Showing posts with label EEOC. litigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EEOC. litigation. Show all posts

Monday, July 26, 2010

Employer Must Provide Names and Addresses of Possible Victims of Discrimination to EEOC


U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

PRESS RELEASE

7-23-10



Court Finds Production of Contact Information Appropriate in Litigation and Refuses to Restrict EEOC Communication with Potential Class Members
CHICAGO – Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has ruled that a major trucking industry employer must provide the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with a list of the names with last known addresses and phone numbers of all African-American employees employed at its Chicago Ridge facility from 2004 until the facility was closed in 2009. The EEOC has alleged that the trucking company, Yellow Transportation/YRC (“Yellow”), engaged in widespread discrimination against its African-American employees by fostering a racially hostile work environment, including the presence of nooses and racist graffiti, and by subjecting African-American employees to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment The EEOC is seeking relief on behalf all affected African-American employees who worked at Yellow’s Chicago Ridge terminal from 2004 until the facility was closed in 2009. EEOC moved to compel Yellow to produce contact information for all African-American employees who worked at the Chicago Ridge terminal from 2004 until the facility was closed. Yellow had argued that the EEOC’s request for the full list was beyond the scope of discovery. The court rejected Yellow’s argument and held that, in the course of the on-going litigation, production of the complete list of all African-American employees who worked at the facility was warranted. The court further found there was no basis to limit the EEOC’s request to the specific job categories held by the charging parties, since there is no reason to believe the alleged conduct was limited to those specific job categories and the EEOC’s complaint did not limit its class allegations to specific job categories.The court also rejected Yellow’s request to restrict the EEOC’s communication with potential class members, finding that the company had provided no basis for restricting the EEOC’s communications with the prospective class for whom it is seeking relief. EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago, John Hendrickson, said, “It’s ironic how some employers are so recalcitrant about identifying those who are most likely to be within the class of individuals who suffered discrimination, and then later try to block relief on the grounds that EEOC delayed identification of the very individuals the employers attempted to conceal. Of course, that’s nonsense and stands reality on its head, so we are pleased whenever courts decline to encourage defendant employers to go down that road.”EEOC’s case is captioned EEOC v. Yellow Transportation Inc. and YRC, Inc., Northern District of Illinois No. 09 C 7693. The decision was entered by the court this Wednesday, July 21, 2010.In addition to Hendrickson, EEOC is represented by Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour and Trial Attorneys Richard Mrizek, Ethan Cohen, and Deborah Hamilton. The EEOC Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further informationabout the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Allen president accused in second sexual harassment suit

The State
BY JEFF WILKINSON - jwilkinson@thestate.com
Wednesday, Jun. 23, 2010


Allen University president Charles Young has been accused of sexual harassment for the second time since 2005.

Sonya Melton, the Columbia school’s associate vice president for enrollment management, filed a lawsuit in federal court this month. The 17-page complaint alleges that from 2006 to 2008, Young coerced Melton into having sex, attempted to control her relationships with others, and choked and shoved her.
Melton claims that in 2008, after requesting to meet with school officials, Young demoted her from a job as vice president and moved her to a “moldy, bug infested” basement office.
In her suit, Melton also named the university and African Methodist Episcopal Church, which runs the college. She claims university and church officials were aware Young had the “propensity to sexually harass” female subordinates but took no action.

Read more: http://www.thestate.com/2010/06/23/1345262/allen-president-accused-in-second.html#ixzz0rm0nXSI3

Friday, May 21, 2010

Arizona violating treaty ratified by U.S.

CNN.com
By Chandra Bhatnagar, Special to CNN
May 21, 2010 10:51 a.m. EDT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Chandra Bhatnagar: Experts say Arizona law will lead to increased racial profiling
Law violates Constitution as it makes any Latino a potential criminal suspect, he says
Bhatnagar: It's also a blatant violation of U.N. rights treaty, signed and ratified by the U.S.
He says it's time for U.S. to extend rights it expects from other nations to its own people

Editor's note: Chandra Bhatnagar is an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program and principal author of "The Persistence of Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the United States," recently submitted to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
(CNN) -- On the heels of the passage of Arizona's racial profiling law, tens of thousands of people from all over the country have marched in support of human rights and against the legislation.
That law, SB 1070, requires Arizona law enforcement agents to determine the citizenship status of people they stop if the officer has an undefined "reasonable suspicion" that the person is not in this country lawfully.

Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/19/bhatnagar.arizona.violation/index.html

Monday, February 15, 2010

Court Approves $6.2 Million Distribution in EEOC v. Sears Disability Settlement

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release 2-5-2010
235 Former Employees Terminated at End of Workers’ Compensation Leaves of Absence to Share Settlement Proceeds After Participating in Claims Process

CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced court approval of the distribution of a $6,200,000 compensation fund in the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) litigation between the EEOC and Sears, Roebuck & Co. The distribution is being carried out pursuant to the terms of a consent decree approved by Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson on September 29, 2009. In its lawsuit against Sears, the EEOC had alleged that Sears maintained an inflexible workers’ compensation leave exhaustion policy and terminated employees instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, in violation of the ADA. The case resulted in the largest ADA settlement in a single lawsuit in EEOC history.
Under the terms of the decree, the EEOC provided claim forms to certain Sears employees who had been terminated under Sears’ workers’ compensation leave policy. The claimants were asked to report to the EEOC, among other things, the extent of their impairments, their ability to return to work at Sears, and whether Sears had made any attempt to return them to work. Based on these criteria, the EEOC found that 235 individuals were eligible to share in the settlement. The average award was approximately $26,300. More than twenty claimants were found to be ineligible by the EEOC. As with all EEOC litigation, none of the settlement fund will retained by the EEOC; all of it will be distributed.
“It is a satisfying day indeed when victims finally receive compensation for the wrongful discrimination they have endured,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC is pleased and proud that we fought long and hard on this case to protect the rights of workers with disabilities, and that many Sears employees will now benefit from our law enforcement efforts.”
Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said, “The Sears case has been a long haul, but now it’s over—this is it. The court has enjoined future discrimination by Sears and approved the amount of money each class member will receive for the particular discrimination he or she suffered. Their day for compensation is here, and as far as the EEOC is concerned, that makes it a good day for everyone involved.”
EEOC Trial Attorney Aaron DeCamp noted that, in addition to the disbursement of settlement funds, the EEOC is seeing positive effects from the consent decree. “As a result of the decree, we believe Sears has an improved workers’ compensation leave process, and it has posted notices regarding the decree. We know that employees have been seeing the notices because we’ve been receiving inquiries as a result. So we think it’s pretty clear that our lawsuit genuinely benefited the employees of Sears and strengthened the company’s human resources processes.”
The lawsuit, filed in November 2004, was assigned to Federal District Court Judge Wayne Anderson of the Northern District of Illinois and Magistrate Judge Susan Cox, and is captioned EEOC v. Sears Roebuck & Co., N.D. Ill. No. 04 C 7282. Judge Anderson entered the order approving the monetary distributions on February 4.
The EEOC litigation team included, in addition to Hendrickson and DeCamp, Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour and Trial Attorneys Ethan Cohen, Deborah Hamilton and Laurie Elkin.
The EEOC Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
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.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Diabetic to begin career as diplomat

boston.com
Sued after offer was rescinded
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff December 12, 2009

Anna Balogh became interested in pursuing a career as a diplomat in 1990, when she lived in Hungary the summer after her freshman year at Wellesley College. Communism was collapsing in Europe. Her roommate was an East German, and they urgently discussed Germany’s looming reunification. History was unfolding at stunning speed before their eyes.
Thirteen years later, the Lincoln woman applied for a highly competitive job as a Foreign Service officer and received an offer in November 2003. But her excitement soon gave way to crushing disappointment when the State Department withdrew the offer for a reason she found unfathomable: Balogh is an insulin-dependent diabetic. The government denied her medical clearance because she had to be fit to work at any of about 270 posts worldwide, including some in remote locales.
This week, days before Balogh’s civil rights lawsuit against the State Department was to go to trial in US District Court in Boston, the 38-year-old and the government settled the dispute out of court. Balogh will be appointed as a Foreign Service officer for a three-year trial period, she said, and hopes it will become permanent.
The government also agreed to pay her a sum, which she declined to disclose, for wages lost when she was not hired.
“Overall, I would say I’m satisfied because at the end of the day, what was most important to me was getting the job,’’ said Balogh, who has a master’s degree from Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. “I’m exhausted and just relieved, frankly. This was not a typical path for a Foreign Service officer.’’
Her lawyer, Hillary Schwab of Boston, said she believes Balogh’s federal lawsuit was the first filed by someone rejected as a Foreign Service officer because of insulin-dependent, or Type 1, diabetes. Schwab said she hoped the settlement would prod the State Department to eliminate a hiring ban that she and her client consider outdated, given the availability of insulin and medical treatment for diabetics worldwide.

Full Story: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/12/12/diabetic_to_begin_career_as_diplomat/

Friday, October 23, 2009

ASU job-seeker files discrimination suit

montgomeryadvertiser.com
October 22, 2009
By Jill Nolin

Gayle H. Gear, a potential candidate for president of Alabama State University before the university stopped the process and named interim president William H. Harris to the position, has filed a federal court suit against ASU, alleging racial and sexual discrimination.
The lawsuit, naming ASU and its board of trustees as defendants, asks the court to restore Harris to the position of interim and to continue the search until the search committee can properly select a president.
The lawsuit, filed Monday, claims that Gear, who is white, "is a racial minority as defined by ASU."
It also claims that the university created a presidential search committee as a pretext and that the committee violated both the university's Affirmative Action Plan and internal employment policies when it never advertised for the position before appointing the new president.
After the Montgomery Advertiser faxed a copy of the lawsuit to ASU spokesman Kenneth Mullinax on Wednesday afternoon, he declined to comment. A phone call made to ASU Board Chairman Elton Dean was not returned Wednesday evening.
The suit says that Gear had sent written correspondence and her resume to Harris, who was then interim president, on June 19, 2009. The search was ultimately halted, and Harris was named president of the historically black college.
"To date, Dr. Gear has received no response to her request to be considered as a candidate for the position of president," the lawsuit states.

Full Story: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20091022/NEWS01/910220319/ASU+job-seeker+files+discrimination+suit

Monday, October 12, 2009

Obama drops rule aimed at immigrants' bosses

SFGate.com
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, October 9, 2009

(10-08) 13:50 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The Obama administration has repealed a rule that would have threatened employers with prosecution unless they fired workers whose Social Security numbers did not match entries in a government database, ending a two-year battle in a San Francisco federal court.
Although the Department of Homeland Security formally withdrew the "no-match" rule Wednesday, the administration is supporting another program enabling employers to check workers' names against electronic records that are supposed to screen out illegal immigrants.
That program, E-Verify, is voluntary for most employers but mandatory for the 170,000 companies holding federal contracts and for their subcontractors. This week, a House-Senate conference committee voted to extend E-Verify for three years.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is challenging the scope of the program in a Maryland federal court.
"E-Verify has many of the same problems as no-match," said Chris Calabrese, legislative attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which took part in the San Francisco lawsuit. Although employers are not threatened with prosecution under the program, he said, thousands of workers are in danger of losing their jobs based on "databases that are not terribly accurate."
But the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports restrictions on immigration, said the government has found that E-Verify is accurate in 99.6 percent of cases. The group criticized the House-Senate conference committee for refusing to make the program permanent.
The three-year extension is "further evidence of the Obama administration's and the congressional leadership's effort to raise a smokescreen while it dismantles all effective controls against illegal immigration," the organization said.

Full Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/08/BAON1A3110.DTL&tsp=1

Friday, May 22, 2009

JUDGE AWARDS MAXIMUM DAMAGES IN EEOC PREGNANCY BIAS SUIT AGAINST JANITORIAL COMPANY

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Owner Fired Housekeeper Solely Because of Pregnancy, Federal Agency Charged
PRESS RELEASE5-21-09

DALLAS – A federal district court today awarded the maximum damages of $50,000 and significant injunctive relief in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a discrimination lawsuit against a Dallas-based commercial janitorial company, the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, the owners of First Sreymco, LLC, doing business as Jani-King, reduced the work hours of housekeeper Sonia Alvarado simply because she was pregnant and subsequently fired her. The company ignored medical assurances that Alvarado presented to them, the EEOC said, and co-owner Michelle Myers told her that the company did not want to take any risks because of her pregnancy.
Such conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, under which employ­ment discrimination on the basis of preg­nancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions con­stitutes unlawful sex discrimination. In June 2007, Alvarado filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, initiating an investigation by the agency’s Dallas District Office.
The EEOC’s suit (EEOC v. First Sreymco, LLC, d/b/a Jani-King, Civ. 3:08—CV—1607--D) was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, on September 12, 2008. Despite receiving notice of the lawsuit, Jani-King failed to file an answer to the litigation or otherwise appear in the case, and the court entered a default judgment against the company on May 13, 2009.
Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater awarded $50,000, which is the maximum amount of damages an employer having fewer than 100 employees is required to pay in an employment discrimination lawsuit. The judge ruled that these damages consisted of both compensatory damages to com­pensate Alvarado for the pain and anguish she suffered as a result of the discrimination, and punitive damages to punish Jani-King for its malicious or reckless indifference to Alvarado’s federal right to be free from employment discrimination.
The court also awarded significant injunctive relief against Jani-King. The judge ordered Jani-King, its owners, managers, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with them to be enjoined from engaging in discrimination on the basis of sex or pregnancy. The judge further ordered Jani-King to institute, disseminate, and enforce a policy under which pregnant employees are permitted to work as long as they are able to and choose to do so.
Devika Seth, senior trial attorney with the EEOC’s Dallas office, said, “We hope this Judgment sends a message to employers that women who wish to continue working and are able to do so should not be penalized simply because they are expecting a child. We are so proud of Ms. Alvarado for coming forward and standing up for her right to work.”
“I lost my happiness when Jani-King told me they didn’t want me because I was pregnant,” said Alvarado. “The news of the judgment has brought hope back to me because I know now that there is support for pregnant women when their employer breaks the law.”
During Fiscal Year 2007, pregnancy charges rose to a record high level of 5,587, up 14 percent from the prior fiscal year’s record of 4,901.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the agency is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Monday, March 9, 2009

ADVANCE AUTO PARTS SETTLES DISABILITY BIAS SUIT WITH EEOC FOR $50,000 AND REMEDIAL RELIEF

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-9-09

Company Refused to Hire Man with Cerebral Palsy for Sales Job, Federal Agency Charged

BIG STONE GAP, Va. —Advance Stores Company, Inc., doing business as Advance Auto Parts, will pay $50,000 and provide other affirmative relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Advance Auto Parts refused to hire Jeffrey Scott Sanders in September 2004 because he has cerebral palsy. Sanders had applied for a part-time sales position at an Advance Auto Parts retail store in Norton, Va. The EEOC said that Sanders had successfully completed an internship as a salesperson at Advance Auto’s Staunton, Va., store through a training program in which he participated. The EEOC further charged that despite Sanders’ qualifications and experience obtained through the internship, Advance Auto did not hire him but did hire at least one other person who was less qualified than Sanders.
Failing or refusing to hire an individual because he or she has a disability violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. Advance Stores Company, Inc. d/b/a Advance Auto Parts, Civil Action 02-08CV00011).
In addition to the monetary relief to be paid to Sanders, as part of the settlement, Advance Auto agreed to provide training on an annual basis to all of its managers, supervisors, and employees in its Norton, Va., store; post an employee notice regarding this settlement; and report any allegations of disability discrimination by job applicants at the company’s Norton location to the EEOC.
“Federal law prohibits employers from taking discriminatory employment actions based on myths, stereotypes or assumptions about an individual’s disability, rather than the person’s actual ability to perform the job,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office, whose jurisdiction includes most of Virginia.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

SPARTAN AERONAUTICS COLLEGE TO PAY $32,500 TO SETTLE EEOC SEX DISCRIMINATION SUIT

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release
February 19, 2009

Flight School Fired Female Instructor for Complaining About Gender Bias, Federal Agency Charged

TULSA, Okla. – Spartan Aeronautics College will pay $32,500 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
In its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Case No. 707-cv-00544 ), the EEOC charged that the college’s management treated J.C. Shine, a certified flight instructor, more harshly than her male counterparts and terminated her because she complained about the sex discrimination. Shine, a long-time employee of Spartan, had received excellent reviews from her supervisors, coworkers, and students as a safe and competent instructor. She was terminated under circumstances in which male instructors were not disciplined, according to the EEOC.
“As more women enter what have traditionally been ‘male occupations,’ employers will need to be vigilant in their efforts to provide an equal and fair working environment for women as well as men who choose these careers,” said EEOC St. Louis Regional Attorney Barbara A. Seely. “When the EEOC files suit against an employer for sex discrimination and retaliation, we are reminding all employers that discrimination and retaliation in the workplace is their problem and not the employee’s problem.”
The consent decree settling the suit, filed today for approval by the court, also requires Spartan to provide anti-discrimination training to all of its supervisors and other managers, and to report all allegations of sex discrimination and/or retaliation to the EEOC immediately.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation’s laws prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability, and retaliation. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

EEOC Can Sue Public University, Court Rules

Inside Higher Ed
February 11, 2009

The Eleventh Amendment protects public universities from lawsuits by former employees under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act — but it does not prevent the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from suing the colleges on the aggrieved employees’ behalf, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit came in a case in which the EEOC sued the University of Louisiana System over alleged discrimination by the university’s Monroe campus against a former administrator and professor, Van McGraw.
McGraw and another longtime official at Louisiana-Monroe, Dwight Vines, had, after retiring from their permanent administrative positions, worked on a series of annual contracts during the early 1990s. But when the university told them in 1996 that they would not be rehired because of a new policy that that prohibited the full-time re-employment of retirees, the two men filed a series of federal and state lawsuits, all of which were unsuccessful, the Fifth Circuit court said.
From 2002 to 2004, McGraw sought to be rehired as an associate dean or professor, also unsuccessfully, prompting him to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC and a state lawsuit against Louisiana-Monroe. The federal employment agency sued the university in 2005, alleging that it had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by denying him the positions either because of his age or out of retaliation for his previous lawsuits. The agency sought to win McGraw the position of his choice, back pay, and other compensation. Louisiana sought to have the case dismissed, saying it was protected from such suits by sovereign immunity guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment.
It is “well established” that the Eleventh Amendment protects states from lawsuits by private individuals, the Fifth Circuit panel said in its decision Tuesday. But the court cites decisions in two other federal appeals courts — including a 2002 case involving the University of Wisconsin System — to assert that the Constitution does not in any way bar the federal government from suing a state (or one of its entities, like a public college) to enforce federal law.

Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2009/02/11/eeoc