Savannah River Nuclear Solutions to pay employees in wage discrimination settlement

Investigators find federal contractor underpaid some female and African American workers

 

Savannah River Nuclear Solutions will pay $234,895 and review its personnel policies to resolve allegations of systemic pay discrimination at its site in Aiken. A compliance review by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs found that the management company for the Savannah River nuclear site discriminated against women in some engineering, technical and administrative positions. The review also determined that African Americans were underpaid in certain operation specialist positions.

"Workers often don't know how their pay compares with that of their colleagues, so discrimination like this can go undetected. That's why OFCCP's ability to conduct audits of contractors' pay practices is critical to closing pay gaps based on race and gender," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu, who represents the department on President Obama's National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force.

OFCCP investigators determined that from 2009 to 2010, Savannah River paid 57 female employees less than their male counterparts, and 15 African American employees less than their white counterparts. The agency found a statistically significant difference in pay even after taking into account legitimate factors affecting pay. The company denied liability, but entered into a conciliation agreement to resolve the alleged violations.

"Women and African Americans are underrepresented in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics professions. It is disturbing that at Savannah River, we found that many were employed in a STEM job, but were paid less than male or white counterparts because of discrimination," said OFCCP Southeast Regional Director Samuel Maiden.

Executive Order 11246 mandates that federal contractors must not discriminate in pay or other compensation on the basis of sex or race. Savannah River is a federal contractor.

In addition to back pay, the company will evaluate whether promotion decisions, performance evaluation ratings, procedures for assigning work, training opportunities, leave policies, assigning applicants to jobs, and limiting job transfers have a negative effect on compensation of women and African Americans.

Savannah River will also develop new policies to eliminate practices that affect compensation of women and African Americans adversely. The company will conduct an annual compensation analysis during the term of the conciliation agreement. If the analysis shows systemic race- or gender-based pay disparities, Savannah will increase the salaries of women and African Americans.

A partnership of Fluor Corp., Honeywell International Inc. and Newport News Nuclear Inc., Savannah River Nuclear Solutions has a contract to maintain and operate the Savannah River site, a nuclear reservation built in the 1950s. It is the only source for new tritium gas for the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and the corporate laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy's environmental management work, which includes nuclear material disposition, waste management and environmental cleanup. Obligated contract amounts range from $2.5 billion in 2009 to $948 million in 2014 and more than $500 million in 2015.

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Ten Exploration and Production Companies Sued by EEOC for Sex-Based Pay Discrimination

Federal Agency Charges True Oil Entities Paid Female Accounting Clerks Less Than Male Accounting Clerk

 

Ten associated exploration and production companies operating in 12 states violated federal law by paying female employees lower wages than men, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed.

 

The EEOC says that Casper, Wyo.-headquartered True Oil, LLC and its associated companies (Belle Fourche Pipeline Company, Black Hills Trucking, Inc., Bridger Pipeline LLC, Butte Pipeline LLC, Eighty-Eight Oil LLC, Equitable Oil Purchasing Company, Toolpushers Supply Co., True Drilling LLC, and True Ranches, LLC) paid a class of female accounting clerks lower wages than it paid to their male counterpart who was doing substantially equal work under similar working conditions.
 
Such alleged conduct violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which prohibits discrimination in compensation on the basis of sex. The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. True Oil et al, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00074-KHR, in U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, after first attempting to reach a settlement through its pre-litigation conciliation process. The lawsuit seeks lost wages and liquidated damages for the alleged victims, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent discriminatory practices in the future.
 
Enforcement of equal pay laws and targeting compensation systems and practices that discriminate based on gender is of one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan.

"Enforcing the Equal Pay Act and closing the pay gap is a priority for the EEOC," said EEOC Phoenix District Office regional attorney Mary Jo O'Neill. "By enforcing the EPA, the EEOC ensures that women will be paid an equal and fair wage. Unfortunately, Wyoming has the largest pay disparity between men and women in the country according to a 2014 report by the American Association of University Women."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Oral Arts Laboratory Inc. settles hiring discrimination case

Huntsville, Alabama, manufacturer will pay $115K in back wages, interest to 159 applicants

Oral Arts Laboratory Inc., a dental lab and manufacturer, will pay $115,000 to resolve allegations of systemic hiring discrimination at its Huntsville corporate headquarters. A compliance review by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs found that the federal contractor discriminated against 83 women and 19 African Americans who were denied dental lab technician positions, as well as 57 men who were rejected for shipping positions. Under the agreement, Oral Arts will extend job offers to at least 19 of the original class members as positions become available.

"This agreement underscores the notion that federal contractors, like Oral Arts, should closely examine their employment policies and practices to identify and eliminate unfair barriers to equal opportunity," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu.

OFCCP investigators found that, from November 2011 to November 2013, Oral Arts used a dexterity test in the selection process for dental lab technicians. This test was used even though it was not supported by a validation study that satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.

The investigation also uncovered that the company stereotyped shipping positions as female jobs and rejected male applicants. The agency concluded that Oral Arts' hiring process systematically discriminated against women, men and African-American applicants, a violation of Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of race or sex. The company has ceased using the tests and revised its selection process to ensure equal opportunity for all applicants.

Oral Arts is a manufacturer of dental prostheses, orthodontic appliances, fixed and removable implants and dentures. A family owned and operated dental lab, Oral Arts in 2014 held more than $2 million in federal contracts with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Clinic Agrees to Implement New Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Policy

Lakeland Eye Clinic, a Lakeland, Fla.-based organization of health care professionals, will pay $150,000 to settle one of the first two lawsuits ever filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging sex discrimination against a transgender individual, the agency announced today. Lakeland additionally agreed to implement a new gender discrimination policy and to provide training to its management and employees regarding transgender/gender stereotype discrimination. The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court in Tampa late Thursday, April 9, 2015.

"This historic settlement is significant," said David Lopez, EEOC General Counsel. "It not only is one of the first two lawsuits ever filed by the Commission alleging sex discrimination against a transgender individual, but it also solidifies the EEOC's commitment to enforcing the rights of transgender employees secured by Title VII."

The EEOC's lawsuit charged that Lakeland Eye Clinic discriminated based on sex by firing its Director of Hearing Services after she began to present as a woman and informed the defendant that she was transgender, despite the fact that the employee had performed her duties satisfactorily throughout her employment. The complaint alleged that the action was taken because the former Director was transgender, transitioning from male to female, and because she did not conform to the employer's gender-based stereotypes.
 
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes non-conformance with gender stereotypes. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 8:14-cv-2421-T35 AEP, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Soon after EEOC filed its lawsuit, Lakeland agreed to adopt a new gender discrimination policy that prohibits discrimination against an employee because the employee is transgender, because the employee is transitioning from one gender to another, and/or because the employee does not conform to Lakeland's sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes. Lakeland further agreed to provide training to its managers and employees explaining the prohibition against transgender/gender stereotype discrimination under Title VII, and to provide its management with guidance on handling transgender/gender-stereotype complaints.
 
"Lakeland should be commended for its cooperation with the EEOC in reaching this historic settlement in a timely fashion," said Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney of the Miami District Office. "As employers take a leadership role in enforcing the law prohibiting discrimination based on one's gender identity, the American workplace will move closer to embracing an inclusive work environment where employees are judged on their merit and not on any preconceived gender stereotype."

Malcolm Medley, director of the EEOC's Miami District Office, added, "The EEOC is committed to its efforts to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It is our policy that employees who are capable and qualified to perform the responsibilities to which they are assigned, should be permitted to do so, regardless of their sexual identity."

The lawsuit against Lakeland is part of the EEOC's ongoing efforts to implement its Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP), which the Commission adopted in December of 2012. The SEP includes "coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII's sex discrimination provisions, as they may apply" as a top Commission enforcement priority. The other EEOC lawsuit alleging discrimination against a transgender individual, EEOC v. Harris Funeral Home, is on-going.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Justice Department Settles Second Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Against Florida Fire Department

The Justice Department announced that it has reached a consent decree with the town of Davie, Florida, to resolve allegations that the Davie Fire Department discriminated against firefighter/paramedic Lori Davis because of her pregnancy and retaliated against firefighter/paramedic Monica Santana because she complained about gender discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin and religion.
 
According to the Justice Department, the consent decree resolves allegations of disparate treatment based on pregnancy that resulted from light duty policies implemented by the Davie Fire Department. In 2012, the Department of Justice challenged those discriminatory light duty policies in a related pattern or a practice Title VII case resulting in the filing of a complaint and consent decree to resolve the case. The consent decree entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida required that the fire department abandon its existing discriminatory light duty policies and adopt new, non-discriminatory policies. This new complaint is the result of individual charges of discrimination referred to the Justice Department by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
 
As alleged by the Justice Department in this complaint, Davis worked for the Davie Fire Department under its prior policies and was adversely affected by those policies which were implemented in violation of Title VII. Under Title VII, discrimination based on sex includes discrimination due to pregnancy, and requires that women affected by pregnancy be treated the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. Under federal law, an employer may not retaliate against employees because they complain about discrimination based on sex.

As alleged in the complaint, Davis’s doctor wanted Davis on light duty during her pregnancy. The fire department’s policy, however, would not allow her light duty during her first trimester. Davis continued to work and eventually was required to fight a fire while pregnant. She suffered a miscarriage after doing so. The complaint also alleges that Santana complained about other policies and practices at the fire department that she reasonably believed discriminated against female firefighters. After she complained about the discriminatory treatment, the fire department responded to her complaints by taking adverse actions against her designed to discourage similar complaints.

The consent decree, filed simultaneously with the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida must still be approved by the federal court. Under the terms of the agreement, the fire department must review and adopt appropriate anti-retaliation policies to protect its employees from further violations of Title VII and conduct training of its personnel to ensure that they properly handle future complaints under Title VII. The fire department must also pay monetary awards to compensate Davis, Santana, and two other similarly-situated, pregnant firefighters. The total monetary awards to all four women will exceed $400,000.
 
“Every day, expectant mothers after consulting with their doctors make difficult decisions about how and, more importantly, when to restrict their work duties due to pregnancy,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division is firmly committed to vigorous enforcement of Title VII’s prohibitions against pregnancy discrimination and retaliation so that women can make decisions regarding their pregnancies and try to remedy discriminatory treatment without fear of unwarranted repercussions in the work place after doing so.”

“Firefighters are dedicated public servants who put their lives at risk every day to protect the citizens of our community,” said U.S. Attorney Wilfredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida. “We are committed to enforcing the federal laws that protect expectant mothers against discrimination so that they will not be forced to choose between their job and their decision to have a family.”

Source: DOJ

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

ACM Services to Pay $415,000 to Settle EEOC Class Race, Gender Discrimination and Harassment Suit

Contractor Shunned Blacks and Women for Jobs, and Harassed and Fired Two Women for Opposing the Discrimination, Federal Agency Charged

ACM Services, Inc., a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor, will pay $415,000 and provide comprehensive equitable relief to resolve a class race, gender discrimination and harassment lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced. The EEOC had charged that ACM Services engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in hiring and also harassed two women based on sex, race and national origin and retaliated against them.

According to the EEOC's suit, ACM Services exclusively used word-of-mouth recruitment practices for field laborer positions with the intent and effect of failing to recruit black job applicants. The EEOC said that ACM Services also refused to hire black job applicants, or female applicants for field laborer positions. The EEOC also alleged failure to preserve employment applications.

The EEOC charged that ACM Services also subjected two Hispanic female employees to harassment based on sex, national origin, and race and engaged in unlawful retaliation against them because they opposed the harassment and discrimination and that the retaliation resulted in their terminations. The EEOC also alleged that one of the Hispanic female employees was subjected to harassment because of her association with black persons.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination and harassment based on race, sex and national origin. Title VII also forbids employers from retaliating against individuals who oppose discrimination. The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (U.S. EEOC v. ACM Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 8:14-CV-2997-PWG), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $305,000 in monetary relief for a class of persons not hired or recruited because of race or sex and $110,000 in monetary relief to the two Hispanic female employees, the three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins ACM Services from engaging in any future race, sex, or national origin discrimination or retaliation, and provides substantial non-monetary relief.
Among other things, ACM Services will:

• implement numerical goals for hiring qualified black applicants and female applicants, including both permanent and temporary or contingent workers, for field laborer positions;
• create a job opportunities advertisement program to recruit a diverse pool of qualified applicants for field laborer positions and refrain from using word-of-mouth recruiting as its sole method for seeking job applicants;
• conduct extensive self-assessment of hiring and work assignment practices to ensure non-discrimination and compliance with the terms of the consent decree;
• pay for advertising of the class claims process; and
• submit reports to the EEOC concerning numerical hiring goals and other consent decree compliance issues.

The EEOC will be conducting a claims process over the next 35 months to identify eligible claimants and determine awards.

"It is well-established that diversity is good for business," said EEOC Philadelphia District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. "We encourage all employers to take a proactive approach in ensuring that their recruitment practices and workplaces are free of discrimination."

EEOC Philadelphia Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, "We are pleased that ACM Services worked with us to resolve this lawsuit quickly and without engaging in protracted litigation. These affirmative measures will benefit all employees and applicants. All employers should consider proactive measures to foster equal employment opportunities for job applicants and workers."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

OFCCP Posts New Directive on Gender Identity and Sex Discrimination

OFCCP has posted Directive 2014-02, Gender Identity and Sex Discrimination (DIR 2014-02).

On June 30, 2014, the Secretary announced that DOL is updating its enforcement protocols and nondiscrimination guidance to reflect that DOL provides the full protection of the federal nondiscrimination laws that it enforces to individuals with claims of gender identity and transgender status discrimination. In accordance with this announcement, as well as with the EEOC’s decision in Macy v. Holder and the Title VII case law on which it is based, DIR 2014-02 clarifies that under Executive Order 11246, as amended, discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the bases of gender identity and transgender status. 

The directive reaffirms that in compliance evaluations and complaint investigations, OFCCP fully investigates and seeks to remedy instances of sex discrimination that occur because of an individual’s gender identity or transgender status. The directive explains that, when investigating such instances of potential discrimination, OFCCP adheres to the existing Title VII framework for proving sex discrimination, as outlined in OFCCP’s Federal Contract Compliance Manual. 

DIR 2014-02 takes effect immediately.

The directive is available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/directives/dir2014_02.html.  

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Ventura Corporation to Pay $354,250 to Settle EEOC Lawsuit for Sex Discrimination Against Men

Federal Agency Charged Beauty Wholesaler With Refusing to Hire Men and Retaliating Against a Manager Who Opposed the Discrimination

 

Ventura Corporation, a Puerto Rico-based wholesaler of makeup, beauty products, jewelry and other personal care items to retail sellers, has agreed to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC charged in its suit that Ventura engaged in a pattern or practice of refusing to hire men as Zone Managers and Support Managers. The EEOC also alleged that Ventura promoted Erick Zayas into a Zone Manager position after he complained about its discriminatory practices, only to set him up for failure and termination in retaliation for his opposition to Ventura's sex-based hiring practices.

Sex discrimination and retaliation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 3:11-cv-01700-PG) in U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico after first investigating the case, and then attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

According to the terms of the consent decree settling the suit, which was approved by the court on March 27, 2014, Ventura will pay $354,250 to settle the lawsuit, including a payment to Zayas of $150,000. The remaining settlement funds will be paid into an account that will be distributed to a class of qualified male job applicants who applied for Zone or Support Manager jobs with Ventura from 2004 to the present, but whom Ventura did not consider for hire. The agreement also requires Ventura to implement a detailed applicant tracking system; actively promote supervisory accountability for discrimination prevention; provide anti-discrimination training to all company employees and anti-discrimination training specific to those Ventura managers and employees who play a role in the hiring process; and provide bi-annual hiring reports to the EEOC for three years.

The EEOC said that the company was responsible for the loss or destruction of a great deal of critical evidence supporting the case. The disappeared evidence included job applications from qualified male applicants for the positions at issue and e-mails from key decision makers. The EEOC asked the court to award sanctions against the company based on the apparent destruction of evidence. The judge, agreeing with the EEOC's position, made a ruling that if the case were to proceed to a jury trial, he would instruct the jurors that they may draw an adverse inference from the vanished evidence, and may assume that it would have supported the EEOC's case regarding the company's violations of discrimination law.

"This case is another reminder that federal law protects both men and women from gender discrimination," said Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC's Miami District Office. "We are pleased that we have been able to secure relief not only for Mr. Zayas, but also for the many qualified applicants who were not considered by Ventura for employment simply because they were male."

Malcolm Medley, director of the EEOC's Miami District Office, added, "There is no protection in the law for reliance on outdated sex stereotypes. When they appear in the workplace, employees must be able to raise legitimate concerns of discrimination without fear of retaliation."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Puerto Rico construction contractor settles sexual harassment and discrimination case with DOL

Constructora Santiago to pay $40,000 to three female victims

 
Constructora Santiago II Corp., a federal construction contractor in San Juan, Puerto Rico, will make a lump sum payment of $40,000 to three female carpenters who were sexually harassed, retaliated against and denied regular and overtime work hours comparable to those of their male counterparts. The settlement follows an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
 
"No person — male or female — should have to put up with the degrading and inappropriate treatment these women faced just to get a paycheck," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "There's no excuse for that kind of behavior, and it's particularly egregious when the discrimination takes place at work sites funded by taxpayers."
 
OFCCP investigators reviewed Constructora Santiago's employment practices and determined that the company violated Executive Order 11246 by discriminating against women in compensation and by permitting sexual harassment and retaliation against employees who complained about a hostile work environment.
 
Additionally, OFCCP found that Constructora Santiago did not provide adequate restroom facilities for female employees. At times, the contractor provided no restrooms for women, and female employees were forced to relieve themselves outdoors, even in the presence of male colleagues. When a restroom was available, it was not separate from the men's restroom and was not clean. Investigators also found that female workers were subjected to unwelcome, sexually charged comments, teasing, jokes and pressure to go out on dates. The conciliation agreement entered into by Constructora Santiago and OFCCP resolves these and numerous other legal violations at the company's construction work sites across Puerto Rico.
 
Under the terms of the conciliation agreement, the construction company will pay $40,000 to the three female carpenters, provide adequate toilet and changing facilities for them and develop anti-harassment policies. Constructora Santiago has also agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures and training to ensure that its employment practices fully comply with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
 
Constructora Santiago has built more than $900 million worth of highways and bridges in Puerto Rico, as well as commercial and industrial structures. In January 2012, when OFCCP's review began, the company held a federally assisted contract worth more than $10 million with the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority.
 
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, must follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For more information, visit http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

Source: US DOL
 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Checkers Franchise To Pay $100,000 to Settle EEOC Pay Discrimination Lawsuit

Fast Food Restaurant Paid Female Shift Managers and Cashiers / Sandwich Makers Less Than Males for the Same Work, Federal Agency Charged

A fast food restaurant franchise, Market Burgers, LLC, doing business as Checkers in West Philadelphia, will pay $100,000 and furnish significant equitable relief to settle a gender pay discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC charged that Market Burgers paid female shift managers and female cashiers / sandwich makers lower wages than their male counterparts even though they did substantially equal work. According to the lawsuit, Market Burgers also suppressed the wages of female shift managers and cashiers / sandwich makers through discriminatory job assignments, such as scheduling them for fewer hours than their male counterparts.

Such alleged conduct violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Market Burgers, L.L.C., d/b/a Checkers, Civil Action No. 13-cv-4651) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $100,000 in monetary relief to aggrieved current and former female employees, the three-year consent decree settling the lawsuit contains important remedial provisions, including prohibiting Market Burgers from future discrimination on the basis of sex with respect to wages. The restaurant will increase the hourly wages of female cashiers / sandwich makers to match the wage rate it pays to males performing equal work. Market Burgers will provide training on complying with Title VII's and the EPA's prohibition against sex-based wage discrimination with a focus on the legal prohibitions on making discriminatory job assignments based on sex. Market Burgers will also report to the EEOC on its handling of all complaints of wage discrimination based on sex or sex-based discrimination in job assignments, as well as post a remedial notice.

"As this lawsuit demonstrated, discrimination in hourly rates of pay and scheduling can result in substantial lost income for female workers and their families," said District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. of the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office. "This is a significant settlement because it remedies pay discrimination based on gender for lower-wage workers and changes the restaurant's compensation practices to ensure that female employees are paid the same as their male counterparts."

EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, "The EEOC is a member of the White House Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force, and addressing wage discrimination claims is one of our priority issues. We are pleased that Market Burgers worked with us to resolve this case early in the litigation. The settlement compensates class members for their lost wages and contains important equitable relief and training provisions designed to prevent any future wage discrimination."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Newport News Industrial Corporation for Unlawful Retaliation

Company Terminated Employee for Complaining about Gender Discrimination, Federal Agency Charged

Newport News Industrial Corporation violated federal law by firing a female employee after she complained about being subjected to a hostile work environment because of her gender, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today. Newport News Industrial Corporation is headquartered in Newport News, Va., and provides a wide range of services and products to the energy and petrochemical industries, as well as government entities, such as NASA, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense.

According to the EEOC's suit, Newport News Industrial Corporation hired Julia Horton on Sept. 27, 2010 as a planner to assist with a nuclear plant outage at the Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant in Southport, N.C. Around Nov. 15, Horton initially complained about the site superintendent treating her in an aggressive, intimidating, sarcastic and condescending manner because of her gender. The company's vice president/general manager completed an investigation into Horton's complaints on Nov. 30. On Dec. 2, 17 days after her initial complaint, and two days after the company's VP completed his investigation, Horton was fired. The EEOC alleged this was in retaliation for her complaints about gender-based discrimination.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to retaliate against someone who complains about discrimination. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division (EEOC v. Newport News Industrial Corporation, Civil Action No. 7:13-CV-00203-BO) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Horton as well as injunctive relief.

"Employers must understand that employees cannot be forced to make a choice between complaining about what they reasonably believe to be discrimination and retaining their jobs," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District Office. "This lawsuit sends a message that the EEOC will not allow employers to retaliate against employees for exercising their legal right to oppose discrimination in the workplace."

Eliminating policies and practices that discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under employment discrimination statutes, or that impede the EEOC's investigative or enforcement efforts, is one of six national priorities identified by the agency's Strategic Enforcement Plan.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Greenberg Traurig settles discrimination lawsuit

Greenberg Traurig has settled a gender discrimination lawsuit with a female attorney who formerly worked in the firm’s Philadelphia office.

Francine Friedman Griesing, who joined Greenberg in 2007 but now has her own firm, filed the federal suit in New York in early December.

The lawsuit was dismissed on Friday, according to a one-page judge’s order. Dismissal came with prejudice, meaning it can’t be refiled, after the parties indicated they’d reached a settlement.

The firm released a brief emailed statement: “The matter was concluded amicably.”

Griesing had alleged she was damaged in the amount of $1 million, through a pattern of discrimination against female attorneys at the firm.

The lawsuit sought class action status on behalf of all female employees at Greenberg Traurig, but that was never formally approved. If it had been, Griesing and her attorneys estimated their claim would be more than $200 million.

In December, Greenberg Traurig said the suit was without merit and the firm would vigorously defend itself against it.

The firm said Griesing was not fired and resigned on her own. In her lawsuit, however, Griesing said she was terminated for complaining about discrimination, and that the firm stopped assigning her work altogether.

The suit alleged that Michael Lehr, regional operating shareholder in charge of Philadephia, told Griesing at one point that only "tall, male and Jewish’ GT lawyers generate business.”

Greenberg Traurig had also released a statement from one of its highest-ranking women, Hilarie Bass of Miami, who sits on the executive committee. She had called the lawsuit “an affront to the accomplished, talented women of Greenberg Traurig, who, like all of our lawyers, are compensated based on merit.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded in June 2012 that there is (1) “reasonable cause” to support class-wide claims of gender discrimination in compensation; (2) reasonable cause to support claims that women are treated less favorably in the terms and conditions of their employment; and (3) reasonable cause to support an allegation of retaliation. However, the EEOC findings applied only to the Philadelphia office of the firm.

Source: South Florida Buisness Journal

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.