Xenia Employer Settles ADA Failure to Hire Lawsuit With EEOC for $30K

Yesterday, the EEOC  announced that a Xenia, Ohio employer had settled a lawsuit alleging that it had violated the ADA by rescinding a job offer in October 2012 on account of lawfully prescribed medication taken by an applicant to control a seizure disorder.    The EEOC filed suit in the federal court in Dayton (at  Case Number 3:14-cv-0211)  in June 2014 against Save Edge, Inc. (f/k/a File Sharpening Company, Inc.) asserting that its job offer had been withdrawn because it regarded the applicant as disabled and incapable of safely performing the duties of the operator position.  According to the EEOC’s Complaint, the applicant’s medication had been revealed during a pre-employment drug test.  The applicant never sought any accommodation or suffered any work restrictions on account of his medical condition or medication.   In the lawsuit, the EEOC sought back pay, front pay, lost health insurance benefits, punitive damages and injunctive relief.

In addition to paying $30,000 to the rejected job applicant (for back pay, interest, and compensatory and punitive damages), the employer is required by the consent decree to:

·        Prohibit future discrimination by its officers, managers and employees against disabled employees or applicants,

·        Prohibit future retaliation by its officers, managers and employees against applicants or employees who exercise their rights to complain about discrimination or assist in an investigation or discrimination-related proceeding,

·        Implement within 60 days a written disability policy and procedures to ensure equal employment opportunities are afforded to employees and applicants with disabilities,

·        Post within 5 days a notice of non-discrimination at its facility,

·        Train its managers, supervisors and human resources personnel every year for three years about the ADA and employment discrimination; and

·        Report annually for three years to the EEOC its compliance with the consent decree, including attendance at the mandatory training, the agenda of the training, the continued posting of the notice, and information about any requests for reasonable accommodations and internal complaints of disability discrimination, etc.

There was nothing in the EEOC press release about the employer being required to offer employment to the rejected job applicant.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC Settles ADEA and ADA Claims with Weirton Medical Center

Yesterday, the EEOC announced a modest settlement with the Weirton (West Virginia) Medical Center to resolve federal court litigation asserting claims under the ADA and ADEA.  In particular, the EEOC alleged that the Medical Center failed to promote a long-time employee on the basis of his age and perceived disability (back injury).  The EEOC alleged that the maintenance director/hiring manager admitted during the EEOC investigation that he had wanted someone “younger and more energetic.” 

The Medical Center voluntarily hired the Charging Party and paid him all back pay after the litigation commenced and then settled with the EEOC by agreeing to pay another $12,500.    The Medical Center is also subject to a three-year consent decree which, among other things, requires the Medical Center to train all hiring managers about their obligations under the ADA and ADEA and to conduct random audits of at least 25% of all hiring decisions to ensure compliance with federal laws.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC Settles Sexual Harassment $1.45M Lawsuit Against JPMorgan Chase Arising from Polaris Call Center

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that it had settled a sexual harassment lawsuit it filed in September 2009 in federal court in Columbus (Civil Action 2:09-cv-00864)  against JPMorgan Chase arising out of an alleged sexually hostile work environment at the Polaris call center.  The $1.45M paid by the Bank will be "allocated among the 16 female mortgage bankers who worked at” the Polaris office and was divided between back wages and compensatory and punitive damages.  According to the EEOC, the Bank “maintained a sexually hostile work environment towards its female mortgage bankers,” which consisted of “sexually charged behavior and comments from supervisory staff and participating mortgage bankers.”  In addition, the EEOC also alleged that “female mortgage bankers who did not embrace and participate in these circumstances became ostracized and suffered economic consequences by being deprived of lucrative sales calls, being deprived of training opportunities and being denied other benefits of employment.”

The court’s docket reflects that extensive discovery was conducted and the summary judgment motions filed by both sides were denied.

The consent decree resolving the case provides that it does not constitute an admission by the Bank.  It enjoins the Bank from creating or maintaining a sexually hostile work environment and from retaliating against any employee who complains about sexual harassment.   For the next two years, the Bank is required on a quarterly basis to:  

·        give notice to the Commission of the institution of any judicial or administrative proceeding (including the filing of a  charge or complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission) against Defendant, wherein the person or entity instituting the  proceeding alleges sex-based/sexual harassment or other sex discrimination arising from alleged conduct involving Mortgage Bankers at the Consumer Direct Sales department of Defendant’s Polaris, Ohio facility or any successor facility where Defendant’s Ohio-based Mortgage Bankers in its Consumer Direct Sales department may relocate, and include a copy of the complaint or charge.

·         . . . submit written reports to the Commission’s Baltimore Field Office,  . . .  regarding all written or oral complaints of sex/sexual harassment or other sex discrimination made to Defendant’s Human Resources Department or Corporate Employee Relations Department, whether sufficient to state an actionable claim under Title VII or not, and any corrective action taken in response to the complaints. Such reports shall contain the following: the dates and time period pertinent to the complaint; the allegations of sex/sexual harassment or other sex discrimination, the full name, job title, work address, last known home address, and last known home telephone number of any complainant; the full name, job title and work address of any persons who received any complaints; if other than the complainant, the full name, job title, work address of any person alleged by a complainant to have been a victim of sex discrimination or sex based harassment, and the full name, job title, work address, and professional relationship to the complainant or alleged victim of the person or persons whose conduct is the subject of a complaint. . . .

The Bank also agreed to develop by June an extensive call data retention system so that assignments of sales calls could be accessed and analyzed to ensure that they are being equitably distributed among the mortgage bankers. These records, among other things, must also reflect each employee’s supervisor and manager each week.  The Bank is required to maintain and preserve the records for three years after they are created and to produce them annually or upon request to the EEOC (until March 2016).

The Bank is also required by the consent decree to provide two hours of training on sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation to “Supervisors, Managers, and Directors of Mortgage Bankers within the Consumer Direct Sales department at its Polaris facility” by June and again within the following year.  This training shall be provided within 60 days to individuals hired, transferred or promoted into such positions as well.  The EEOC must review the training materials in advance and must be annually given a list of everyone who attends.  The Bank also agreed to continue its past practice of training its Human Resources employees.

 The consent decree also requires the Bank to post a notice for the period of the decree essentially outlining every employer’s obligations under Title VII.

 NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC Announces $575K ADEA Class Action Settlement Against Restaurant Chain

On Monday, the EEOC announced that it had settled a class action age discrimination lawsuit it had brought against a chain of Ruby Tuesday restaurants involving six restaurants in Pennsylvania and Beachwood, Ohio.  In its lawsuit ((EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., W.D. PA, C. A. No. 09-1330), the EEOC alleged that the restaurant chain “engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination against job applicants who were 40 years of age or older” and “failed to preserve employment records, including employment applications, as required by the ADEA and EEOC regulations.”  The settlement/consent decree involves the payment of $575K by the defendant employer (Ruby Tuesday, Inc.) and requires the employer over the next 40 months to engage in the following actions:

• Implement numerical goals for hiring and recruitment of job applicants age 40 and older at the affected locations;
•  Review its job advertisements to make certain they do not violate the ADEA's prohibitions against age discrimination;
• Conduct audits, including random reviews of hiring decisions, to ensure non-discrimination and compliance with the terms of the consent decree;
• Evaluate the job performance of people with hiring authority for the six stores named in the consent decree and set their compensation (including bonuses), in part, based on their degree of success in helping Ruby Tuesday achieve its goals of ensuring that its recruitment and hiring practices provide equal employment opportunities for people who are 40 or older;
• Designate a decree compliance monitor for oversight of compliance with the requirements of the ADEA and the terms of the consent decree;
• Provide extensive training on the requirements of the ADEA and the consent decree to the decree compliance monitor, human resources personnel and hiring authorities of the six stores named in the consent decree; and
• Report to the EEOC and keep records about its hiring practices and compliance with the consent decree.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC Announces Cleveland Employer to Pay $700K and Hire 40 Women

Yesterday, the EEOC announced an agreement with a Cleveland manufacturer to settle a class action lawsuit which alleged that the employer systematically discriminated against women by failing to hire them, permitted harassment against the women who were hired and failed to comply with federal document retention requirements concerning job applicants and new employees.  As part of the settlement,  Presrite Corporation will pay $700,000, which will be distributed among a class of women who sought and were denied jobs at the company.   In addition, the company is required to hire no fewer than 40 women identified by the EEOC during the claims process.  These women will receive priority consideration and jobs before any current male applicants. The company will also be required to make periodic reports to the EEOC, conduct mandatory training, and improve document retention practices to include electronic data.

According to the EEOC, the company regularly rejected female applicants in favor of less-qualified male applicants at its three Ohio plants.  There were also incidents showing that women who were hired were harassed on the job.  Finally, the company failed to keep copies of applications and other employee data required by federal law.   The EEOC alleged that the company “failed to produce more than a thousand employment applications for persons the company hired and failed to maintain accurate or complete data about applicants. As a result, the EEOC said, it was unable to identify by name all of the female applicants who were unlawfully denied hire.”

EEOC Settles Class Action Reverse Race Discrimination Lawsuit for $246.5K

On Friday, the EEOC announced that it was settling a class action reverse race discrimination lawsuit brought in federal court in Indianapolis, Indiana against a discount clothing retailer for $246.5K. According to the press release, "Dots' Merrillville, Ind., clothing store denied jobs on a systemic basis to white applicants since at least April 1, 2007. During that time, the EEOC contended, Dots regularly hired black entry-level applicants for sales positions, but excluded white applicants who were equally or better qualified." In addition,

The consent decree settling the suit provides that the settlement proceeds will be distributed to 32 class members. The decree also requires Dots to notify class members of open sales positions for a period of 18 months and to offer them interviews if they are still interested in employment with the company. Dots agreed to cease any further discrimination against white applicants and not to retaliate against applicants or employees who exercise their rights to complain about discrimination or assist in an investigation or discrimination-related proceeding. Dots will post a notice of non-discrimination at each of its facilities in Indiana and Illinois under its District 11 and train its managers and employees involved in the hiring process. Dots will also report on all hiring at its Merrillville location for a three-year period and will submit reports to EEOC detailing its compliance with the decree

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Mansfield Company Pays $188K to Settle EEOC Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that it had settled a lawsuit against a Central Ohio company for $188K which involved retaliation and sex and wage discrimination. In the lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that the defendant employer hired an experienced female drafter to prepare drawings and sketches for batteries and engines, but paid a higher salary to a similarly qualified male engineer hired a few months after her to perform the same tasks. When the female engineer learned of the salary disparity, she complained to the human resources manager and was subsequently fired – allegedly in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. The EEOC ultimately filed suit on her behalf in 2010, alleging violations of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.

In addition to monetary damages for the female engineer, the EEOC obtained a two-year consent decree which requires training for the defendant employer's human resources personnel and employees at the Hyundai Ideal Electric Company's home office in Mansfield, Ohio and posting of anti-discrimination notices.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC’s Cleveland Office Announces $300K Settlement of Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

On Friday, the EEOC announced that its Cleveland, Ohio district office had settled for $300,000 a sexual harassment lawsuit brought in federal court against Dave's Supermarket, a 13-store grocery chain with 1500 employees. According to the EEOC's press release, a former meat department manager made repeated and unwanted sexual advances to female employees, "and that upper management, aware of his behavior, failed to stop it." In addition, the EEOC alleged that "the sexual harassment included an incident during" where the manager "exposed himself to a newly hired female employee," who complained to upper management "about the incident, but that management did not investigate or discipline" the manager. However, according to the EEOC, the market finally fired the manager after another female employee also complained that he sexually harassed her as well.

In addition to the monetary relief for four female employees, "the two-year consent decree settling the suit provides for mandatory training of all staff on sexual harassment and the company's obligations under Title VII, with an emphasis on the definition of sexual harassment, maintaining a harassment-free workplace, and the laws prohibiting unlawful retaliation. The decree also requires management and/or supervisor accountability concerning sexual harassment and posting of a notice to inform employees about the lawsuit and provide the EEOC's contact information."

Insomniacs may read the full EEOC press release on its website.

In a similar announcement, the Chicago regional office of the EEOC announced a $195,000 settlement of a national origin harassment federal lawsuit (EEOC v. Fireside West, LLC d/b/a Hilton Lisle/Naperville, No. 09-cv-5979) involving an executive chef’s derogatory references to two Hispanic members of the kitchen staff. Like the Cleveland lawsuit, there was also a three-year consent decree.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC Announces Consent Decree Settling Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Suit With Two West Virginia Employers and Obtaining $115K for Three Women.

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that it had reached a $115,000 settlement in a sex discrimination lawsuit it had filed against West Virginia employers, Brooks Run Mining Company and staffing firm Neal & Associations, in federal court (Case No. 5:08-CV-0071). In its lawsuit, the EEOC had alleged that the defendant employers violated Title VII when female “security guards as a class were discriminated against because of their sex. The EEOC asserted that once the women complained about sexual harassment, they were prevented – either by layoffs or transfers – from working at the Brooks Run Cucumber mine site, although security jobs were available to men.”

According to the EEOC, “the three-year consent decree settling the suit provides for a monetary settlement to three women” who were “former security guards at the Cucumber mine site. In addition to monetary relief, the decree provides for significant remedial relief, including promoting supervisor accountability. The settlement also requires yearly training for all management staff on employee rights and employer obligations under federal and state anti-discrimination laws, with an emphasis on sex discrimination.”

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-11-09a.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Trucking Company Pitt-Ohio Agrees To Pay $2.43M To Settle EEOC Sex Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit

On Thursday, the EEOC’s Cleveland office announced that the interstate trucking firm, Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc., “has agreed to pay $2.43 million and provide other remedial relief to a class of women to settle” a sex discrimination class action lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The EEOC had alleged in this lawsuit “that Pitt Ohio Express Inc. denied a class of qualified female applicants employment as truck drivers or dockworkers since 1997, while men were placed in these positions during the same period. The comprehensive relief obtained by the EEOC includes $2.43 million for the class of women denied employment. Non-monetary relief includes offers of employment to women who should have been previously hired as drivers and dock workers and equal employment opportunity training to all supervisors and managers, as well as reporting and monitoring provisions.”

According to the EEOC, “[t]he consent decree settling the suit was approved by the court following a fairness hearing held [Thursday] morning. . . . Pitt-Ohio Express Inc. is a regional carrier specializing in short-haul transporting, providing direct service to over seven states in the northeastern United States. The company is headquartered in Pittsburgh and has terminals in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo.”

According to the terms of the consent decree, “neither this Decree nor the fact of a settlement are an admission or concession by Pitt Ohio of any violation of Title VII or of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever.” Nonetheless, the consent decree contains the following terms:
• Pitt Ohio, its officers, agents, employees and all others in active concert with them are enjoined from discriminating in hiring based on sex in violation of Title VII against female applicants for driver and dockworker positions in its Ohio terminals, and from failing to create and maintain records as required by Title VII or regulations issued pursuant to Title VII.
• Pitt Ohio, it officers, agents, employees and all others in active concert with them shall not retaliate against any female applicants for driver and dockworker positions at its Ohio terminals for participating in this proceeding or otherwise asserting any rights under Title VII in this proceeding.
• The payments to Claimants are for compensatory damages. Based on the lack of any prior employment relationship between Pitt Ohio and the Claimants, the absence of any adjudication of issues raised in the Complaint and Pitt Ohio's payment to the Claim Fund according to the procedures herein as a step in resolving all claims and issues, each Claimant, to whom a payment was made will be provided by the Claim Fund, an IRS Form 1099-MISC for the year in which payment is made, as required by law, directed to the same address to which the check was sent.
• Within 60 days after the entry of this Decree, EEOC shall provide Pitt Ohio the name of each Offer Eligible Claimant who has expressed interest in employment with Pitt Ohio and whom it contends should receive "priority hiring consideration" as defined in paragraph 23, and at the same time it will provide Pitt Ohio the current qualifications information received from each such Offer Eligible Claimant. As used herein, "priority hiring consideration" refers to Pitt Ohio's obligation to make employment offers for driver and dockworker positions to Offer Eligible Claimants who meet the hiring criteria in effect for such positions at the time the offer for such position would be made. . . . Absent disagreement or once any disagreement about whether an Offer Eligible Claimant should receive "priority hiring consideration" has been resolved, such Offer Eligible Claimant entitled to "priority hiring consideration" shall be placed on a "Job Offer List" according to her stated Ohio terminal preference for employment. When a job vacancy for a driver or dockworker position becomes available at an Ohio terminal, Pitt Ohio will consult the Job Offer List for that terminal, invite as many Offer Eligible Claimants to interview as it deems appropriate and make offers of employment to Offer Eligible Claimants on the Job Offer List before considering the application of any other person. . . . Pursuant to these "priority hiring consideration" provisions, Pitt Ohio shall extend at least 40 offers of employment, 26 for driver positions and 14 for dockworker positions. If at least 30 hires do not result from the initial offers, EEOC will provide Pitt Ohio the names of additional Offer Eligible Claimants and Pitt Ohio shall in good faith make additional offers until 30 hires are achieved or until the termination of this Decree, whichever is earlier. Each Offer Eligible Claimant hired pursuant to the "priority hiring consideration" provisions will receive "rightful place instatement." "Rightful place instatement" shall mean that, when an Offer Eligible Claimant is hired into a driver or dockworker position, she shall be hired into the vacant position at the then existing hiring rate for the position with seniority rights and accompanying benefits, based on the position and her earlier date of application. Rightful place instatement shall not extend to bumping Pitt Ohio employees who occupy jobs, displacement of drivers from current route and shift assignments, or vacation preference rights.
• Pitt Ohio will appoint from its human resources department an ombudsperson to resolve informally issues arising from or which result from women entering driver and/or dockworker positions pursuant to the terms of this Decree. To the extent necessary, Pitt Ohio will issue procedures for submission and handling of issues by the ombudsperson. The ombudsperson will not be the person in the human resources department responsible for responding to EEO charges or other EEO compliance.
• Within 30 days after the date of this Decree, Pitt Ohio shall provide a training proposal to EEOC for approval. The proposal shall include: format of the training; name(s) and qualifications of the instructor(s); content and topics to be covered; length of the program; and estimated training dates and locations. The training shall include at least the following topics: Title VII recordkeeping requirements (retention requirements, prohibition against destruction of records, etc.); hiring practices and procedures which comply with Title VII; the interview process and types of questions to be asked of applicants; and personnel policies and procedures which comply with Title VII. Pitt Ohio shall conduct EEO training to be attended by its executives, managers, supervisors, human resources staff and recruiters from its corporate headquarters and Ohio terminals, and any other employees at corporate headquarters and the Ohio terminals coming in direct contact with prospective applicants or involved in the recruitment, selection and hiring process. This training shall be completed within 90 days of the date of this Decree. Pitt Ohio shall train all newly-hired and newly-promoted management or supervisory staff, and other staff involved in the application and hiring process at its corporate headquarters or Ohio terminals on equal employment opportunity law, including the topics listed in paragraphs 34, within 90 days after their hire, promotion or transfer for the duration of this Agreement. To satisfy this requirement, Pitt Ohio may substitute viewing of a video presentation of the original training session, provided a qualified trainer attends to answer questions.
• In addition to the steps of training and appointment of an ombudsperson, identified elsewhere in this Decree, Pitt Ohio will help assure management and supervisory accountability in effecting the terms of this Decree in its Ohio facilities by: (a) directing managers and supervisors to carry out their supervisory responsibilities so as to achieve compliance with Pitt Ohio's policy or policies prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination and/or retaliation; (b) taking corrective action, which may include discipline up to and including discharge of any supervisor or manager who violates Pitt Ohio's policy or policies prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination or retaliation; (c) directing managers and supervisors to report incidents of unlawful discrimination and/or retaliation to Pitt Ohio's human resources group.
• Pitt Ohio will incorporate into the performance evaluations of its supervisors and managers an equal opportunity component.
• Within 14 days after the date of this Decree, Pitt Ohio shall post the Notice attached as Exhibit C at its Ohio terminals and corporate headquarters, and keep it upon those premises in places where bulletins and notices to employees and applicants for employment customarily are posted. Such Notice shall remain for the five-year duration of this Decree. If such Notice becomes defaced, marred or otherwise unreadable, Pitt Ohio will ensure that new readable copies are posted in the same manner as heretofore specified.
• With the first reporting period starting on the first day of the month immediately after the date of this Decree, Pitt Ohio shall submit to the EEOC's Cleveland Field Office a written report for each preceding six-month period for three years and then for each preceding one-year period for the remaining term of the Agreement, regarding recruitment and hiring of women in driver and dockworker positions in Ohio, which shall include: (a) for each Ohio terminal for the reporting period, a list of driver and dockworker hires, including name, sex, date of hire, job title, rate of pay, and status as full-time or part-time employee; (b) for each Ohio terminal for the reporting period, a list of the names of driver and dockworker applicants, their sex, and for each their address, social security number (if available), job applied for, date of application and an indication of the status of the applicant (i.e., hired or disposition code information); and (c) for each Ohio terminal, copies of the applicant logs for the preceding reporting period.

Insomniacs may read the full EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/1-22-09.html and the full terms of the consent decree at

Chicago Dentist to Pay $462,500 in Consent Decree to Settle EEOC Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that a “Chicago dental practice will pay $462,500 to settle a class sexual and religious harassment and retaliation lawsuit” it filed in September 2007 in federal court which alleged that “James L. Orrington, D.M.D., Ltd. discriminated against 18 employees by subjecting them to sexual harassment, including sexual propositions, comments and touching; forcing them to engage in Scientology religious practices and learn about Scientology as conditions of their employment; and/or retaliating against employees who complained about the sexual or religious harassment.” EEOC et al. v. James L. Orrington D.M.D., Ltd., No. 07 C 5317. “The consent decree resolving the case was entered by the court [yesterday] morning.”

The EEOC also announced that “[i]n addition to requiring that Orrington pay monetary relief, the three-year consent decree resolving the case enjoins Orrington from engaging in sexual or religious discrimination and prohibits the firm from conditioning any terms or conditions of employment on complying with the religious teachings or practices of Scientology or attending seminars regarding Scientology. The consent decree also requires that Orrington contract with an outside representative to receive and investigate complaints of sexual discrimination and religious discrimination; adopt and distribute a policy against sexual harassment, religious discrimination and harassment, and retaliation; provide training to employees; submit periodic reports to the EEOC about any complaints of sexual harassment, religious discrimination or harassment, or retaliation; and post a notice at its facility regarding the outcome of this lawsuit.

Insomniacs can read the full press release at

EEOC Obtains $1.875M Consent Decree Against University of Phoenix for Favoring Mormon Employees.

On Monday, the EEOC announced that it obtained a consent decree from an Arizona federal court for $1,875,000 for 52 individuals on the grounds that managers at the University of Phoenix showed preferential treatment to Mormon employees. In its class action lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that the “University of Phoenix engaged in a widespread practice of discriminating against non-Mormon employees who worked as enrollment counselors in the University’s Online Division.” In particular, witnesses testified that “that managers in the Online Enrollment Department at the University of Phoenix discriminated against non-Mormon employees, and favored Mormon employees, in several ways, including: (1) providing the Mormon employees better leads on potential students; (2) disciplining non-Mormon employees for conduct for which Mormon employees were not disciplined; (3) promoting lesser-qualified or unqualified Mormon enrollment counselors to management positions while repeatedly denying such promotions to non-Mormon enrollment counselors; and (4) denying tuition waivers to non-Mormon employees for failing to meet registration goals, while granting the waivers to Mormon employees.”

In addition to the monetary relief, the consent decree required the employer to engage in other activities in the future, including: (i) Dissemination of a Zero Tolerance Policy to all employees in the University of Phoenix Online Enrollment Department, stating that the company has zero tolerance for religious discrimination and that any violation of the policy will result in termination; (ii) Training for managers and non-managers on the issue of religious discrimination; (iii) Creating a system to include in managers’ evaluations an assessment of their compliance with equal employment opportunity laws; and (iv) Hiring a Diversity Officer, and the staff necessary, at the University of Phoenix to monitor compliance with the terms of the consent decree.

Insomniacs can read the full EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/11-10-08.html.

Long Island Police Department to Pay $450K to settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit Brought by EEOC.

Last week, the EEOC announced that the Nassau County Police Department would be paying $450,000 (to be divided among four officers) and providing anti-discrimination training for more than 400 supervisors and managers to settle a lawsuit alleging that the officers had been discriminatorily transferred in July 2006 to less desirable assignments on account of their age and replaced with younger, less qualified officers. Two of the officers alleged that the transfers were so humiliating that they constituted a constructive discharge.

Insomniacs can read the full EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-23-08.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Hotel Chain to Pay $370K to Settle Same-Sex Harassment Lawsuit Filed by EEOC.

Last week, the EEOC announced that a hotel employer had agreed in a consent decree to settle a same sex-harassment lawsuit filed in federal court in Seattle, Washington, by, among other things, paying $370,000 (to be divided among the four-teenaged victims), providing anti-discrimination training for managers, supervisors and employees at the hotel resort, establishing policies and procedures to address sexual harassment issue, reporting any future discrimination complaints to the EEOC and allowing the EEOC to monitor the work site for the next three years. In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that the employer had failed to stop the male hotel manager from sexually harassing teenaged male employees when he “repeatedly subjected young male employees between the ages of 17 and 25 to unwelcome touching of a sexual nature, comments about their physical appearance, and sexually charged situations.”

The defendant was “WorldMark by Wyndham (formerly Trendwest) [which] employs several thousand individuals and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Parsippany, N.J.-based Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (NYSE:WYN), the world’s largest hotel franchisor, vacation ownership company and vacation exchange network, which includes chains like Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Ramada Inn, Howard Johnson, and others.”

Insomniacs can read the full EEOC press-release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-23-08a.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC Announces $505K Settlement for Sexual Harassment of Teenagers by Restaurant Supervisor.

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that a Colorado “McDonald’s restaurant franchise will pay $505,000 and provide significant remedial relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit” brought by the EEOC “on behalf of a class of young female employees, including teens.”

“The EEOC’s suit, Civil Action No. 06-cv-01871-MSK-CBS, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against JOBEC, Inc., a management company, and the interrelated corporations Colorado Hamburger Company, Inc. and Farmington Hamburger Company, Inc., who operate McDonald’s franchises in Durango and Cortez, Colo., and Farmington and Aztec, N.M. “ The Commission’s suit alleged that Tiawna Shenefield, now known as Tiawna Jacobson, Brandi Michal and a class of females, many of whom were 15 to 17 years old, were subjected to egregious sexual harassment in the workplace by their male supervisor. The harassment allegedly included the supervisor biting the breasts and grabbing the buttocks of the class members, making numerous sexual comments, as well as offers of favors in exchange for sex. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

“Under the terms of the consent decree resolving the case, the defendants will pay the two named victims and their attorney, Lynne Sholler, of Durango a total of $450,000 for compensatory damages and attorney fees. An additional $55,000 will be distributed to two other class members represented by the EEOC. The decree also provides for significant non-monetary relief, including letters of apology to the victims; training on sex discrimination in the defendants’ Colorado and New Mexico facilities; posting notices of non-discrimination in all of the defendants’ workplaces; and an injunction prohibiting discrimination and retaliation.”

Insomniacs can read the EEOC’s full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-7-08.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.