Stack Bros. Mechanical Contractors Sued for Age Discrimination and Retaliation

Company Fired Employees When They Turned 62 and Punished One for Resisting, Federal Agency Charges

Stack Bros. Mechanical Contractors, Inc., of Superior, Wis., a major heating and plumbing contractor in northern Wisconsin and northern Minnesota, violated federal law by firing two employees when they reached age 62 and by retaliating against one of those employees for resisting the company's plan to discriminate against her, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed.

According to Julianne Bowman, acting director of the EEOC's Chicago District, which includes Wisconsin, the agency's investigation revealed that Stack Bros. discriminated against Randy Virta and Karen Kolodzeske by firing them when they turned 62 in February and September 2014, respectively. Stack Bros. also retaliated against Kolodzeske for resisting its plans to fire her, the EEOC said.

Bowman said the EEOC found that both Virta and Kolodzeske repeatedly warned Stack Bros.' owner that his plan to fire them when they turned 62 was illegal, but the owner refused to relent and, after firing Virta, retaliated against Kolodzeske for her complaints, first by denying her a raise and then by demoting her and cutting her hours and pay while waiting for her to turn 62. Virta and Kolodzeske had worked for Stack Bros. for 16 and 25 years, respectively.

Stack Bros.' alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits employers from taking adverse actions against employees and job applicants on the basis of age. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay, reinstatement, front pay and liquidated damages for Virta and Kolodzeske, an order barring future discrimination and retaliation, and other relief. The suit, captioned EEOC v. Stack Bros. Mechanical Contractors, Inc., (Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-00060), was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in Madison and assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker.

"The conduct in this case was utterly unacceptable," Bowman said. "The experience, expertise and wisdom of older workers are essential to our nation's ability to compete in the global economy and the ability of those workers to continue to be employed without discrimination is critical to their economic well-being and quality of life. When age discrimination invades the workplace, everybody loses. "

EEOC Trial Attorney Dennis R. McBride, who will litigate the case on the agency's behalf, said, "If we looked the other way while Stack Bros. fired Mr. Virta and Ms. Kolodzeske merely for turning 62, it would signal that we're not serious about enforcing federal laws against age discrimination - and that is certainly not the case. The EEOC will continue to vigorously enforce the ADEA, and we'll continue to challenge employers who retaliate against workers who exercise their statutory right to complain about mistreatment."

EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson said, "Employers often speak about how valuable loyalty in the workplace is. But it's a two-way street. Employees who have been at their jobs for 15 or 25 years -- like those in this case -- are entitled to expect that their employers will not put them on the street because of their age and in defiance of federal law. When Stack Bros. fired Mr. Virta and Ms. Kolodzeske because of their age, it ruptured the band of loyalty and damaged its own business. The EEOC is here to make matters right."

According to its website, Stack Bros. is a privately held corporation and is a major heating and plumbing contractor in the Upper Midwest. Another website lists the company's annual revenue as $5 to $10 million.

Source: EEOC

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

Oregon developer makes retaliatory threats against employees

A federal court has ordered local developer David Emami and three of his affiliated companies to pay 33 Portland-area employees $512,290 in unpaid wages and liquidated damages. The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon agreed with a U.S. Department of Labor investigation that found that Emami and companies Oak Grove Cinemas Inc., Barrington Management LLC and Barrington Venture LLC willfully violated the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court also held that Emami violated the anti-retaliation protections of the FLSA by threatening employees who cooperated with the department’s investigation.

“Those who flagrantly disregard basic wage obligations and then try to cover up those actions should think twice before threatening workers when they simply exercise their right to be paid fairly, as the law requires,” said Janet Herold, the department’s regional solicitor in San Francisco. “This judgment makes clear that we will not allow employers to violate the law and then try to bully their way out of trouble.”

The department concluded that those Emami employed as general maintenance, landscaping and construction workers at commercial properties he owned or maintained had two time cards for most pay periods. On one time card, an employee recorded their morning start time and a midafternoon end time. The employees immediately clocked in on a second time card to record the remainder of a day’s work hours. The workers’ duties and rates of pay remained the same each day at each work location.

Workers typically received two paychecks each time they were paid—one from Emami’s Oak Grove Cinemas and another from Barrington Management or Barrington Venture. The employer claimed that the employees were independent contractors during the hours they spent working for the Barrington companies. The combined paychecks covered all of the employees’ hours, including those over 40 per week, paid at straight time. The department found, and the court agreed, that Emami’s “scheme” was deliberately concocted to avoid paying his employees overtime.

“This employer found out the hard way how serious we are about stopping an employer’s attempts to profit by willfully violating the wage laws and employment rights that protect the most vulnerable members of the workforce and level the playing field for other law-abiding employers,” said Ruben Rosalez, the Wage and Hour Division’s regional administrator in the West.

The court also found that Emami violated the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA by threatening to retaliate against employees for cooperating with the department’s investigation or becoming a witness for the government. Threats of retaliation included intimidation and threats of physical force against cooperating employees.

Source: DOL

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

Jury Awards $499,000 Against EmCare in EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Case

Physician Outsourcing Group Fired Employees for Reporting Sexually Charged Environment, Jury Found

 

A Dallas federal court jury, on Friday, October 24, 2014, returned a verdict awarding almost half a million dollars to three former employees in a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against EmCare, a provider of physician services, the federal agency announced.

The jury of two women and four men awarded former Executive Assistant Gloria Stokes $250,000 in punitive damages based on the claim that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor, the division CEO, Jim McKinney. Stokes, who filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, also individually intervened in the Commission's lawsuit and was personally represented by Laura Hallmon of Fielding, Parker & Hallmon LLP. The case was tried before U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis.

The EEOC also sought relief for Bonnie Shaw, an EmCare credentialer, and Luke Trahan, a recruiter, based on retaliatory discharge. The jury awarded Shaw and Trahan $82,000 and $167,000, respectively, to compensate them for lost wages and benefits as a result of having been fired for reporting and opposing a sexually hostile work environment within the AnesthesiaCare Division of EmCare.

The jury verdict followed five days of trial, including the presentation of evidence by the EEOC about constant lewd sexual comments and behavior of former AnesthesiaCare CEO Jim McKinney, as well as several other management-level employees in that Division. Stokes, Shaw and Trahan all testified about the lack of an appropriate response by Human Resources to their complaints about the misconduct. Shaw and Trahan testified about jointly reporting to human resources that McKinney made an inappropriate remark to Shaw's then-15-year-old daughter at a "Bring Your Child to Work Day" event. Shaw and Trahan were both fired, within an hour of each other, just six weeks later for reasons the company alleged were performance issues.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-02017-P) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

"Ms. Stokes, Ms. Shaw, and Mr. Trahan spent their time at EmCare working diligently to do their jobs well despite the pervasive sexual environment that human resources allowed Jim McKinney to create and perpetuate," said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Meaghan Shepard. "Their complaints were ignored, and instead of getting support from HR, Ms. Shaw and Mr. Trahan were fired for daring to speak out against the division CEO. By today's verdict, it is clear that all three have finally been heard."

EEOC General Counsel David Lopez added, "The EEOC stands ready to take cases to the people through the courthouse, and to shine light on these stories of discrimination and retaliation whenever early administrative resolutions cannot be reached. It is particularly important for us to act to protect employees who have risked their jobs simply because they have stepped up to challenge discrimination in the workplace."

Janet Elizondo, director of the EEOC's Dallas District Office, said, "I am very pleased with the excellent work of our investigative staff in preparing the case that led to this great result. Retired EEOC Investigator Norma Warner returned to provide rebuttal testimony that I'm sure was critical in helping this jury reach its decision."

EmCare has more than 750 practices serving nearly 600 hospitals, hospital systems and other healthcare facilities nationwide.

Source: EEOC

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

DOL obtains an order against Atlanta’s Antico Foods LLC to stop retaliation against workers during investigation

Restaurant owner terminated and threatened employees
 
The U.S. Department of Labor filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and obtained a consent order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia enjoining Atlanta business Antico Foods LLC and its owner from intimidating and retaliating against any of their employees who are cooperating in a federal investigation.
 
The department’s Wage and Hour Division began an investigation of Antico Foods in July 2014 to determine if the business complied with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Soon after the investigation began, Antico Foods’ employees reported to investigators that company owner Giovanni DiPalma accused a worker of cooperating with Wage and Hour and terminated the employee. Furthermore, DiPalma instructed employees to hide from investigators and to provide false information to investigators about their work hours and the identity of their employer. DiPalma also reportedly threatened the employees with termination of employment.
 
“Employers must understand that employees have the legal right to be safe in the workplace, free from retaliation and intimidation, and must be able to speak with Wage and Hour representatives when they are not being paid correctly or when the employer engages in discriminatory action,” said Eric Williams, the Wage and Hour Division’s Atlanta district director.
 
“Seeking such an order protecting employees was absolutely necessary in this case,” said Stanley E. Keen, the department’s regional solicitor of labor for the southeast. “The department will not tolerate worker intimidation, such as that alleged here.”
 
The consent order prohibits Antico Foods and DiPalma from terminating employment; retaliating or discriminating against employees they believe have spoken with or will speak to Wage and Hour Division investigators; instructing employees to not speak with or to provide false information to investigators; and obstructing the investigation.
 
The order also requires the defendants to allow a department representative to provide employees with an oral and written statement about their right to speak with investigators without fear of retaliation.

Antico Foods is comprised of five adjoining Atlanta businesses: Gio’s Chicken Amalfitano; Antico’s Pizza Napoletana; Bottega Luisa; Caffe Gio; and Bar Amalfi.

The investigation is being conducted by the Wage and Hour Division’s Atlanta District Office and litigated by the department’s Regional Office of the Solicitor in Atlanta.

The FLSA requires that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates of pay, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers are required to maintain accurate time and payroll records.

Source: DOL

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

Wal-Mart Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit

Intellectually Disabled Employee at Retail Giant's Akron Store Was Sexually Harassed and Then Fired for Complaining, Federal Agency Charged

Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., part of the nation's largest retail chain, has agreed to pay $363,419 and commit to significant injunctive relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

According to the EEOC's suit, Wal-Mart violated federal law by allowing a co-worker to sexually harass Jamie Wells, an intellectually disabled employee at Walmart store #1911 in Akron, Ohio. The EEOC alleged that this harassment continued for several years, despite the knowledge of several members of store management. The store fired Wells shortly after she made a formal complaint about the harassment to management.

Sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and retaliation against persons who oppose discrimination, violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit on April 10, 2013 (No. 5:13-cv-795-SL) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

As part of the consent decree settling the suit, Wal-Mart will pay $363,419 to settle Wells' case. This amount constitutes full back pay and $295,000 in compensatory damages, which nearly approaches the $300,000 cap on such damages imposed by the 1991 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the settlement requires Wal-Mart to provide sexual harassment training to managers at store #1911 and to human resources managers responsible for that store. The training will include instruction on how to prevent the sexual harassment of intellectually disabled employees, including by working with job coaches and vocational counselors who interact with Wal-Mart on behalf of such employees. Also as part of the settlement, the company must post a notice in the workplace explaining employee rights and employer obligations under Title VII, and it must submit reports to the EEOC during regular intervals throughout the decree's three-year duration.

"The EEOC has long played a leadership role in ensuring that civil rights laws have force to protect those often most vulnerable to discrimination," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "The injunction and strong training requirements of the agreement highlight the EEOC's critical law enforcement mission to ensure that the harassment does not recur."

Debra Lawrence, regional attorney for the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and portions of New Jersey and Ohio, said, "The EEOC guidelines and Supreme Court rulings make it crystal-clear that employers must be accountable for failure to take prompt and appropriate action to stop harassment and for punishing employees who complain about harassment. Ms. Wells was a loyal employee who had worked at Wal-Mart for 11 years, but her developmental disability made her vulnerable to predatory sexual behavior. The EEOC is here to protect the rights of people like her, and we are pleased that Wal-Mart has come forward, at an early stage, to resolve this matter without the need for further litigation."

EEOC District Director Spencer Lewis added, "In addition to providing a substantial amount of monetary relief to the victim, the settlement puts mechanisms in place to help prevent this type of discrimination in the future. By monitoring the employer for the next three years, the EEOC will be in a position to act quickly should discrimination or retaliation recur at this workplace."
Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., of Bentonville, Ark., operates Wal-Mart's retail stores in the Eastern United States.

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).

Source: EEOC

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

DOL investigating wage violations at McAllen TX produce distributor

The U.S. Department of Labor has filed an action in the U.S. District Court in McAllen seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to protect workers from retaliation and threats of retaliation from some ISPE Produce Inc. officials.
 
The department’s Wage and Hour Division is currently investigating ISPE Produce under the minimum wage, overtime, record-keeping and anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

“Employee intimidation and coercion will not be tolerated. Employers are prohibited from retaliating against any employee who files a complaint or cooperates in a Wage and Hour investigation,” said Cynthia Watson, regional administrator for the Wage and Hour Division in the Southwest. “We will leverage any resources necessary to ensure that a fair investigation is conducted and workers are protected.”

During the investigation, the employer required workers to leave the job site when Wage and Hour investigators arrived to conduct interviews. Company officials threatened workers with termination of employment and deportation for cooperating with the department. The temporary restraining order asks the court to enjoin the owner and two company officials from continuing threatening and retaliatory conduct aimed at employees who cooperate in the Wage and Hour investigation.

The department also seeks an order requiring the owner or a department employee to read aloud a statement to all employees informing them of their right to speak with Wage and Hour investigators without fear of retaliation; to post a copy of the statement at all ISPE Produce work sites; and to prohibit the owner and named officials from speaking directly to employees about the Wage and Hour investigation.

Source: DOL

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

 

Olympia Construction to Pay Racial Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit

Federal Agency Says Black Employees Were Racially Harassed by Project Superintendent And Fired for Complaining

Olympia Construction, Inc. will pay a total of $100,000 jointly to three former employees to resolve a race harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC's lawsuit charged that Olympia subjected Adrian Soles, Anthony Moorer and George McWilliams to racial slurs and intimidation. The agency also said that Olympia terminated the victims because they complained to the EEOC.
Race discrimination and retaliation for opposing or reporting it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Selma Division (Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-155-N) after the agency first attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

U.S. District Judge Kristi K. Dubose of the Southern District of Alabama approved the consent decree on Feb. 27 ending the suit, which had been filed in March 2013. In addition to payment of the settlement amount, Olympia is required to take steps to prevent future harassment or retaliation, including ongoing training for all employees and management, reporting any complaints and the company's responses to the EEOC and posting a notice for all its employees about the settlement as well as contact information for reporting harassment, discrimination or retaliation.

"Our hope is that this case will serve as prevention for years to come and a reminder that discrimination is illegal and has no place in the 21st century workplace," said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Marsha Rucker.

Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director of the agency's Birmingham District Office, added, "The settlement is significant not only for the monetary relief obtained for the victims, but also for the extensive training of Olympia's workforce and policy changes that will take place as a result of the EEOC's action."

Olympia Construction, headquartered in Albertville, Ala., develops and builds housing for families and senior citizens in eight states throughout the South and Southeastern United States.

Source: EEOC

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

Sparks Restaurant to Pay $56,000 and Provide Injunctive Relief

Menomonie, Wis., Restaurant Retaliated Against Employee for Complaints About Racially Offensive Drawings, Judge Ruled Following Jury's Findings

 

A federal district court has ruled that Sparx Restaurant of Menomonie, Wis., must pay back pay and interest to a former employee who was fired in retaliation for complaining about a racist display in the workplace, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced. Added to damages already awarded by the jury in the case, the EEOC will have recovered an aggregate of more than $56,000 for the former employee. The court also enjoined Sparx from engaging in similar conduct and required training of Sparx's owner, Chris Brekken, and other managers.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC had charged that Sparx fired Dion Miller because he complained about an offensive display in the restaurant, which included a dollar bill with a noose around George Washington's neck, and drawings of a man on horseback and a hooded figure with "KKK" written on his hood. Miller, who was a cook in the restaurant, was fired three weeks after he complained about the figure.

Following the EEOC initiating this action, Sparx Restaurant (which was incorporated as Northern Star Hospitality) closed, and subsequently, a Denny's franchise, which was incorporated as North Broadway Holdings, began operating in the same space. The EEOC amended its suit to allege that the action was against Northern Star Hospitality, North Broadway Holdings, Inc., and Northern Star Properties, LLC (which owned the property in which the restaurants operated), which were a single employer for purposes of liability and relief in this case. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court ruled for the EEOC on this issue.

A jury found in September 2013 that the defendants fired Miller in retaliation for his complaint, and that his firing had been done with malice or reckless disregard of his federally protected rights. The jury awarded Miller $15,000 in damages for emotional distress.

In an order dated Jan. 27, 2014, Judge Barbara B. Crabb rejected the defendants' motion to set aside the verdict, and awarded back pay and interest of more than $41,000. Under the court's order, the back pay and interest will be increased by 15 percent to account for increased tax liability to Miller by receiving his wage loss in a lump sum. The court also entered a three-year injunction, enjoining the defendants from: discharging employees in retaliation for complaints about racially offensive postings in their workplace; failing to adopt policies that explicitly prohibit actions made unlawful under Title VII; failing to adopt an investigative process with regard to discrimination claims; and failing to provide annual training regarding Title VII to Chris Brekken, who owns all interests in the three corporate defendants, and other managers.

"Anti-discrimination efforts would come to a standstill if employees weren't allowed to freely complain about racist and discriminatory conduct. Blatantly racist drawings in the workplace are patently offensive and give employees good cause to complain," said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC's Chicago district. "Employers who punish employees who do complain are following a self-destructive scenario and ought not to be surprised when the EEOC shows up."

Source: EEOC

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

Wal-Mart to Pay $87,500 to Settle EEOC Suit for Unlawful Retaliation

Federal Agency Charged Two Adult Children Were Unlawfully Rejected for Jobs Because of Mother's Prior Sex Discrimination Complaint

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., L.P., doing business as Walmart stores in Albuquerque, will pay $87,500 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit for retaliation filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC's lawsuit charged that Walmart Store #835 on Eubank in Northeast Albuquerque refused to hire Ramona Bradford's adult son and daughter for entry-level positions because Ms. Bradford had filed a sex discrimination charge against Wal-Mart with the EEOC.

Retaliation against an employee because of her opposition to discrimination and/or participation in protected activity, such as filing a discrimination charge, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC also alleged that Ramona Bradford was a victim of retaliation because her two adult children were being denied employment because of her complaints about discrimination and her charge filing.

The EEOC filed suit in March 2007, EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., 07-cv-00300 JAP/WPL, in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary relief for the Bradfords, the consent decree settling the suit provides for other important relief, including an injunction prohibiting retaliatory practices; training for managerial employees on retaliation; and the posting of a notice advising employees of their rights under Title VII.

"This case involved an interesting and instructive fact pattern -- retaliation against family members because their mother had filed a discrimination charge," said Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office. "The United States Supreme Court in Thompson v. North American Stainless held that employers cannot take adverse actions against employees or their relatives or others close to them because the applicant or employee did the right thing and complained of unlawful conduct in the workplace."

EEOC Albuquerque Area Director Derick Newton said, "Retaliation continues to be a high priority for the EEOC - it always was, and under our national Strategic Enforcement Plan, preserving access to the legal system is especially emphasized. We now receive more retaliation charges than any other kind of discrimination charges -- over 42 percent of our charges contain retaliation allegations. We are pleased that this case could be resolved for the Bradfords and mandates that Wal-Mart train its managers about retaliation."

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).

Source:  EEOC

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

Bright Petroleum Inc. Sued by EEOC for Retaliation

Food Market Terminated Manager Who Filed Discrimination Charge, Federal Agency Charges

Bright Petroleum Inc. d/b/a The Bright Market violated federal law by retaliating against a manager who filed and refused to drop a discrimination charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency charged in a lawsuit it filed yesterday. The Bright Market is a food market and gas station located in Lawrenceburg, Ind.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, The Bright Market retaliated against Deli Manager Michelle Bunte by singling her out for heightened scrutiny after learning that she had filed an EEOC charge and would not drop her charge. The company then disciplined and terminated her.

Taking adverse actions against an employee who complains of discrimination, files an EEOC charge or otherwise exercises her rights under Title VII violates the retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The prohibition against retaliation applies regardless of the outcome of the underlying charge. The EEOC asserts that the company's actions were intentional and demonstrated a reckless indifference to the worker's federally protected rights.

The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 4:13-cv-00205) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency is seeking back wages plus interest and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief, including a permanent injunction to prevent the company from engaging in any future retaliation.

"Employers are simply not entitled to punish employees -- or former employees -- for complaining about discrimination" said Laurie A. Young, regional attorney for the EEOC's Indianapolis District Office. "If they try to do so, they are only making a bad situation worse for themselves."

Source: EEOC

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

EEOC Sues Guardsmark for Retaliation

Security Guard Fired for Opposing Sexual Harassment, Federal Agency Charged

 

Security giant Guardsmark retaliated against a security guard who opposed a sexually hostile work environment by firing him, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in a lawsuit filed.

The lawsuit alleges that Guardsmark terminated Christopher Smith in retaliation for his role in a woman's sexual harassment complaint. According to the lawsuit, another security guard used security cameras to zoom in on women's private parts. Smith told the security guard to stop, but the guard continued to engage in the behavior. Smith told a woman about the guard's actions, and the woman filed a sexual harassment complaint with the contractor for whom she worked. Guardsmark responded by firing Smith.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Guardsmark, Case No. 2:13cv15229), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan), after first attempting to settle the case through its conciliation process. The agency seeks to recover monetary compensation for Smith, including back pay and compensatory damages for emotional distress, as well as punitive damages.

"Title VII protects employees from being retaliated against for opposing sexual harassment even if they complain to someone else, like a co-worker or client," explained Nedra Campbell, trial attorney for the EEOC. "Employees like Smith who oppose the illegal acts of a co-worker should be commended, not fired."
Guardsmark provides security services to companies throughout the world. According to its website, www.guardsmark.com, Guardsmark, LLC, is one of the largest security firms in the world with over 19,000 employees and offices in more than 400 cities.

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.

EEOC Sues Upper Chesapeake Health System for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation

Health Care System Fired a Pulmonary Function Technologist After She Requested an Accommodation and Filed a Discrimination Charge, Federal Agency Charges

Upper Chesapeake Health System, a leading health care provider in northeastern Maryland, committed unlawful disability discrimination and retaliation against an employee, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today. The EEOC charged that the health system failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, fired, and later refused to rehire a pulmonary function technologist because of her disability and in retaliation for her requesting an accommodation and complaining about discrimination.

Deborah Ropiski worked for Upper Chesapeake Health System at the health care system's Upper Chesapeake Medical Center in Bel Air, Md. During her nearly 19 years of employment with Upper Chesapeake Health System, Ropiski consistently received positive performance evaluations and positive patient feedback. Ropiski suffers from Usher's Syndrome, a genetic disorder that impairs hearing and vision. The EEOC charges that Upper Chesapeake Health System removed Ropiski from her pulmonary function technologist position due to its perception that her disability interfered with the safe performance of her job, and then terminated her instead of transferring her to a suitable vacant position as a reasonable accommodation.

The EEOC further said that the health care system later failed to rehire Ropiski into a vacant position for which she was qualified because of her disability and because she had filed charges with the EEOC.

The health system's actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the EEOC charged. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Upper Chesapeake Health System, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-02846-ELH) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Upper Chesapeake Health System from future discriminating based on disability, equitable relief that provides equal employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities, and lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages and other affirmative relief for Ropiski.

"Unfortunately, this case demonstrates that 23 years after the passage of the ADA, some employers still do not understand their obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability," said EEOC District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. "Employers must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would be an undue hardship, and must not penalize employees who exercise their rights under the ADA."

EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, "Upper Chesapeake Health System had an obligation to reassign Ms. Ropiski into a vacant position absent undue hardship. Instead, it chose to violate the ADA by firing a qualified longstanding employee and by retaliating against her. That is why the EEOC filed this lawsuit."

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 Izza Bending Tube & Wire for Retaliation over Race Bias Complaint

Agency Says Buffalo, Minn., Company Manager Told to Get Rid of Worker Because of Race

A Buffalo, Minn., metal services company violated federal law by demoting and then firing a production manager for refusing to discriminate against an African-American employee because of his race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed.

According to the EEOC's suit against Izza Bending Tube & Wire, Inc., in August 2011, Myrna Peltonen recommended to Scott Landgraf, Izza's manager, that the firm offer permanent employment to Randall Smith, a temporary employee who had worked for the company successfully for 500 hours. Landgraf allegedly instructed her not to hire Smith, using derogatory racist language, and directed her to get rid of him. When she refused to do so, she was demoted to an office position and her salary was cut. After she filed a discrimination charge with EEOC, she was laid off and then terminated.

Retaliation for opposing employment discrimination or for filing a charge with the EEOC violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Izza Bending Tube & Wire, Inc., Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-02570, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

John Rowe, director of the EEOC's Chicago District, which includes Minnesota, said, "Federal law protects individuals who oppose on-the-job practices they reasonably believe are unlawful as well as those who file charges with EEOC. Challenging retaliatory discharges helps to make sure the system which the law provides for dealing with discrimination not only survives but actually works."
John Hendrickson, the EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, said, "Retaliation charges continue to be among the most common kind received by the EEOC. They pose a continuing challenge for us -- and one we are absolutely determined to meet." 
 
In this case, the EEOC is seeking injunctive relief that will require Izza to adopt an effective anti-retaliation policy that complies with federal law and will seek back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for Peltonen.

The EEOC's legal team in Minneapolis Area Office will conduct the litigation under the management of the agency's Chicago District Office. That office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

Izza specializes in metal manufacturing and fabrication services, including metal pipe bending and cutting.

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.

EEOC Sues Midway Neurological & Rehabilitation Center for Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation

Federal Agency Charged Center Cut Hours of Pregnant Social Worker, Then Fired Her for Complaining

 

In a lawsuit filed today in federal court, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged that Midway Neurological & Rehabilitation Center LLC, based in Bridgeview, Ill., violated federal law by discriminating against a pregnant social worker, first by cutting her hours because of her pregnancy, and then by firing her in retaliation for her filing a charge with EEOC.

 

Prior to filing the lawsuit, the agency conducted an administrative investigation, managed by EEOC District Director John P. Rowe. According to Rowe, Midway Neurological, after learning that one of its social workers was pregnant, allegedly first cut her hours and then, while she was out on maternity leave and after she filed an EEOC charge, fired her from her job.

"Our investigation showed that this company saw this employee as one who could be singled out for unfavorable treatment because she was pregnant," said Rowe. "This clearly violates federal law." 
 
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. Midway Neurological & Rehab Center (Civil Action No. 13 C 6542), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feinerman and Magistrate Judge Michael T. Mason. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the former employee and an order barring future discrimination and other relief. 
 
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney for its Chicago District Office said, "Long gone are the days when employers could target pregnant women for pay cuts because they were 'going to be out on leave anyway.' That's sex discrimination, and it's prohibited. Further, employers who fire workers in retaliation for filing EEOC charges only compound their culpability - and their troubles -- ending up with an EEOC lawsuit alleging not only sex discrimination but retaliation as well."

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.

Help at Home, Inc. to Pay $302,500 to Settle EEOC Lawsuit Charging Sexual Harassment, Retaliation

Company Terminated Three Women When They Complained of Sexual Harassment by Their Female Manager, Federal Agency Charged

Help at Home, Inc., a Chicago-based home healthcare provider that also does business in Missouri, has agreed to pay $302,500.00 in backpay and damages to three former employees and provide company-wide injunctive relief to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC's allegations, Help at Home violated federal law by subjecting Shannon Schroeter, Kari McConnell and Jaclyn Stone to sexual harassment by Help at Home Area Manager Christine Qualls, and by firing them when they complained to the Chief Executive Officer.

The EEOC alleged Qualls made sexual comments and propositions to Schroeter, McConnell and Stone who were employed in the company's Hillsboro branch office. Qualls also openly engaged in sexual activities with her girlfriend in the office. The three employees sent an email to CEO Ron Ford complaining about Qualls' conduct. A few days later, Regional Vice President Rick Cantrell came to the Hillsboro office and interviewed the complainants. During the interview, he showed them blank termination and disciplinary forms and told them their answers to his questions would determine which form they would be given.

Later that day, Jaclyn Stone was demoted from an administrative position to an hourly home health care aide position. Approximately three weeks later, Qualls ordered Kari McConnell to be discharged for poor attendance after she returned from an approved medical leave to care for her seriously ill daughter. Qualls also disciplined Shannon Schroeter several times and discharged her four months after she complained to CEO Ford. No adverse action was taken against Qualls.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, including same-sex sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaining about it. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Civil Case No. 4:12-cv-01498-JAR), after first attempting to settle the matter informally.

In addition to the $302,500 settlement, Help at Home has agreed to take specific company-wide actions designed to prevent future sexual harassment and retaliation, including providing training to managers and supervisors on sexual harassment and retaliation and how to handle sexual harassment complaints. The company will also train all non-management employees on their right to be free from sexual harassment and retaliation and how to report complaints. Help at Home will post EEOC notices specifically prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation at all of its 146 branches spanning 10 states, and will periodically report to the EEOC of complaints of sexual harassment and the company's handling of the complaints.

"Sexual harassment is unacceptable and illegal whether it is engaged in by a supervisor of the opposite sex or the same sex," said Barbara A. Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC's St. Louis District Office. "The company further compounded its illegal conduct by discharging the complaining employees as retaliation. We believe the injunctive provisions of the consent decree will go a long way in educating Help at Home's workers and managers of their rights and responsibilities under the law."

Preventing workplace harassment through systemic litigation and investigation is one of the six national priorities identified by the Commission's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP). Eliminating practices that prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under employment discrimination statutes is another one of six national priorities.

Source: EEOC

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

Morgan Hill Restaurant Settles EEOC Retaliation Suit

The Good Fork Pays Dishwasher $20,000; Implements Policy and Training in Spanish

The Good Fork (formerly doing business as Fuzia), a Morgan Hill restaurant, agreed to pay $20,000 to a former dishwasher and to implement preventative measures to settle a federal retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC charged that weeks after the employee reported to the owner (and police) an incident that she perceived as sexual harassment, she was abruptly informed that the restaurant no longer had work for her.

Terminating an employee for opposing discrimination, such as sexual harassment, violates the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After an investigation by EEOC Investi­gator Rosa Salazar and first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through conciliation efforts, the EEOC filed the suit (12-CV-04386 PSG) in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern District of California.

According to the consent decree settling the suit, in addition to the monetary relief of $20,000 to the former employee, The Good Fork agreed to create, implement and train its managers and staff on anti-discrimination policies and reporting procedures. In addition, these policies, procedures and training will be made available in English as well Spanish to accommodate monolingual Spanish-speaking staff. The company also agreed to provide the EEOC with a summary of all reports of discrimination, harassment or retaliation for an 18-month period.

"It is in everyone's best interest when workers are secure in knowing that they will not be retaliated against for speaking up against unlawful employment practices," said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William Tamayo. "We hope The Good Fork's new policies and procedures achieve that goal."

"Instituting formal policy and procedures and making them available in Spanish will ensure that all workers can freely exercise their rights," said EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado. He noted that the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan clearly prioritizes the goals of protecting vulnerable workers and preserving access to the legal system.

Source: EEOC

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

EEOC Sues PJP Health Agency, Inc. for Age Discrimination and Retaliation

Health Insurance Broker Harassed and Discharged Employees Because of Their Age, Federal Agency Charges

A health insurance broker with offices in Melville, Lake Success and Garden City violated federal law by subjecting three employees over 40 to age-based discrimination including harassment, failure to promote, termination, and retaliation for complaining of age discrimination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The EEOC charged that PJP Health Agency, Inc. (formerly known as Health and Life Direct Agency, Inc., Health and Life Agency, Inc. and also known as Philip Teseo Senior and Philip Teseo Senior Insurance) subjected its only three administrative staff members who were over age 40 to offensive age-based comments such as, "Get it together you f**king old people" and "You need to wear more make-up because of your wrinkles" and "Look at that old f**k." The EEOC's Complaint asserts that although PJP Health was aware of the harassment and discrimination through numerous complaints of age discrimination, the company failed to take appropriate action to investigate and correct the hostile work environment as required by law.

In addition, the Commission alleges that PJP Health failed to promote a 45 year old woman because of her age and later retaliated against her by terminating her three days after meeting with her about her complaint of age discrimination, and that PJP Health terminated two men based on their ages, 57 and 61.

Age discrimination and retaliation for complaining about such discrimination violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. PJP Health Agency, Inc., Civil Number2:13-cv-04092in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The federal agency seeks to eliminate these discriminatory practices through injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination and to compensate the employees for lost wages and other monetary damages.

Sunu P. Chandy, EEOC Senior Trial Attorney stated: "No one should have to choose between harassment because of age or losing a job for speaking out." 
 
Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman added: "Though progress has been made, age discrimination is still a very real problem in the American workforce. We are dedicated to protecting workers 40 and over who are subject to improper and illegal stereotyping."

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 Commission's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP), and preventing workplace harassment through systemic litigation and investigation is another agency national priority.

Source: EEOC

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