who in many companies is responsible for ensuring that employees are not harassed.”
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Lee Laraviere-Steele, who worked as a human resources assistant in Safelite’s Enfield, N.C., facility, was subjected to sexual harassment from March 2007 until March 2008 by the facility’s male human resources manager. The suit alleges that the human resources manager made unwelcome sexual comments to Laraviere-Steele such as calling her pretty and sexy, asking her the color of her panties and commenting on her breasts. The suit further alleges that the human resources manager rubbed Laraviere-Steele's shoulders and tried to kiss her and pull her into his lap. When Laraviere-Steele complained about the sexual harassment to upper management at the company in March 2008, the company failed to investigate the complaint or take action to stop the harassment. Instead, the company retaliated against Laraviere-Steele by firing her, according to the EEOC's complaint.
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Raleigh Division ( Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Safelite Glass Co. , Civil Action No. 4:10cv00102) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement with Safelite. The agency seeks back pay for Laraviere-Steele as well as compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
“Once an employee complains about harassment in the workplace, the employer is required under federal law to act reasonably to prevent further abuse,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Charlotte District. “This case is especially egregious because the alleged harasser is the human resources manager, the person who in many companies is responsible for ensuring that employees are not harassed.”
Friday, August 13, 2010
US Labor Department to Strengthen Disability Regulations
WASHINGTON – The US Labor Department is working to strengthen regulations requiring federal contractors to take affirmative action with respect to individuals with disabilities. The Federal Contract Compliance Programs announced that it is seeking input from the public on ways to ensure that more people with disabilities are employed and given opportunities to advance in employment under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The Section 503 regulations have required equal employment opportunity and affirmative action since the 1970s, yet the rate of disabled people who are unemployed or not in the labor force remain significantly higher than those without disabilities. Current regulations require employers with a federal contract of more than $10,000 take affirmative action to employ individuals with disabilities. Employers with a contract over $50,000 and with more than 50 employees are required to prepare and maintain a written affirmative action plan to employ and advance individuals with disabilities.
Topics open for public comment include:
The Section 503 regulations have required equal employment opportunity and affirmative action since the 1970s, yet the rate of disabled people who are unemployed or not in the labor force remain significantly higher than those without disabilities. Current regulations require employers with a federal contract of more than $10,000 take affirmative action to employ individuals with disabilities. Employers with a contract over $50,000 and with more than 50 employees are required to prepare and maintain a written affirmative action plan to employ and advance individuals with disabilities.
Topics open for public comment include:
- What employment practices have been effective in recruiting, hiring, advancing and retaining qualified individuals with disabilities.
- What data are available that could be used to establish hiring goals and conduct utilization analyses of individuals with disabilities.
- How linkage agreements between federal contractors and organizations that focus on the employment of qualified individuals with disabilities can be strengthened to increase effectiveness.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Arkansas Baptist College Sued By EEOC for Retaliation
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Arkansas Baptist College (ABC) in Little Rock, Ark., allegedly violated federal law by prematurely canceling an employee’s consulting contract and then refusing to allow her to teach classes because she had filed a discrimination charge, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The employee’s previous charge alleged discriminatory demotion.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Mary Jarrett’s consulting contract was canceled early and she was denied the opportunity to teach two classes, all in retaliation for filing a previous discrimination charge based on age, sex, disability and equal pay in November 2008. After accepting a request in January 2009 to teach two classes for the coming spring semester, Jarrett was then informed that she would not be permitted to teach because she had a pending EEOC charge. Jarrett subsequently received a letter from the president of the college informing her that her consulting contract and her health insurance were being terminated.
Retaliation for complaining about discrimination violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 4-10-CV-1072 BSM in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The suit seeks monetary relief in the form of back pay and compensatory and punitive damages and/or liquidated damages, reinstatement, and an injunction against future discrimination.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Mary Jarrett’s consulting contract was canceled early and she was denied the opportunity to teach two classes, all in retaliation for filing a previous discrimination charge based on age, sex, disability and equal pay in November 2008. After accepting a request in January 2009 to teach two classes for the coming spring semester, Jarrett was then informed that she would not be permitted to teach because she had a pending EEOC charge. Jarrett subsequently received a letter from the president of the college informing her that her consulting contract and her health insurance were being terminated.
Retaliation for complaining about discrimination violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 4-10-CV-1072 BSM in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The suit seeks monetary relief in the form of back pay and compensatory and punitive damages and/or liquidated damages, reinstatement, and an injunction against future discrimination.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington Sued By EEOC for Disability Discrimination
BALTIMORE – The Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington in Rockville, Md., one of the largest metropolitan Jewish community centers in the country, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it demoted a nursery school assistant teacher because of her hearing impairment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.
The EEOC alleged in the suit that even though Carole Schulman satisfactorily performed her job duties as a nursery school assistant teacher, the community center demoted her to a lower-paying position as a mail room clerk because of her hearing impairment. Schulman started working for the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington in 2005 as an assistant teacher. With her cochlear implant in one ear, Schulman can hear high-pitched sounds, voices and noises, including hearing children laughing and talking.
The EEOC contends that the community center failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to Schulman, as the ADA requires, and instead demoted her based on its groundless belief that she could not perform her duties as an assistant teacher.
The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation unless it imposes an undue hardship. The EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement before filing suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division.
The EEOC alleged in the suit that even though Carole Schulman satisfactorily performed her job duties as a nursery school assistant teacher, the community center demoted her to a lower-paying position as a mail room clerk because of her hearing impairment. Schulman started working for the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington in 2005 as an assistant teacher. With her cochlear implant in one ear, Schulman can hear high-pitched sounds, voices and noises, including hearing children laughing and talking.
The EEOC contends that the community center failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to Schulman, as the ADA requires, and instead demoted her based on its groundless belief that she could not perform her duties as an assistant teacher.
The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation unless it imposes an undue hardship. The EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement before filing suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Employee May Pursue ADA Retaliation Claim Despite No Disability
A federal district court has ruled that a hospital employee can pursue an Americans with Disabilities Act retaliation claim even though she has no disability. Lakeisha Ellis, an emergency room employee at Georgetown University Hospital, suffered from infrequent asthma attacks. After an asthma attack at work, Ellis consulted with her doctor, who advised her that she could no longer work in the emergency room.
Ellis contacted her manager and requested reassignment as an ADA accommodation. After providing written documentation from her physician, she went home to wait for a decision by her supervisor. Ellis’ supervisor testified that Ellis was instructed to wait on site for the decision, and was subsequently fired for “misconduct.”
Ellis filed a lawsuit alleging it failed to accommodate her asthma and retaliated against her for requesting accommodation, both in violation of the ADA. Because Ellis experiences asthma attacks only every six or seven months, and for five to 10 minutes at a time, the court determined that her asthma did not rise to the level of a disability under the ADA and dismissed her discrimination claim. However, Ellis may continue with the retaliation claim because a good-faith request for accommodation is a protected activity. (Ellis v. Georgetown University Hospital, No. 08-1174, 2010 WL 2721848 (D.D.C. July 12, 2010))
Ellis contacted her manager and requested reassignment as an ADA accommodation. After providing written documentation from her physician, she went home to wait for a decision by her supervisor. Ellis’ supervisor testified that Ellis was instructed to wait on site for the decision, and was subsequently fired for “misconduct.”
Ellis filed a lawsuit alleging it failed to accommodate her asthma and retaliated against her for requesting accommodation, both in violation of the ADA. Because Ellis experiences asthma attacks only every six or seven months, and for five to 10 minutes at a time, the court determined that her asthma did not rise to the level of a disability under the ADA and dismissed her discrimination claim. However, Ellis may continue with the retaliation claim because a good-faith request for accommodation is a protected activity. (Ellis v. Georgetown University Hospital, No. 08-1174, 2010 WL 2721848 (D.D.C. July 12, 2010))
Monday, August 9, 2010
Knouse Foods Agrees to Pay $300,000 to Settle EEOC Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit
HARRISBURG, Pa. – The EEOC has announced that Knouse Foods, a major farm growers’ cooperative which owns the Musselman Company, agreed to pay $300,000 to a class of women and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a federal harassment and retaliation lawsuit.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against Knouse Foods, a class of female farmworkers was subjected to egregious sexual harassment by male coworkers at its processing plant in Gardners, Pa. The sexually hostile work environment included making lewd and unwanted sexual advances and sexually explicit remarks. The male coworkers also engaged in threatening behavior, such as using the forklift to chase women or blocking them with their bodies or a broom while they walked down the hall. In addition, the women were subjected to unlawful harassment and called derogatory names because of their Mexican national origin.
The EEOC further charged that Knouse Foods wrongfully disciplined or reassigned employees in reprisal for their complaints about the abusive treatment.
In addition to the $300,000 in monetary relief, the three-year consent decree includes injunctions against engaging in retaliation or harassment based on sex or national origin; mandatory anti-discrimination training of all employees at the Gardners facility; and supervisor accountability to ensure that work areas be in compliance with company policies against discrimination. Additionally, Knouse will be required to report periodically to the EEOC regarding the cooperative’s investigation into and resolution of any complaints of alleged discrimination, harassment or retaliation, and must post a notice confirming Knouse’s commitment to comply with Title VII.
The EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement before filing suit in United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-01811-CCC.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against Knouse Foods, a class of female farmworkers was subjected to egregious sexual harassment by male coworkers at its processing plant in Gardners, Pa. The sexually hostile work environment included making lewd and unwanted sexual advances and sexually explicit remarks. The male coworkers also engaged in threatening behavior, such as using the forklift to chase women or blocking them with their bodies or a broom while they walked down the hall. In addition, the women were subjected to unlawful harassment and called derogatory names because of their Mexican national origin.
The EEOC further charged that Knouse Foods wrongfully disciplined or reassigned employees in reprisal for their complaints about the abusive treatment.
In addition to the $300,000 in monetary relief, the three-year consent decree includes injunctions against engaging in retaliation or harassment based on sex or national origin; mandatory anti-discrimination training of all employees at the Gardners facility; and supervisor accountability to ensure that work areas be in compliance with company policies against discrimination. Additionally, Knouse will be required to report periodically to the EEOC regarding the cooperative’s investigation into and resolution of any complaints of alleged discrimination, harassment or retaliation, and must post a notice confirming Knouse’s commitment to comply with Title VII.
The EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement before filing suit in United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-01811-CCC.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Department of Labor’s New Child Labor Rules
The U.S. Department of Labor’s new child labor regulations took effect on July 19. These new regulations impact how the DOL will interpret the child labor provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
A restriction that limited the industries in which 14- and 15-year-olds were permitted to work has been lifted, as a result. Instead of only being allowed to work in retail, food service and gasoline service stations, teen workers may work in other environments, including state and local governments, banks, insurance companies, advertising agencies and technology firms.
Other changes include new prohibitions on youth peddling and other activities, higher penalties for child labor violations that result in serious injury or death, and the establishment of a work-study program.
A restriction that limited the industries in which 14- and 15-year-olds were permitted to work has been lifted, as a result. Instead of only being allowed to work in retail, food service and gasoline service stations, teen workers may work in other environments, including state and local governments, banks, insurance companies, advertising agencies and technology firms.
Other changes include new prohibitions on youth peddling and other activities, higher penalties for child labor violations that result in serious injury or death, and the establishment of a work-study program.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
EEOC Releases Federal Work Force Report
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its Annual Report on the Federal Work Force for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. The report assesses the state of equal employment opportunity throughout the federal work force – including trends in the composition of the workforce, and data concerning complaints of employment discrimination in the federal sector – and includes practical tips for agencies to improve their performance.
The EEOC found that over the last ten years there have been subtle changes in the composition of the federal work force. Overall, the participation rates of women, Hispanic or Latinos, and Asians have increased slightly. The number of women in the federal work force rose from 42.3 percent to 44.06 percent; Hispanics / Latinos from 6.81 percent to 7.90 percent; and Asian-Americans from 5.22 percent to 5.84 percent. The total work force increased by 15.09 percent.
Additionally, in FY 2009, for the first time since FY 1995, the percentage of people with targeted disabilities in federal jobs held steady, halting a 13-year decline. However, despite a modest net gain of 236 employees in FY 2009 over FY 2008, people with targeted disabilities still remain below one percent (0.88 percent) of the total work force. Targeted disabilities include deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorders, mental retardation, mental illness, and distortion of the limb and/or spine.
In FY 2009, federal employees and applicants filed 16,947 complaints alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability and reprisal. Unlike the private sector, federal agencies themselves are responsible for processing and investigating charges of discrimination filed against them. The average processing time for conducting investigations rose from 180 days in FY 2008 to 185 days in FY 2009. In addition, the average processing time for closing complaints was 344 days, an increase from the 336 days in FY 2008. Of the 6,905 cases closed on the merits, 2.98 percent resulted in findings of unlawful discrimination. In addition, the parties entered into settlements in 3,394 complaints, or 21 percent of the total complaint closures.
The EEOC found that over the last ten years there have been subtle changes in the composition of the federal work force. Overall, the participation rates of women, Hispanic or Latinos, and Asians have increased slightly. The number of women in the federal work force rose from 42.3 percent to 44.06 percent; Hispanics / Latinos from 6.81 percent to 7.90 percent; and Asian-Americans from 5.22 percent to 5.84 percent. The total work force increased by 15.09 percent.
Additionally, in FY 2009, for the first time since FY 1995, the percentage of people with targeted disabilities in federal jobs held steady, halting a 13-year decline. However, despite a modest net gain of 236 employees in FY 2009 over FY 2008, people with targeted disabilities still remain below one percent (0.88 percent) of the total work force. Targeted disabilities include deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorders, mental retardation, mental illness, and distortion of the limb and/or spine.
In FY 2009, federal employees and applicants filed 16,947 complaints alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability and reprisal. Unlike the private sector, federal agencies themselves are responsible for processing and investigating charges of discrimination filed against them. The average processing time for conducting investigations rose from 180 days in FY 2008 to 185 days in FY 2009. In addition, the average processing time for closing complaints was 344 days, an increase from the 336 days in FY 2008. Of the 6,905 cases closed on the merits, 2.98 percent resulted in findings of unlawful discrimination. In addition, the parties entered into settlements in 3,394 complaints, or 21 percent of the total complaint closures.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Breastfeeding Breaks Requirements Clarified by Department of Labor
Under a provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers are required to provide reasonable unpaid breaks to nursing moms so they can express breast milk for their infants. The Wage and Hour Division posted a new fact sheet that provides general information on the break time requirement, which took effect on March 23.
The fact sheet clarifies the effective date and provides more detail about the space employers must provide for working nursing mothers.
A full copy of the fact sheet can be viewed on the Department of Labor’s website at www.dol.gov.
The fact sheet clarifies the effective date and provides more detail about the space employers must provide for working nursing mothers.
A full copy of the fact sheet can be viewed on the Department of Labor’s website at www.dol.gov.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Federal Court Bars Employer’s Questions about Immigration and Sexual History in EEOC Sexual Harassment Case
PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal district court has ordered an employer to stop questioning Hispanic farm workers who filed charges of sexual harassment and retaliation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) concerning their immigration status, employment history and, in one woman’s case, her sexual history. In June 2009, the federal agency sued Willamette Tree Wholesale, Inc. of Molalla, Ore., alleging that workers were sexually harassed and threatened in retaliation for reporting the harassment. The EEOC also charged that one Latina farm worker was repeatedly raped by her supervisor.
The EEOC, together with the claimants represented by the Oregon Law Center, sought a protective order in response to requests by Willamette Tree’s lawyers for certain information. They argued that the company’s inquiries would have a chilling effect. In an order issued last week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak of U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland division, specifically prohibited the company’s attorneys from asking questions concerning the alleged rape victim’s immigration status, whether she has ever used another name, her prior sexual history and her reasons for not contacting police after the sexual assaults. It also bars discovery of the immigration status and third-party employment records for all workers participating in the case.
The court stated that “the public interest would be far better served” if meritorious discrimination claims were presented by immigrants regardless of their status, rather than if the “potentially chilling effect” of scrutinizing plaintiffs' documentation prevented workers from coming forward.
Judge Papak also found that the female farm worker’s sexual history is “not clearly relevant” to the claims of the case and would have “clear prejudicial effect” on the lawsuit: “to permit Willamette Tree to make inquiries into [her] sexual or romantic history would intimidate [her] needlessly.” He rejected Willamette Tree’s arguments to depose the worker as to why she did not contact law enforcement after the sexual violence, by observing that the woman had already testified on record “that her supervisor threatened her and her family with violent reprisal should she tell anyone that he had raped her.”
The case (EEOC v. Willamette Tree Wholesale, Inc. (CV-09-690-PK) is scheduled for trial on February 8, 2011.
EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “The EEOC has seen an alarming rise in harassment cases involving egregious sexual assaults being committed against female workers, particularly those from immigrant communities.” These include suits against AllStar Fitness in Seattle on behalf of a Latina janitor who allegedly had been raped multiple times; La Pianta L.C.C., which does business as Frenchman Hills Vineyard in Othello, Wash., alleging that a supervisor sexually assaulted a Latina worker; and a suit with the Oregon Law Center against Woodburn, Ore.-based Wilcox Farms resulting in a $260,000 settlement in a sexual harassment case that involved a physical sexual assault. Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict of $1,000,000 in favor of the EEOC against Coalinga, Calif.-based Harris Farms on behalf of a Latina farm worker who charged she was raped by her supervisor and retaliated against.
The EEOC, together with the claimants represented by the Oregon Law Center, sought a protective order in response to requests by Willamette Tree’s lawyers for certain information. They argued that the company’s inquiries would have a chilling effect. In an order issued last week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak of U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland division, specifically prohibited the company’s attorneys from asking questions concerning the alleged rape victim’s immigration status, whether she has ever used another name, her prior sexual history and her reasons for not contacting police after the sexual assaults. It also bars discovery of the immigration status and third-party employment records for all workers participating in the case.
The court stated that “the public interest would be far better served” if meritorious discrimination claims were presented by immigrants regardless of their status, rather than if the “potentially chilling effect” of scrutinizing plaintiffs' documentation prevented workers from coming forward.
Judge Papak also found that the female farm worker’s sexual history is “not clearly relevant” to the claims of the case and would have “clear prejudicial effect” on the lawsuit: “to permit Willamette Tree to make inquiries into [her] sexual or romantic history would intimidate [her] needlessly.” He rejected Willamette Tree’s arguments to depose the worker as to why she did not contact law enforcement after the sexual violence, by observing that the woman had already testified on record “that her supervisor threatened her and her family with violent reprisal should she tell anyone that he had raped her.”
The case (EEOC v. Willamette Tree Wholesale, Inc. (CV-09-690-PK) is scheduled for trial on February 8, 2011.
EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “The EEOC has seen an alarming rise in harassment cases involving egregious sexual assaults being committed against female workers, particularly those from immigrant communities.” These include suits against AllStar Fitness in Seattle on behalf of a Latina janitor who allegedly had been raped multiple times; La Pianta L.C.C., which does business as Frenchman Hills Vineyard in Othello, Wash., alleging that a supervisor sexually assaulted a Latina worker; and a suit with the Oregon Law Center against Woodburn, Ore.-based Wilcox Farms resulting in a $260,000 settlement in a sexual harassment case that involved a physical sexual assault. Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict of $1,000,000 in favor of the EEOC against Coalinga, Calif.-based Harris Farms on behalf of a Latina farm worker who charged she was raped by her supervisor and retaliated against.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Employer Must Provide Names and Addresses of Possible Victims of Discrimination to EEOC
CHICAGO – Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has ruled that a major trucking industry employer must provide the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with a list of the names with last known addresses and phone numbers of all African-American employees employed at its Chicago Ridge facility from 2004 until the facility was closed in 2009.
The EEOC has alleged that the trucking company, Yellow Transportation/YRC (“Yellow”), engaged in widespread discrimination against its African-American employees by fostering a racially hostile work environment, including the presence of nooses and racist graffiti, and by subjecting African-American employees to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. The EEOC is seeking relief on behalf of all affected African-American employees who worked at Yellow’s Chicago Ridge terminal from 2004 until 2009.
The EEOC moved to compel Yellow to produce contact information for all African-American employees who worked at the Chicago Ridge terminal from 2004 until the facility was closed. Yellow had argued that the EEOC’s request for the full list was beyond the scope of discovery.
The court rejected Yellow’s argument and held that, in the course of the on-going litigation, production of the complete list of all African-American employees who worked at the facility was warranted. The court further found there was no basis to limit the EEOC’s request to the specific job categories held by the charging parties, since there is no reason to believe the alleged conduct was limited to those specific job categories and the EEOC’s complaint did not limit its class allegations to specific job categories.
The court also rejected Yellow’s request to restrict the EEOC’s communication with potential class members, finding that the company had provided no basis for restricting the EEOC’s communications with the prospective class for whom it is seeking relief.
EEOC’s case is captioned EEOC v. Yellow Transportation Inc. and YRC, Inc., Northern District of Illinois No. 09 C 7693. The decision was entered by the court this Wednesday, July 21, 2010.
The EEOC has alleged that the trucking company, Yellow Transportation/YRC (“Yellow”), engaged in widespread discrimination against its African-American employees by fostering a racially hostile work environment, including the presence of nooses and racist graffiti, and by subjecting African-American employees to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. The EEOC is seeking relief on behalf of all affected African-American employees who worked at Yellow’s Chicago Ridge terminal from 2004 until 2009.
The EEOC moved to compel Yellow to produce contact information for all African-American employees who worked at the Chicago Ridge terminal from 2004 until the facility was closed. Yellow had argued that the EEOC’s request for the full list was beyond the scope of discovery.
The court rejected Yellow’s argument and held that, in the course of the on-going litigation, production of the complete list of all African-American employees who worked at the facility was warranted. The court further found there was no basis to limit the EEOC’s request to the specific job categories held by the charging parties, since there is no reason to believe the alleged conduct was limited to those specific job categories and the EEOC’s complaint did not limit its class allegations to specific job categories.
The court also rejected Yellow’s request to restrict the EEOC’s communication with potential class members, finding that the company had provided no basis for restricting the EEOC’s communications with the prospective class for whom it is seeking relief.
EEOC’s case is captioned EEOC v. Yellow Transportation Inc. and YRC, Inc., Northern District of Illinois No. 09 C 7693. The decision was entered by the court this Wednesday, July 21, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)