EEOC Sues Comprehensive Human Services for Retaliation

ST. LOUIS – Comprehensive Human Services, Inc., also known as True North, Inc, which provides shelter for women who have been victims of domestic violence, violated federal law by terminating one employee and demoting another because the employees complained about sexual harassment by the organization’s then director, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a discrimination lawsuit filed in federal court.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Civil Action No. 2:10-4216, Nancy Gause and Tracie Lawson, who were co-directors of the shelter at the time, alerted the President and Vice-President of the Board of Directors that shelter director, Leigh Voltmer, had touched staff members inappropriately on several occasions. Voltmer was the highest-ranking employee at the shelter. Gause complained on behalf of staff members whom she supervised.

Within two weeks of complaining about the discrimination, Lawson was demoted and her salary cut, and Gause was fired. Both women had received positive feedback regarding their performance during their tenure as employees, but were terminated without warning allegedly for poor performance.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from allowing a hostile environment in the workplace. It also protects employees from retaliation based on their complaints of violations of the law. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

Port Authority of NY & NJ Sued for Gender Pay Disparity and Age Discrimination

NEW YORK, N.Y. – The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the bi-state agency which runs several of the largest transportation hubs in the northeast, violated federal law by paying its female non-supervisory attorneys less than male attorneys, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.

According to the EEOC’s suit, the Port Authority pays its non-supervisory female attorneys less than it pays its non-supervisory male attorneys even though they perform work that requires the same skill, effort and responsibility. Sex-based pay disparities exist at the Port Authority regardless of the job assignment, length of service or date of bar admission, according to the suit.

In addition, the EEOC charged that the Port Authority used age as a basis to fire its older attorneys while simultaneously filling its ranks with significantly younger attorneys. Two women over 40 years of age, with considerable experience with the Port Authority, were terminated, according to the suit, purportedly as part of the Port Authority’s agency-wide “reduction in force.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Equal Pay Act (EPA), which prohibits considerations of sex as a basis for paying different wages for the same work, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits age discrimination in employment. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 10 Civ 7462, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Nassau County Sued for Firing 71-Year-Old Lifeguard

NEW YORK – The Nassau County Department of Parks, Recreation and Museums violated federal law by suspending and then firing a 71-year-old lifeguard who failed a swim test, while younger lifeguards who failed the same test were allowed to continue working, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, Civil Action No. CV-10-4471, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges that Jay Lieberfarb, a lifeguard with 50 years of experience, was suspended without pay after failing a swim test. Lieberfarb later passed the first segment of his retest, but was injured and given one week to complete the second segment of the retest. Nassau County, however, fired him two days later and before he completed the retest. Younger lifeguards who failed the same swim test were not suspended, and some were permitted to continue working pending successful completion of the retest. No younger lifeguards were discharged for failing to pass the swim test.

Age discrimination violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks the reinstatement of Mr. Lieberfarb as well as monetary relief for him, the adoption of strong policies and procedures to remedy and prevent age discrimination, training on discrimination for the County’s managers and employees, and more.

Arrowhead Honda Sued for Same-Sex Harassment of Men

PHOENIX – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a sex harassment lawsuit against Larry Miller – Peoria, Inc. (which does business as Arrowhead Honda) on behalf of a class of men who were subjected to a hostile work environment by the General Sales Manager.

The EEOC charged in its lawsuit, (EEOC v. Larry Miller – Peoria, Inc. d/b/a Arrowhead Honda, CV 10-2080-PHX-FJM), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, that Arrowhead Honda’s General Sales Manager repeatedly sexually harassed a class of men. The harassment included repeated sexual assaults by the General Sales Manager, who would grab, rub, and/or touch men in the groin area. The General Sales Manager also constantly engaged in a variety of sexual gestures, according to the complaint. According to the EEOC, Arrowhead Honda failed to address the harassment even though management knew about the harassment.

Legislation Proposes Increased Equal Pay Protections

The Paycheck Fairness Act, S. 3772, has been reintroduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The bill would strengthen the equal pay protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), prohibiting discrimination based on sex in the payment of wages.

The Senate bill would change the law by limiting unequal pay for equal work unless in accordance with seniority, merit or productivity-based systems, or “bona fide” factors such as education, training or experience.

The bill would also prohibit retaliation against employees who inquire about the wages of other workers and make employers potentially liable for compensatory or punitive damages.

EEOC Sues United Road Towing for Discriminatory Medical Leave Policy

CHICAGO – United Road Towing, one of the nation’s largest towing companies, violated federal anti-discrimination law by enforcing an inflexible medical leave policy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has charged in a new lawsuit.

According to the EEOC’s suit, United Road Towing failed to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities who were on authorized medical leave, and instead terminated them after they used the full 12 weeks of leave allowed under Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The EEOC also asserts that United Road Towing refused to re-hire employees with disabilities when those employees reapplied after being terminated under the company’s medical leave policy. The EEOC asserts that both of these alleged practices violate the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  

The lawsuit, filed September 30, 2010 and captioned EEOC v. United Road Towing Inc., N.D. Ill. No. 10-cv-06259, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago after the agency first attempted to resolve the matter with the employer through its voluntary conciliation process.

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

Altec Industries Sued for Religious Discrimination

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Altec Industries, Inc., a Birmingham, Ala. based manufacturing company, violated federal law by failing to hire a class of Sabbatarian applicants because of their religion, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.

According to the EEOC’s suit, James Wright and other Sabattarian applicants applied for employment at Altec’s Burnsville, N.C. manufacturing facility. As Sabbatarians, Wright and the other class members held the sincere religious belief that they could not work on their Sabbath, which runs from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. Wright is a Seventh-day Adventist. According to the complaint, when Altec learned that the applicants objected to working from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday based on their religion, it decided not to hire them.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.  The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Wright and the other Applicants, as well as injunctive and other non-monetary relief. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Altec Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00216), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

According to www.altec.com, Altec Industries manufactures aerial lifts, cranes and specialty equipment for the electric utility and contractor markets.

Fox News Sued by EEOC for Retaliation

WASHINGTON – New York-based Fox News Network LLC, which owns and operates the Fox News Channel based in Washington, D.C., retaliated against news reporter Catherine Herridge after she complained to Fox that she was subjected to disparate pay and unequal employment opportunities because of her gender and age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced in a lawsuit.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, during 2007 Herridge made several complaints to management officials at Fox News about employment practices that she believed were discriminatory. Fox conducted an investigation into Herridge's allegations beginning around December 2007, but notified Herridge that no evidence of age and sex discrimination had been found.

Around the summer or fall of 2008, Fox News included language in Herridge's employment contract, which was set for renewal, that referenced Herridge's discrimination complaints and was intended to stop Herridge from making more of them in the future, the EEOC charged. Herridge refused to sign the employment contract until the language was removed. Thereafter, Fox refused to negotiate further with Herridge, would not respond to counteroffers as to substantive issues in the proposed contract, and ceased speaking to her agent or to her about her contract.

As a result of Fox’s refusal to proceed with a new employment contract absent the retaliatory language, Herridge became an “at-will” employee without any job protections, causing her considerable stress, the EEOC alleged. It was only after Herridge filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and an EEOC investigator conducted an on-site investigation, that Fox agreed to take out the retaliatory language and in June 2009 presented Herridge with a new contract with the retaliatory language removed, which she signed.

Retaliation against an employee for making a discrimination complaint violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (EEOC v. Fox News Network LLC, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01660) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

The EEOC’s lawsuit seeks monetary relief for Herridge, including compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction enjoining Fox News from engaging in further retaliation against employees based on their opposition to employment practices which the employee reasonably believes to be unlawful under the federal statutes enforced by the EEOC.

EEOC Enforcing ADA Amendments Act

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is stepping up enforcement of the amended Americans With Disabilities Act, filing three lawsuits alleging workplace disability discrimination. All three cases were filed under the broader and simplified definition of disability outlined in the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), which took effect on Jan. 1, 2009. With the filing of these three cases, the EEOC is hoping to send a message that the commission will vigorously enforce the ADA.

In Atlanta, the agency charged Eckerd Corporation, a nationwide drug store chain doing business as Rite Aid (EEOC v. Eckerd Corporation d/b/a Rite Aid), Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-2816-JEC, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia) with refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation – a stool to sit on – to a long-time employee who experienced severe arthritic symptoms in her knees. Fern Strickland, who had worked as a cashier for Rite Aid with this reasonable accommodation for seven years without incident, lost the use of her stool in January 2009 when a new district manager decided that the company would no longer accommodate her disability. According to the EEOC’s pre-suit investigation, the district manager “did not like the idea” that Strickland used a stool. The suit claims that she was terminated several weeks later because of the manager’s failure to accommodate her disability.

In a case filed in Baltimore, the agency alleges that surveying company Fisher, Collins & Carter fired two employees because they had diabetes and hypertension. According to the suit (EEOC v. Fisher, Collins & Carter, Case No. 10-cv-2453, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland), the company asked Robert Gray and Wayne Seifert and other employees to complete a questionnaire regarding their health conditions and medications. Gray had worked for the company for 15 years starting as a rodman, and had been promoted to the position of party chief by the time of his termination. Seifert had been employed since 2000 as a rodman. The suit asserts that, despite their many years of successful performance, the company unlawfully selected Gray and Seifert for a reduction-in-force on Jan. 21, 2009, on the basis of their disabilities, while retaining less qualified, non-disabled employees.

In the third case, filed in Lansing, Mich., the agency charged that IPC Print Services fired one of its employees rather than allowing him to work part-time while being treated for cancer. According to the agency's pre-suit investigation, Derek Nelson, who had been employed by IPC as a machinist for over 10 years, went on medical leave in 2008 in order to undergo chemotherapy. The EEOC's suit (EEOC v. IPC Print Services, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-886 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan ), alleges that in January 2009, when Nelson sought to continue working part-time while he completed his treatment, IPC discharged Nelson for exceeding the maximum hours of leave allowed under company policy. That decision, the agency contends, violated IPC's obligation to reasonably accommodate Nelson's disability.

In each case, the EEOC conducted an administrative investigation and attempted to reach a voluntary settlement prior to filing suit.

Originally enacted in 1990, the ADA prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. During the ensuing years, federal courts took a narrow view of what conditions counted as “disabilities” under the law. Some courts had found that individuals with serious conditions — such as diabetes and cancer — were not covered by the ADA’s protections against discrimination. In 2008, Congress responded to these interpretations by adopting the ADA Amendments Act, which made clear that the definition of “disability” is both broad and straightforward.

Summer Court Decisions that Impact HR

by Katherine Martinez-Vitela, Esq.

While many of us enjoyed a vacation, time-off from work, or just a leisurely afternoon this past Summer, courts remained busy deciding employment law cases. Summaries of those cases follow below:

Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Because Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to Delineate When the Wrongful Conduct Occurred 

Peterson v. U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance, Inc., No.C10-0942SBA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71283 (N.D.C.A. July 14, 2010)

Margaret Peterson filed suit against U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance, Inc. (USBEF) alleging employment discrimination and wrongful termination. USBEF filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or in the Alternative for a More Definitive Statement Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Peterson alleged in her Complaint that “during the course of her employment, plaintiff, who is an African-American woman over 50, found herself subjected to various forms and instances of disparate treatment by her managers at USBEF, compared to male and younger, white female peers and colleagues. This included, among other things, limitations or denials or promotions and/or opportunities for advancement and compensation increases equal to that of similarly situated qualified employees outside her protected race, gender and age and/or diminution of "official" titles and authority, while subject to the same or increased work duties, assignments and responsibilities, such that plaintiff was required to work considerably longer and harder than peers and managers who were not members of her protected classes.

Peterson further asserted that she "witnessed, experienced and/or became aware of various forms and instances of hostile, disparaging and/or offensive treatment regarding or directed toward women at USBEF by its male managers and officials, and made complaints and/or objections regarding such behavior." However, the Complaint failed to specify the nature or frequency of the allegedly improper "treatment." 

The Court noted that nowhere in Peterson’s Complaint did she indicate when she was terminated nor did she specify when any of the alleged conduct underlying her claims occurred, and granted USBEF’s Motion to Dismiss with a 10-day period for Peterson to amend the Complaint.

Practical Tip: Make sure your company has a complaint reporting procedure that is distributed to all employees.

Read more... Summer Court Decisions that Impact HR

EEOC Sues Findlay Honda for Race Harassment, Discrimination & Retaliation

LAS VEGAS – Shack-Findlay Automotive, LLC d/b/a Findlay Honda and Findlay Automotive Group, Inc. violated federal law by subjecting its black employees to discrimination, harassment and retaliation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed against the chain of automotive dealerships.

A parts department manager, who is white, allegedly referred to at least two black employees with the “N-word,” making racially derogatory comments and jokes on a near daily basis at Findlay’s dealership in Henderson, Nev. The same manager referred to one employee as “gorilla” while the employee was holding a banana. The EEOC contends that the manager also imposed stricter work-related rules upon the dealership’s black employees, disciplining them for conduct that non-black employees were not disciplined for, and giving them less favorable work assignments.

Ultimately, both employees were terminated. The EEOC asserts that one of the employees was discharged for an infraction for which non-blacks were not disciplined, while the other was discharged after relaying his intention to file a charge of discrimination to the company.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (EEOC v. Shack-Findlay Automotive, LLC d/b/a Findlay Honda and Findlay Automotive Group, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-01692-KJD-RJJ) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC’s suit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for the victims as well as injunctive relief intended to prevent further discrimination at the company.  

Indiana Health Care Service Sued for Pregnancy Discrimination

SOUTH BEND, Ind. – An Indiana health care service corporation operating a dental clinic in South Bend violated federal law when it fired an employee because she was pregnant and about to go on maternity leave, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit. According to the suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Indiana Health Centers, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-412-PF), Indiana Health Centers, Inc. terminated a dental hygienist shortly after her supervisor learned she was pregnant.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because she is pregnant. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The EEOC seeks back pay including pre-judgment interest, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an injunction enjoining Indiana Health Centers, Inc., from engaging in further sex discrimination and requiring it to take other measures to ensure a workplace free of discrimination for current and future employees.

Disability Discrimination Suit Filed Against Thrivent Financial

MILWAUKEE – A major financial services company, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans of Appleton, Wis., violated federal law by making public a temporary employee’s confidential medical information, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.


According to EEOC Chicago District Director John Rowe, whose jurisdiction includes Wisconsin, the agency’s administrative investigation which preceded the lawsuit revealed that Thrivent violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) when it inquired about the employee’s medical condition and then revealed to prospective employers that he suffers from migraine headaches. Thrivent’s disclosures had a negative impact on the employee’s ability to obtain employment from those employers.

Such alleged conduct violates the ADA, which protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on disabilities. The EEOC filed suit after first trying to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the employee, in addition to an order requiring other relief and barring future discrimination. The suit, captioned EEOC v. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, E.D. Wis. Civil Action No.10-C-853, was filed in federal district court in Milwaukee.

On its web site, Thrivent describes itself as “the nation’s largest fraternal benefits society” and “a faith-based, not-for-profit membership organization nearly 2.6 million members strong. [It is] a Fortune 500 financial services organization with… more than $67 billion in assets under management.” Thrivent sells life insurance and other financial products and services. It ranks 342nd on the Fortune 500 based on 2009 revenue of $6.514 billion.

Summer Court Decisions that Impact HR

by Katherine Martinez-Vitela, Esq.

While many of us enjoyed a vacation, time-off from work, or just a leisurely afternoon this past Summer, courts remained busy deciding employment law cases. Summaries of those cases follow below:

Court Dismisses National Origin Case Because Plaintiff Cannot Link Sexual Remarks to Her National Origin and National Origin Remarks Were Not Frequent and Pervasive

RODRIGUEZ v. JOHN MUIR MEDICAL CENTER, No. 09-00731, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90056, (N.D. C.A. August 31, 2010)

Rodriguez claimed unlawful national origin discrimination, harassment and retaliation against Defendant John Muir Medical Center, alleging constant and continuous harassment by a clique of nurses. Specifically, Rodriguez worked at Defendant’s facility since 1989. From 1989 to 2000, Plaintiff missed work due to a back and neck injury. In 2003, Defendant placed Plaintiff on a performance improvement plan due to erratic behavior, long periods away from her desk, crying at her desk, calls to many workers’ houses, and misuse of prescription drugs. Plaintiff complained that the nurses talked “about sexual experiences, length of penises, racial remarks, and the like," and on two occasions (2003 and 2004 or 2005) the nurses made derogatory remarks about Hispanics.

Rodriguez’s daily Supervisor testified that she did hear some of the derogatory remarks and that Rodriguez did complain to her about the sexual and ethnically derogatory remarks, but the daily Supervisor did not notify the Superior Supervisor of the ethnic remarks. The daily Supervisor did tell the nurses to stop the offensive conduct and later notified the Superior Supervisor of what had occurred.

Also in 2003, Plaintiff’s physician wrote a letter to Defendant’s Medical Insurance carrier stating that Defendant should re-assign Plaintiff to another department due to the harassing environment. In 2006 Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Superior Supervisor who planned on promoting one of the nurses to Plaintiff’s daily Supervisor. Plaintiff’s letter complained about the nurses engaging in negative behavior, but failed to mention the harassment and/or sexual remarks and ethnic slurs. Plaintiff made no allegations of harassment between 2006 to 2008. In 2008, Plaintiff’s Superior Supervisor and daily Supervisor met with Plaintiff because another nurse complained that Plaintiff called her a “bitch.” Plaintiff denied making this comment, but stated other nurses use profanity and make racial slurs. Three days later, Plaintiff received a negative evaluation for engaging in non-work related activities during work, such as knitting and playing Soduku. The day after Plaintiff received her negative evaluation, Plaintiff placed herself on a medical leave of absence for “mental distress.” During Plaintiff’s leave of absence, she wrote a letter to Defendant detailing the discrimination and harassment.

The Superior Supervisor called a staff meeting and directed any such conduct to cease. Plaintiff never returned from her leave of absence, nor maintained contact with Defendant and Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment. The Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to establish she suffered an adverse employment action resulting from the discrimination. Plaintiff argued she did suffer an adverse employment action because she was constructively discharged due to the horrendous working conditions. The Court held that Plaintiff failed to do so because Plaintiff failed to show the sexual remarks were directed to her because of Plaintiff’s national origin. As to the ethnic slurs, the Court stated that Plaintiff only referenced two instances that the nurses made two years apart and several years prior to Plaintiff’s termination, and at most, constituted merely non-actionable “stray remarks.”

Practical Tip: Make sure your managers are conducting thorough and fair performance assessments with documentation to substantiate their ratings.

Read more... Summer Court Decisions that Impact HR

Eastside Hampton Inn Franchise Sued for Race Discrimination and Retaliation

INDIANAPOLIS – A local hotel has denied employment to black housekeeping applicants, offered lower pay and hours to black housekeeping staff, terminated black housekeeping staff who complained of the less favorable treatment, and destroyed employment records since at least Sept. 2, 2008, according to a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

According to the suit, the general manager of the Hampton Inn hotel located at 2311 North Shadeland Ave. advised her employees that she wanted to get “Mexicans” in who would clean better and complain less than her black housekeeping staff. The EEOC is suing New Indianapolis Hotels, Inc. on behalf of a class of terminated housekeeping employees as well as a class of black housekeeping applicants who sought employment at its Shadeland Avenue Hampton Inn facility between approximately Sept. 2, 2008 and June 2009.

Making employment decisions based on race and/or taking actions against employees who complain of race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Case No.  1:10-cv-1234) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The agency is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages against New Indianapolis Hotels Inc., as well as other relief, including a permanent injunction to prevent the company from engaging in future race discrimination and/or retaliation.

KLD Labs Sued for Pregnancy Discrimination

NEW YORK — A Huntington Station, N.Y., engineering company violated federal law by rescinding an offer of employment to a job applicant because of her pregnancy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has charged in a lawsuit.

According to the EEOC’s suit, in July 2008 a job applicant using a staffing firm accepted an offer from KLD Labs for an administrative assistant position. When the woman informed KLD Labs that she was three months pregnant, KLD Labs called the staffing firm to rescind the employment offer – solely because the woman was pregnant. Even after the staffing firm alerted KLD Labs that it is unlawful to reject someone for this reason, KLD Labs insisted upon rejecting her because she was pregnant and selected another candidate who was not.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (10-CV-4449) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court.

Mayor and City Council City Sued for Age Bias and Retaliation

BALTIMORE – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a lawsuit against the mayor and city council of Ocean City, Md., for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) with regard to its hiring practices.


In its suit, the EEOC charges that the Atlantic Ocean resort town discriminated against Anthony Indge, age 62, when it failed to hire him into the position of full-time airport associate in May 2008. Indge had been employed as a temporary line technician and had filled in as an airport associate in 2007 and 2008. During his interview for the position of full-time airport associate, the airport manager, who was the hiring official, made several ageist comments to Indge, despite having previously informed him that his knowledge and performance made him a valued employee. In May 2008, a less qualified younger applicant, age 45, who had no prior experience as an airport associate was hired.

When Indge learned he was not selected for the full-time position, he complained of age discrimination to several Ocean City management officials and filed a charge with the EEOC. The EEOC further charged that Ocean City retaliated against Indge for complaining about age discrimination when it failed to hire him for vacancies as a temporary line technician for the 2009 season.

Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The suit, (Civil Action No.1:10-cv-02690-JFM), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, seeks monetary and injunctive relief, including back wages, liquidated damages, changes in employment policies to eliminate future age-based discrimination and instatement of Indge.

Nine States Awarded Funds in Disability Employment Initiative

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor has awarded $21,276,575 to nine states under the Disability Employment Initiative to improve education, training, and employment opportunities and outcomes of youth and adults who are unemployed and/or receiving Social Security disability benefits. The Disability Employment Initiative is jointly funded and administered by the department's Employment and Training Administration and its Office of Disability Employment Policy.

The Labor Department has entered into cooperative agreements with the following states to implement strategic approaches to support exemplary employment services for individuals with disabilities in the public workforce system: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, New York and Virginia. These projects build upon the department's Disability Program Navigator Initiative by hiring staff with expertise in disability and workforce issues. The grants also will support extensive partnerships, collaboration and services provided across multiple workforce and disability systems in each state.

Grant Recipients
State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development: $2,727,000
State of Arkansas Department of Workforce Services: $1,500,000
Delaware Department of Labor, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation: $1,490,409
Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity: $1,839,588
Kansas Department of Commerce: $1,879,459
State of Maine Department of Labor: $1,500,000
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workforce Division: $2,479,280
New York State Department of Labor: $4,945,060
Virginia Community College System: $2,915,779

EEOC Sues Cyma Orchids for Sex and National Origin Discrimination, Retaliation

LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a sex and national origin discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Cyma Orchids, Inc., an orchid farm in Oxnard, Calif.

The EEOC asserts that at least four female Hispanic greenhouse workers were repeatedly sexually harassed by supervisors, managers, a front office employee and the company’s owners. The abuses included groping, unwanted touching of their breasts and buttocks, repeated propositions, sexual jokes and comments about their bodies. The EEOC contends the sexual harassment – committed by both Korean and Hispanic male supervisory staff alike – was also laced with national origin bias. Harassers allegedly joked about how often Mexican women have sex, and made comments that Mexican women were “lazy” and “do not know their place.”

The EEOC further contends that one of the company’s owners, a Korean male, even physically hit one of the Hispanic female staff while she was working, part of a larger practice of using violence and threats of violence against the mostly Hispanic female greenhouse staff. Furthermore, the EEOC maintains that female workers were treated differently from their male counterparts in that only women were assigned to clean the bathrooms. Also, female workers were purportedly timed for their bathroom use, while males were not.

In addition, the EEOC claims that Cyma Orchids retaliated against those who complained about the harassment and discrimination, including firing a Hispanic male lead greenhouse worker who defended one of the victims. A victim was also reassigned from the indoor to the outdoor greenhouse upon complaint, a transfer that resulted in a heavier and less desirable workload.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California (EEOC v. Cyma Orchids, Inc., Case No. CV 10-7122 DMG (RZx)), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the victims of discrimination and harassment, back pay for the victims of retaliation and discharge, and injunctive relief intended to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation at Cyma Orchids.  

“A company’s culture is dictated from the top down,” said Olophius Perry, district director for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Owners and senior managers need to set a standard free of bias, harassment and retaliation and ensure that it is perpetuated throughout.”

Professional Fitness Sued for Retaliation

GREENVILLE, S.C. – Raleigh-based BF-Southeast, LLC, doing business as Professional Fitness, violated federal law by discharging a female employee because she complained about sexual harassment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.


According to the EEOC’s complaint, Quiannta Mauney, a personal trainer employed by Professional Fitness, was subjected to sexual comments and stares from her direct supervisor at a health club in Greenville. Mauney felt that she was being sexually harassed, so she submitted an online complaint regarding the harassment to Professional Fitness on Jan. 10, 2008. The supervisor resigned, but the company transferred one of Mauney’s clients to another trainer. When Mauney called her area manager to inquire about the client transfers, the area manager terminated Mauney in a profanity-laced conversation because of her complaints about sexual harassment. The manager told Mauney that she had “ruined [her former supervisor’s] life” by reporting him for sexual harassment, and then told her to leave the heath club, the EEOC said.

Retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment or other forms of employment discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (EEOC v. BF-Southeast, LLC d/b/a Professional Fitness, Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-02538), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

The EEOC seeks back pay and reinstatement, along with past and future pecuniary losses, past and future non-pecuniary expenses, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

Professional Fitness provides fitness training to customers through relationships with various health clubs throughout the country. Professional Fitness works with over 80 health club locations in more than 20 different markets. The company holds itself out as the largest privately owned personal training company in the country.

October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month 2010

WASHINGTON —President Barak Obama has declared the month of October as National Disability Employment Awareness Month 2010. The theme for this year is "Talent Has No Boundaries: Workforce Diversity Includes People with Disabilities."

The president signed an executive order on July 26, 2010, calling on federal agencies to set goals for increasing the numbers of people with disabilities who are hired. The order also seeks to improve the retention and return-to-work rate of federal employees with disabilities.

The Department of Labor is soliciting input from the public on how it can strengthen the affirmative action requirements of the regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Proposed changes to this provision of the law would hold federal contractors, which create 25 percent of available jobs in America, to benchmarks for hiring qualified workers with disabilities.

US Labor Department Sues Tyson Fresh Meats for Systemic Discrimination Against Women

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor has filed an administrative complaint against Tyson Fresh Meats, the world's largest supplier of premium beef and pork and a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods Inc. The complaint alleges that Tyson systematically rejected female job applicants at its plant in Joslin, Ill.

As a federal contractor, Tyson Fresh Meats was investigated by the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. The OFCCP's investigation revealed that Tyson utilized a hiring process and selection procedures that discriminated against women seeking entry-level positions. Executive Order 11246, under which this lawsuit was brought, prohibits federal contractors such as Tyson from discriminating on the basis of gender when making their hiring decisions and empowers OFCCP to monitor their compliance with the law.

The complaint requests that all of Tyson's federal contracts be canceled; it be debarred from future government contracts until it has remedied the violations; and it provide complete relief, including lost wages, interest and other benefits of employment, to affected individuals. OFCCP believes that more than 750 women are owed back wages and more than 100 women should be given the option of working for the company.

This filing follows recent litigation by OFCCP involving another Tyson Foods Inc. subsidiary, TNT Crust, located in Green Bay, Wis. A Department of Labor administrative law judge found that TNT Crust systematically discriminated against Latino applicants in its entry-level position hiring.

In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP's legal authority exists under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. As amended, these three laws hold those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors,  may not discriminate in their employment practices on the basis of gender, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran.

DOTS LLC Sued By EEOC For Race Discrimination

INDIANAPOLIS – A national women’s off-priced clothing retailer allegedly denied employment to white applicants at its Merrillville, Ind., store since at least April 1, 2007, according to a lawsuit filed on August 6, 2010 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

According to the EEOC, applicant Misti Hatchett was told by the store manager that the store “doesn’t hire white people.” The EEOC is suing on behalf of Hatchett and a class of discrimination victims that includes qualified white applicants who have applied at Dots’ Merrillville location since at least April 1, 2007.

Making employment decisions based on race violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 2:10-cv-00319-JVB-APR) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The agency is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages against Dots, as well as other relief, including a permanent injunction to prevent the company from engaging in future hiring discrimination.