Baird Tree Failed to Pay Overtime Wages to Hispanic Employees

Baird Tree Company, Inc., a tree-trimming service company based in Jacksboro, Tenn., and operating in eastern and middle Tennessee, has agreed to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of 19 Hispanic former employees, the agency announced.

According to the EEOC's suit, Baird Tree violated federal law by maintaining a policy and practice of failing to pay Hispanic employees overtime pay while paying non-Hispanic American workers such wage premiums. The EEOC also charged that the company further violated the law when it threatened to fire employees after they complained about the wage discrimination.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Civil No. 3:13-cv-00570) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville Division, on Sept. 26, 2013 after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In the two-year consent decree entered today by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas A. Varlan, Baird Tree agreed to pay $19,000 in compensatory damages to the claimants for the discrimination. Back pay damages for the claimants' lost overtime wages had previously been settled by the company in separate litigation.

In addition to the award of compensatory damages, the decree enjoins Baird Tree from engaging in future unlawful national origin discrimination and retaliation against any employee. Further, the decree requires the company to provide training on wage discrimination for its senior management officials and regularly submit copies of its overtime payroll records to the EEOC. Finally, Baird Tree agreed to EEOC inspection and copying of records regarding any employee complaints related to national origin, wage discrimination or retaliation during the decree's term.

"The EEOC is committed to eradicating national origin and wage discrimination and protecting vulnerable workers who courageously oppose such unlawful practices," said Faye A. Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC's Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Tennessee, Arkansas and northern Mississippi. "This consent decree ensures that Hispanic employees will receive the same pay for overtime work as all other employees."

Eliminating discriminatory policies affecting vulnerable workers who may be unaware of their rights under equal employment laws or reluctant or unable to exercise them is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP). These policies can include disparate pay, job segregation, harassment and human trafficking.

Source: EEOC

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

Mesa Systems to Pay $450,000 to Settle EEOC National Origin Discrimination Lawsuit

Hispanic Workers Subjected to Slurs, Federal Agency Charged; Company to Rescind Restrictive Language Policy; Settlement Largest Ever for Utah

 

Grand Junction, Colo.-based Mesa Systems, Inc., a moving and storage company, has agreed to pay $450,000 and furnish other relief required by a court-ordered consent decree to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. This is the largest national origin employment discrimination settlement ever achieved by the EEOC in Utah.

"In its Strategic Enforcement Plan, the EEOC made it a priority to protect workers who are the most vulnerable," said EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien. "This settlement is an important demonstration of this renewed commitment."

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Hispanic workers employed at Mesa Systems' Salt Lake City warehouse were subjected to discrimination based on national origin. The immigrant employees were subjected to a hostile work environment in many ways, including racist name calling and slurs, such as "(expletive deleted) Mexicans," "(expletive deleted) you, mojado" [wetback] by the warehouse managers.

The EEOC also alleged that employees of various national origins were subjected to a restrictive language policy that had a disparate impact against Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders. The EEOC further claimed that a number of employees suffered retaliation, including terminations and reductions in hours, after two employee petitions and other complaints were submitted to management about the national origin discrimination. Mesa denied it violated the law.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. Mesa Systems, Inc., 11-cv-01201-RJS-BCW, filed in U.S District Court for the District of Utah, after first attempting to resolve the case informally through its conciliation process. In addition to the historic monetary settlement of $450,000, Mesa Systems has agreed to extensive injunctive relief, including training; revision of policies; the rescission of the restrictive language policy; apologies to the victims of discrimination; anti-discrimination notice posting; reporting to the EEOC; and programs to stop any future violations of Title VII.

"We are very pleased that we were able to work out a strong settlement of this case with Mesa Systems," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "This case is representative of the EEOC's proud history of ensuring that workplaces are free of discrimination based on national origin."

EEOC Phoenix District Director Rayford Irvin said, "Offensive slurs and comments deriding one's national origin violate federal law and are never appropriate in the workplace. Employers need to ensure that this behavior is not allowed."

Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney for the Phoenix District, added, "We are gratified that Mesa Systems resolved this case early in the litigation process. We appreciate that they have agreed to policy changes, training and injunctive relief in order to ensure that their workplace is a more positive work environment."

According to its website, Mesa Systems delivers premium, customized mobility solutions to a diverse corporate, commercial and residential customer base through four transportation subsidiaries operating in six states.

Source: EEOC

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

 

EEOC Sues Wal-Mart Stores East for National Origin and Religious Harassment and Retaliation

Retailing Giant Retaliated Against Employee Who Complained About Pervasive Harassment, Federal Agency Charges

 

The nation's largest retailer violated federal law when it subjected an employee to national origin and religious harassment and retaliated against him when he complained about it, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced.

 

According to the EEOC's suit, Ebrima Jallow, who is Gambian and Muslim, was hired as an asset protection specialist and one year later was promoted to the asset protection coordinator position at the Walmart store in Landover Hills, Md. The EEOC charges that Jallow's supervisor, the store manager, subjected Jallow to frequent and severe harassment based on his national origin. The manager's remarks including suggesting that people of Jallow's national origin contributed to the enslavement of Africans in America, telling Jallow that he should "go back to Africa," and mocking his accent. The manager regularly subjected Jallow to religious harassment, including telling Jallow and others that "all Muslims do is blow up buildings and people," and objecting to the hiring of a Muslim employee. The national origin and religious harassment was pervasive and took place during staff and private meetings and during discussions about Jallow's work responsibilities, the EEOC says in its lawsuit. 
 
The EEOC also charges that after Jallow complained about the harassment of himself and other employees, the store manager unlawfully retaliated against him, including threatening him with termination, placing him on a one-year "coaching period" and telling other employees not to cooperate with Jallow in the performance of his asset protection coordinator job duties. 
 
Such conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits harassment based on national origin or religion. Title VII also forbids employers from  retaliating against employees who oppose harassment or discrimination. 
 
The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-02655) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. In its lawsuit, the EEOC seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Wal-Mart from engaging in national origin and religion harassment or retaliation, as well as compensatory and punitive damages for Jallow, and other affirmative relief.

"The EEOC will take action when store managers abuse their authority by engaging in national origin and religious harassment," said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. 
 
Philadelphia District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. added, "No employee should be subjected to the indignity of being harassed repeatedly based on his national origin and religion. It is intolerable and unlawful."

According to its website, www.walmart.com, Wal-Mart operates 10,900 stores in 27 countries, employs 2.2 million associates worldwide and had fiscal year 2013 sales of approximately $466 billion.

Source: EEOC

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

EEOC Sues Rizza Cadillac of Tinley Park, Citing Harassment of Arab and Muslim Sales Staff

Rizza Cadillac, Inc. of Tinley Park, Ill., a suburb south of Chicago, violated federal law by encouraging a work environment which was hostile and offensive to Muslim and Arab sales staff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed.
 
According to the EEOC's suit, Rizza Cadillac managers fostered the discriminatory work environment using offensive slurs, such as "terrorist," "sand n----r," and "Hezbollah," and making mocking and insulting references to the Qur'an and the manner in which Muslims pray. 
 
John Rowe, director of the EEOC's Chicago District Office, managed the administrative investigation which preceded EEOC's lawsuit.

"Our investigation revealed that Rizza Cadillac failed to take prompt and effective measures to stop and prevent this abusive misconduct, as they were required to do by federal law," said Rowe. "Employees should be judged by their performance, not their religion or ethnicity."

Harassment based on national origin or religion violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 1:13-cv-06696) this morning in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case was assigned to District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland. It seeks monetary relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, an order requiring the dealership to implement measures to prevent a recurrence of harassment, and a permanent injunction against future discrimination.

"Employers may not allow managers to repeatedly make offensive slurs and insults about an employee's religion or national origin," said John C. Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago. "Comments implying that all Muslims are terrorists cannot be excused or minimized by calling it mere 'banter' about a minority ethnicity or religion. The EEOC stands ready to protect Muslim and Arab workers when they are subjected to such harassment."

Source: EEOC

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

EEOC Sues Dart Energy and J&R Well Services for Race / National Origin Discrimination, Retaliation

Workers Fired for Protesting Hostile Environment, Federal Agency Charged

 

A Michigan-based energy company and its Wyoming subsidiary violated federal law against race and national origin harassment and retaliation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed yesterday. The EEOC charged that Dart Energy Corp., headquartered in Mason, Mich., and its subsidiary J&R Well Services, LLC, which operates an oil and gas well service business in Wyoming, created a hostile work environment for a group of black, Hispanic and Native American employees. Further, the EEOC said, the companies fired some of these employees because of their race/national origin and/or because they complained about the discrimination.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, an area manager and a truck supervisor at the Edgerton, Wyo., location used racist and ethnic slurs and made offensive racial and ethnic comments to black, Hispanic and Native American workers. The EEOC also alleged that minority workers were disciplined more harshly than their white counterparts and that black, Hispanic and Native American workers were given unfavorable job assignments. Employees who dared to complain internally were allegedly told to do their jobs and quit complaining. Within weeks of filing discrimination charges, several employees were disciplined, demoted, laid off, or terminated, the EEOC said.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp. et al., Case No. 13-cv-00198-NDF) in U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit seeks monetary damages, including back pay, compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages. The EEOC also seeks injunctive relief prohibiting further discrimination by the employer and mandating corrective action.

"The EEOC is committed to enforcing our nation's laws preventing race and national origin discrimination in employment," said EEOC Phoenix Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill, whose jurisdiction includes Wyoming. "When a company retaliates against discrimination victims for complaining, it is only compounding the problem, and this agency is not afraid to take a company to court to rectify it."

EEOC Denver Field Office Director Nancy Sienko added, "Retaliation in particular is a priority for the EEOC under the agency's Strategic Enforcement Plan. As a law enforcement agency, we cannot fulfill our mission unless employees are free to file discrimination charges and complain about harassment without fear of losing their jobs."

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 EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

The Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Labor Standards partnered with the EEOC by taking the charges and beginning the investigation, which was then completed by the EEOC. The EEOC partners with state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs), such as the Wyoming FEPA, in order to enforce employment discrimination laws.

Source: EEOC

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

EEOC Sues Mountaire Farms for Retaliation

Poultry Processing Company Fired Employee for Complaining About National Origin Discrimination, Federal Agency Charges

 

Mountaire Farms, Inc., doing business as Mountaire Farms of North Carolina Corp., unlawfully fired an employee in retaliation for his complaining about national origin discrimination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged in a lawsuit filed today. Mountaire Farms is a Delaware-based agricultural food processing company that operates a poultry processing facility in Lumber Bridge, N.C.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Frantz Morette began working as a translator for a group of Haitian workers at Mountaire Farms' Lumber Bridge facility in December 2010. From early in his employment with the company, Morette complained to his supervisors and the human resources department that the Haitian workers were being treated poorly by Mountaire Farms' supervisors as compared to their non-Haitian coworkers. Morette told company management that supervisors often refused to allow the Haitian workers to take bathroom breaks while allowing non-Haitian workers to do so and refused to provide the Haitian workers with the training necessary for the higher-paying jobs at the facility. Morette also said that the Haitian workers were often harassed by their non-Haitian supervisors and coworkers by having chickens and chicken parts thrown at them.

Sometime around Sept. 1, 2011, Morette notified one of the company's managers that a supervisor was refusing to allow a Haitian worker to take a restroom break while allowing other non-Haitian workers to do so. A few days later, Morette was fired, the EEOC said, in retaliation for his complaints.
  
Retaliation for complaining about employment discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division (EEOC v. Mountaire Farms, Inc. d/b/a Mountaire Farms of North Carolina Corp., Civil Action No. 7:13-cv-00182) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

"Employees should be confident that they can make their employers aware of violations of federal anti-discrimination laws without fear of reprisal," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District Office. "The anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII are essential to the attainment of a workplace free of discrimination."

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 EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan.

Source: EEOC

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

 

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the Reading, Pa. Parking Authority for National Origin Discrimination and Retaliation

The Justice Department announced the filing of a lawsuit against the Reading Parking Authority in the city of Reading, Pa., alleging that the Reading Parking Authority discriminated against former employee Henry Perez, as well as other current and former employees, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting them to harassment based upon their national origin. According to the complaint, after Perez complained about the harassment, he was subjected to retaliation, also in violation of Title VII. Title VII is a federal statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex and religion and prohibits retaliation against an employee who opposes an unlawful employment practice or because the employee has made a charge or participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under the Act.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that these employees were subjected to pervasive ethnic slurs, offensive comments and threats of physical harm by their co-workers and supervisors beginning as early as 2007 and continuing over a period of years. The complaint further alleges that, despite timely complaints about the harassment by the workers to their supervisors, the Reading Parking Authority failed to take meaningful steps to stop the harassment, prevent further harassment or discipline the harassers but, instead, disciplined Perez because his complaints of discrimination were offensive to his co-workers. Through this lawsuit, the United States seeks declarative and injunctive relief requiring the Reading Parking Authority to develop and implement policies that prevent its employees from being subjected to harassment based upon national origin and retaliation, as well as monetary damages for the victims of the employer’s discriminatory actions.

“No one should have to endure unlawful harassment due to their national origin or retaliation for speaking out against such discrimination,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “Through our partnership with the EEOC, the Civil Rights Division continues to vigorously enforce the nation’s laws barring discrimination in employment and to work to realize the promise of equal employment opportunity.”

Perez filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), whose Philadelphia District Office investigated the matter, determined there was reasonable cause to believe that discrimination and retaliation had occurred, and referred the matter to the Department of Justice.

“The EEOC is committed to ensuring that employees are not subjected to unlawful discrimination and harassment based on their national origin. Employers must stop cruel and humiliating victimization of vulnerable employees when it is brought to their attention, instead of taking adverse action against them," said EEOC District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr., of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office. “Our close collaboration with the Department of Justice is vital to ensuring that workplaces are free from bias.”

The continued enforcement of Title VII has been a priority of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Additional information about the work of Civil Rights Division is available on its website at www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/index.html.

 

Source: DOJ

 

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

EEOC Race / National Origin Discrimination Lawsuit Settled

Source: U.S. EEOC

Hamilton Growers, Inc., doing business as Southern Valley Fruit and Vegetable, Inc., an agricultural farm in Norman Park, Ga., has agreed to pay $500,000 to a class of American seasonal workers.   

The EEOC's suit had charged that the company unlawfully engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against American workers by firing virtually all American workers while retaining workers from Mexico during the 2009, 2010 and 2011 growing seasons. The agency also alleged that Hamilton Growers fired at least 16 African-American workers in 2009 based on race and/or national origin as their termination was coupled with race-based comments by a management official. Additionally, the lawsuit charged that Hamilton Growers provided lesser job opportunities to American workers by assigning them to pick vegetables in fields which had already been picked by foreign workers, which resulted in Americans earning less pay than their Mexican counterparts.

The EEOC also alleged that American workers were regularly subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, including delayed starting times and early stop times, or denied the opportunity to work at all, while Mexican workers were allowed to continue working. The settlement provides monetary relief to 19 persons who filed charges with the agency and other American workers harmed by the practices.

To read more, click here.

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

EEOC National Origin Discrimination Suit Settled

Source: EEOC

PBM Graphics, Inc., a Research Triangle Park, N.C., printing company, will pay $334,000 to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that PBM violated federal law by refusing to place and/or assign non-Hispanic workers to its "core group" of regular temporary workers.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, PBM routinely used temporary workers for its production needs. The EEOC's com­plaint charged that PBM engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimin­ation against non-Hispanic temporary workers who worked in its light bindery production jobs.  

The suit further charged that PBM assigned a disproportionately greater number of work hours to Hispanic temporary workers than to similarly qualified non-Latino temporary workers, thereby denying non-Hispanic temporary workers hours of work based on their non-Hispanic national origin. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  

For more on this article, Click here.

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