Return to Home PageIn this Title VII race discrimination suit, the Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant, a car dealership, created a racially hostile environment for four African American salespeople and then constructively discharged them when they quit their jobs to escape the harassment. The harassment included offensive jokes, racial epithets, displays of the Confederate flag on cars, racist cartoons, and threats such as a list of "10 ways to kill a black man." Pursuant to a consent decree, defendant agreed to pay a total of $135,000 to the four charging parties. In addition, defendant is enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII. Defendant also must provide annual preventive and educational training, approved by EEOC, regarding harassment and retaliation for all of its staff, including supervisory, management, and temporary employees. Such training must also be provided during new employee orientation.
The Dallas District Office filed this ADEA suit alleging that defendant, a bank, discriminated against charging party, a 68-year-old loan officer, on the basis of her age when it forced her to retire. The loan officer, who had served 45 years at the bank and had never been received a written reprimand or negative job evaluation, was provided a letter written by the bank president that stated "a decision has been made for you to retire effective March 15, 2001." Charging party, a widow, did not want to retire and could not afford to do so. The case was resolved by a consent decree which provides that defendant will pay $71,500 to charging party. Defendant will establish and implement a written policy prohibiting workplace discrimination, including on the basis of age, and containing a complaint procedure for its employees. In addition, defendant must provide annual anti-discrimination training for all of its management and supervisory employees.
In this Title VII suit, the San Francisco District Office alleged that a female charging party and two other female restaurant employees were subjected to physical and verbal sexual harassment by their supervisor. Defendant, a high-end restaurant on the island of Kauai in Hawaii, took no corrective action despite two of the women's complaints to the general manager and thus the conduct continued. However, after a complaint by the third woman to corporate headquarters, defendant investigated the matter and fired the supervisor. This case was resolved by a three-year consent decree that requires defendant to pay a total sum of $245,000 in compensatory damages to the three women. Defendant is required to revise its complaint procedures for reporting sexual harassment, provide sexual harassment and EEO training for its supervisors and managers responsible for enforcing defendant's anti-harassment policy, and submit reports every six months during the three-year term of the decree detailing internal harassment complaints and their dispositions to the EEOC.
The Baltimore District Office alleged in this action that defendant, an interstate trucking and freight firm, discriminated on the basis of sex, age, and disability and engaged in illegal retaliation. Specifically, the lawsuit, which originated from two discrimination charges, asserted that defendant violated Title VII and the ADEA when it refused to hire one charging party, a 55-year-old female truck driver with 30 years of experience, for a driver position because of her gender and age. The suit also asserted that defendant retaliated against a second charging party, a male terminal manager, who objected to instructions to not process applications by females and to obtain pre-employment medical information with which to exclude disabled applicants, conduct that violated Title VII and the ADA. Additionally, the suit alleged that defendant discriminated against women as a class by failing to hire them for driver and dockworker positions because of their gender. Lastly, defendant was charged with violating the ADA by denying employment to other job applicants for dockworker and driver positions because of their responses to a pre-employment medical questionnaire.
The case was resolved by a two-year consent decree, which requires defendant to pay $25,000 to the female charging party, $200,500 to the male charging party, and $1,775,000 to a class of applicants who applied and were qualified for the positions of driver and dockworker but were rejected because they were women or disabled. Defendant is enjoined from refusing to hire female applicants for any job because of their sex or age and from utilizing disparate qualifications for male and female applicants; from soliciting medical information from applicants at the pre-employment stage; and from retaliating against anyone who challenges defendant's employment practices under Title VII, the ADA, or the ADEA. Defendant also agrees to create a human resources specialist position to oversee its hiring practices, which will include developing uniform and objective job criteria for the driver and dockworker positions. Defendant is further required to offer driver and dockworker positions, as they become available, to interested female and disabled claimants identified by EEOC; disagreements about a claimant's qualifications can be submitted to the court. Notwithstanding the two-year term of the decree, defendant's hiring obligations remain in effect until each qualified claimant has been offered a position. Finally, defendant must provide EEOC with quarterly reports detailing its recruitment and hiring activities and make its facilities and records available for inspection by EEOC.
In this Title VII action, the Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant, an interstate trucking and freight firm, permitted widespread sexual harassment of charging party and other female employees at its Gibsonia, PA headquarters. Specifically, defendant's owners and managers used vulgar and sexually derogatory names to refer to charging party and other female employees, required them to perform personal chores for the owners such as picking up their laundry and cleaning their cars, and generally yelled and cursed at them. Despite charging party's complaints for over a year, no corrective action was taken; finally, charging party was demoted, causing her to resign. By a two-year consent decree, defendant has agreed to pay $300,000 in compensatory damages to the charging party and a pro rata distribution of $200,000 to four female claimants. Defendant is enjoined from subjecting female employees to sexual harassment or any derogatory treatment that creates an unlawful hostile work environment. Defendant also agreed to revise its anti-discrimination policy to include a grievance process, confidential investigation procedures, and anti-retaliation provisions. Additionally, defendant will institute EEO training provided by an outside source and, in accordance with a consent decree resolving a suit brought by the Baltimore District Office, hire a human resources specialist who will investigate sexual harassment and gender-based disparate treatment complaints.
This page was last modified on January 9, 2004.