US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
12-1-11
Turkey Company Violated Federal Disability Law, Agency Charged
GARNER, N.C. – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today that Butterball, LLC, a Garner, N.C.-based turkey processing company, violated federal law by subjecting an employee to a hostile work environment based on the fact that she has Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and firing her because of that disability.
According to the lawsuit, Butterball subjected Tracy Montgomery to harassment throughout her employment in October and November 2009. Specifically, three of Montgomery’s co-workers expressed to her on a daily basis that they did not want to touch her or work with her because she is HIV-positive. The three employees also referred to Montgomery using derogatory names to describe her HIV status. The EEOC further alleges that Montgomery complained to her supervisor about the harassment on a daily or near-daily basis, but the harassment persisted. Butterball’s plant manager was also aware of the harassment after conducting a meeting with Montgomery and one of her co-workers to address an altercation that the co-worker provoked. However, the next day, the plant manager fired Montgomery.
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees with disabilities from being harassed, fired, or from other employment decisions based on disabilities that are covered under the act, such as HIV. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Butterball, LLC, Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-00685) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks monetary damages for Montgomery as well as certain injunctive relief.
“Harassment that targets a person with an ADA-covered disability, is just as much a violation of federal law as harassment based on a person’s race, color, gender, age, religion, or national origin,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District. “HIV/AIDS has always been a sensitive health issue, and an employer has no excuse for failing to intervene when an employee complains of vicious harassment based on her HIV status.”
EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Tina Burnside added, “Employees have the right to work in an environment free from harassment, and Title VII prohibits both harassment and firing an employee because of her disability.”
President Barack Obama has charged federal agencies to implement the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, which includes addressing and preventing employment-related discrimination against people living with HIV.This case serves as an example of how the EEOC will strongly enforce federal laws to ensure that qualified people are not wrongfully deprived of an opportunity to earn a living simply because of their HIV status.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-01-11.cfm
Showing posts with label hostile environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hostile environment. Show all posts
Monday, December 5, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
Fifth Circuit Recognizes Age-Based Hostile Environment Claim
Ford & Harrison LLP
September 2011
Executive Summary: For the first time, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a plaintiff can pursue a claim for a hostile work environment based on age. See Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc. (5th Cir. Sep. 12, 2011). If other federal appeals courts follow this reasoning and recognize age-based hostile work environment claims, more employers may find themselves involved in such litigation. Implementing policies prohibiting harassment, establishing effective complaint procedures and training employees and supervisors on these policies and procedures can help prevent costly litigation and/or provide a defense in the event of litigation.
Full Story: http://www.fordharrison.com/shownewsletter.aspx?Show=7628&Item=7625&Email=execdir@affirmativeaction.org&mailingId=4428#7628
September 2011
Executive Summary: For the first time, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a plaintiff can pursue a claim for a hostile work environment based on age. See Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc. (5th Cir. Sep. 12, 2011). If other federal appeals courts follow this reasoning and recognize age-based hostile work environment claims, more employers may find themselves involved in such litigation. Implementing policies prohibiting harassment, establishing effective complaint procedures and training employees and supervisors on these policies and procedures can help prevent costly litigation and/or provide a defense in the event of litigation.
Full Story: http://www.fordharrison.com/shownewsletter.aspx?Show=7628&Item=7625&Email=execdir@affirmativeaction.org&mailingId=4428#7628
Monday, August 30, 2010
Appeals Court Rules Single Incident Triggers Harassment Law
Workforce Management
August 25, 2010
The plaintiff’s attorney said that although the civil rights law establishes that a severe-enough single incident of harassment violates the law, most lawsuits charge either pervasive or severe and pervasive harassment.
a single incident of sexual harassment, if severe enough, can violate federal civil rights law, a federal appellate court said in a decision Monday, August 23.
The decision by the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cynthia Berry v. Chicago Transit Authority involved a dispute by Berry, who was a carpenter with the CTA, with a fellow worker over a card game in January 2006.
Berry said that after she refused to get up so that a co-worker, Philip Carmichael, could partner with another worker in a game during a morning break, Carmichael grabbed her breasts, lifted her up from a bench and rubbed her buttocks against the front of his body. Berry said that when she landed off-balance with only one leg on the ground, Carmichael pushed her into a fence.
When Berry reported the incident to a manager, he told her he did not care what happened because she was a “pain in the butt,” predicted she would lose her job if she filed charges, and promised he was going to do “whatever it takes to protect the CTA,” the opinion said.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/appeals-court-rules-single-incident-triggers-harassment-law.php
August 25, 2010
The plaintiff’s attorney said that although the civil rights law establishes that a severe-enough single incident of harassment violates the law, most lawsuits charge either pervasive or severe and pervasive harassment.
a single incident of sexual harassment, if severe enough, can violate federal civil rights law, a federal appellate court said in a decision Monday, August 23.
The decision by the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cynthia Berry v. Chicago Transit Authority involved a dispute by Berry, who was a carpenter with the CTA, with a fellow worker over a card game in January 2006.
Berry said that after she refused to get up so that a co-worker, Philip Carmichael, could partner with another worker in a game during a morning break, Carmichael grabbed her breasts, lifted her up from a bench and rubbed her buttocks against the front of his body. Berry said that when she landed off-balance with only one leg on the ground, Carmichael pushed her into a fence.
When Berry reported the incident to a manager, he told her he did not care what happened because she was a “pain in the butt,” predicted she would lose her job if she filed charges, and promised he was going to do “whatever it takes to protect the CTA,” the opinion said.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/appeals-court-rules-single-incident-triggers-harassment-law.php
Monday, August 16, 2010
EEOC Gets "Cheaters" To Change Ways In Settling Sex Harassment Suit
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release 8/10/10
Owner and President of Randy TV Show Subjected Two Women to a Sexually Hostile Work Environment, Federal Agency Charged
DALLAS – The companies that own and produce the Dallas-based “Cheaters” television show have paid $50,000 and will furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and two female claimants, the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against Bobby Goldstein Productions, Inc., and Cheaters II, Ltd. (Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1912-P), two female office assistants were subjected to sexually explicit remarks and unwelcome touching from the companies’ owner and upper management staff for the duration of their employment. The EEOC said that this behavior included frequent comments and jokes of a sexual nature, propositions for sex, and unwanted aggressive physical advances. The EEOC further charged that there was no effective outlet for complaints about the behavior because members of upper management were participants in the harassment, and there was no employee handbook or policy explaining the procedure for reporting inappropriate workplace conduct at the time of the complainants’ employment.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
“This is a good outcome for all parties, and it is our hope that these very real and substantive changes to the companies’ policy will make this a positive and comfortable environment for all employees, male and female,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Meaghan Shepard.
The two-year consent decree notes that the two claimants have received $50,000 in settlement of their claims against the companies. The decree requires the companies to supplement the employee handbook to include an alternate avenue for making complaints where an employee is uncomfortable reporting conduct through the internal process. The companies will also provide annual anti-sexual harassment training to all employees (including managers) for the duration of the agreement, post a notice of non-discrimination on employee bulletin boards, and notify the EEOC each time they receive a complaint of sexual harassment from one of their employees during the term of the agreement.
“Just because the creator of Cheaters promotes a TV show business which thrives on featuring sexual transgressions, it is no justification for engaging in sexual improprieties which violate the employment rights of his female employees behind the scenes,” said Regional Attorney Robert A. Canino of the EEOC’s Dallas District Office. “We considered this to be the prime time for a re-write of Cheaters’ employment practices to make them consistent with federal law.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-10-2010.cfm
Press Release 8/10/10
Owner and President of Randy TV Show Subjected Two Women to a Sexually Hostile Work Environment, Federal Agency Charged
DALLAS – The companies that own and produce the Dallas-based “Cheaters” television show have paid $50,000 and will furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and two female claimants, the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against Bobby Goldstein Productions, Inc., and Cheaters II, Ltd. (Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1912-P), two female office assistants were subjected to sexually explicit remarks and unwelcome touching from the companies’ owner and upper management staff for the duration of their employment. The EEOC said that this behavior included frequent comments and jokes of a sexual nature, propositions for sex, and unwanted aggressive physical advances. The EEOC further charged that there was no effective outlet for complaints about the behavior because members of upper management were participants in the harassment, and there was no employee handbook or policy explaining the procedure for reporting inappropriate workplace conduct at the time of the complainants’ employment.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
“This is a good outcome for all parties, and it is our hope that these very real and substantive changes to the companies’ policy will make this a positive and comfortable environment for all employees, male and female,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Meaghan Shepard.
The two-year consent decree notes that the two claimants have received $50,000 in settlement of their claims against the companies. The decree requires the companies to supplement the employee handbook to include an alternate avenue for making complaints where an employee is uncomfortable reporting conduct through the internal process. The companies will also provide annual anti-sexual harassment training to all employees (including managers) for the duration of the agreement, post a notice of non-discrimination on employee bulletin boards, and notify the EEOC each time they receive a complaint of sexual harassment from one of their employees during the term of the agreement.
“Just because the creator of Cheaters promotes a TV show business which thrives on featuring sexual transgressions, it is no justification for engaging in sexual improprieties which violate the employment rights of his female employees behind the scenes,” said Regional Attorney Robert A. Canino of the EEOC’s Dallas District Office. “We considered this to be the prime time for a re-write of Cheaters’ employment practices to make them consistent with federal law.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-10-2010.cfm
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
When vulgar language in the workplace is sexual harassment
Lexology.com
Loeb & Loeb LLP
Michael P. Zweig USA April 21 2010
Federal law prohibits employers from discriminating in the workplace on the basis of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Claims for sexual harassment in the workplace are often based on a “hostile work environment,” resulting from vulgar language and conduct directed at the claimant. At the same time, vulgar language is not always actionable as sexual harassment. As one court stated, “Title VII is not a civility code, and not all profane or sexual language or conduct will constitute discrimination” in the workplace.
A federal appeals court, in Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., recently addressed the question of whether vulgar language, even if not directed specifically at the plaintiff, could be actionable as sexual harassment. The plaintiff was one of only two women working at a shipping company in Birmingham, Alabama. She claimed that her male co-workers used vulgar language on a daily basis, and did not refrain from using such language even after she complained to her co-workers and her manager. Most of the language was “general, indiscriminate vulgarity” but some was gender-specific, although none of the language was specifically directed at the plaintiff.
The Reeves court stated that sexual language and discussions that are truly indiscriminate do not establish sexual harassment and that the context of the offending words or conduct is essential to the analysis. In Reeves, while much of the vulgar language used in the plaintiff’s office was general and indiscriminate, a substantial portion of the vulgar and profane words were gender-specific, such as offensive words referring to women’s anatomy and promiscuity. The court noted that such gender-specific words and conduct could lead to liability for sexual harassment, even if the words were not directed specifically at the plaintiff.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0c7e9f93-43f8-4583-b5cf-af9eb1d2a8f1&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-05-04&utm_term=
Loeb & Loeb LLP
Michael P. Zweig USA April 21 2010
Federal law prohibits employers from discriminating in the workplace on the basis of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Claims for sexual harassment in the workplace are often based on a “hostile work environment,” resulting from vulgar language and conduct directed at the claimant. At the same time, vulgar language is not always actionable as sexual harassment. As one court stated, “Title VII is not a civility code, and not all profane or sexual language or conduct will constitute discrimination” in the workplace.
A federal appeals court, in Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., recently addressed the question of whether vulgar language, even if not directed specifically at the plaintiff, could be actionable as sexual harassment. The plaintiff was one of only two women working at a shipping company in Birmingham, Alabama. She claimed that her male co-workers used vulgar language on a daily basis, and did not refrain from using such language even after she complained to her co-workers and her manager. Most of the language was “general, indiscriminate vulgarity” but some was gender-specific, although none of the language was specifically directed at the plaintiff.
The Reeves court stated that sexual language and discussions that are truly indiscriminate do not establish sexual harassment and that the context of the offending words or conduct is essential to the analysis. In Reeves, while much of the vulgar language used in the plaintiff’s office was general and indiscriminate, a substantial portion of the vulgar and profane words were gender-specific, such as offensive words referring to women’s anatomy and promiscuity. The court noted that such gender-specific words and conduct could lead to liability for sexual harassment, even if the words were not directed specifically at the plaintiff.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0c7e9f93-43f8-4583-b5cf-af9eb1d2a8f1&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-05-04&utm_term=
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Feds slam Texas factory over discrimination claims
CNN.com
By the CNN Wire Staff
April 14, 2010 5:47 p.m. EDT
Dallas, Texas (CNN) -- African-American workers at a Texas pipe factory endured a string of racial slurs and harassment and were targeted by their managers when they complained, federal investigators have determined.
Black employees at the Turner Industries plant in Paris, Texas, regularly "were subjected to unwelcome racial slurs, comments and intimidation, racial graffiti, nooses in the workplace and other symbols of discrimination," the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported.
Black workers also were denied promotions and disciplined more harshly than whites, the agency concluded in a three-page letter in late March. Managers at the plant not only were aware of a "hostile environment," they also targeted workers who complained and disciplined white employees who opposed the harassment, the EEOC found.
Black employees at the Turner Industries plant in Paris, Texas, regularly "were subjected to unwelcome racial slurs, comments and intimidation, racial graffiti, nooses in the workplace and other symbols of discrimination," the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported.
Black workers also were denied promotions and disciplined more harshly than whites, the agency concluded in a three-page letter in late March. Managers at the plant not only were aware of a "hostile environment," they also targeted workers who complained and disciplined white employees who opposed the harassment, the EEOC found.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)