Sealed Air Sued By EEOC for Sex-Based Pay and National Origin Discrimination

Federal Agency Charges Sealed Air Corp., d/b/a Kevothermal LLC, Paid Female Production Supervisor Less Than Male, Imposed Language Restriction

Albuquerque, NM. -Sealed Air Corporation, a protective packaging business, violated federal law by paying a female production supervisor lower wages than its male production supervisor and by discriminating against her because of her national origin, Hispanic, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

Read more here.

Proposed EEOC Guidance on National Origin Discrimination Provides Clues to Agency’s Focus

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a Proposed Enforcement Guidance on National Origin Discrimination (“PEG”) and is allowing the public to comment through July 1, 2016. The last time the EEOC issued specific guidelines on National Origin Discrimination was in 2002.

The PEG is intended to communicate the EEOC’s position on national origin discrimination, including how the agency will investigate these types of charges. When it becomes final, the PEG will be included in the EEOC’s Compliance Manual and used by EEOC investigators as a resource in conducting investigations. Although the PEG refers to court rulings in this area, this does not mean the EEOC always will follow the majority position of courts on all issues relating to national origin. Rather, the PEG states that, in some cases, the EEOC has its own view on the correct interpretation of the law and will follow its own views.

Read the full statement from Jackson Lewis PC here.

Lawler Foods to Pay over $1 Million to Settle EEOC Race and National Origin Discrimination Suit

Bakery Refused to Hire Applicants Based on Their Race/National Origin, Federal Agency Alleged

HOUSTON - A large local bakery will pay $1,042,000 as part of the settlement of a class race and national origin discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

Read the story here.

Muslim Teacher May Proceed With National Origin Hostile Work Environment Claim

Holland & Hart LLP, Lexology

A Turkish-born Muslim teacher claimed that her school had a culture of racial and ethnic hostility. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (whose decisions apply to Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico) recently ruled that her complaints of national origin discrimination may move forward, offering lessons in how to handle cultural differences in the workplace.

Read the story here.

Vail Condo Association Will Pay Over $1 Million to Settle EEOC National Origin Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Management Company Ignored Complaints of Attempted Rape and Threats of Deportation, Then Fired Employees for Complaining, Federal Agency Charged

DENVER - Vail Run Community Resort Association, Inc., a condominium complex in Vail, Colo., and its management company, Global Hospitality Resorts, Inc., will pay $1,020,000 as part of the settlement of a sexual harassment, national origin discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

Read the press release here.

Rhino Energy WV Will Pay $62,500 to Settle EEOC National Origin Discrimination and Retaliation Suit

Mining Company Fired Polish-American Foreman Because He Complained About Slurs and Graffiti, Federal Agency Charged

BECKLEY, W.V. - Rhino Energy WV LLC will pay $62,500 and furnish significant relief to resolve a federal lawsuit for national origin discrimination and retaliation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.

Read the press release here.

Post-Paris and San Bernandino: The EEOC Weighs In on Anti-Muslim Workplace Discrimination

Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Lexology

In the wake of Paris and San Bernandino, the EEOC has issued new “Questions and Answers” for employers concerning workers who are, or are perceived to be, Muslim or Middle Eastern. The agency issued companion questions and answers for employees.

Read the story here.

Non-U.S. Citizen’s Discrimination And Retaliation Claims Against Bank Survive Dismissal

Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Lexology

On November 5th, the Southern District of Florida refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed against JP Morgan Chase Bank by one of its former bank tellers. The plaintiff, a Brazilian citizen, alleged the Bank violated anti-discrimination and retaliation laws under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He complained the Bank treated him differently than U.S. citizens and non-Brazilian employees and then fired him after he reported alleged discrimination against both him and the Bank’s non-U.S. citizen clients.

Read the story here.

Signal International, LLC to Pay $5 Million to Settle EEOC Race, National Origin Lawsuit

Ship Building and Repair Company Subjected Indian Guest Workers to Adverse Living and Working Conditions

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Signal International, LLC, a Mobile, Ala. ship building and repair company, will pay an estimated $5 million to 476 Indian guest workers to settle a race and national origin discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

Read the press release here.

Rugo Stone to Pay $40,000 to Settle EEOC National Origin, Religion and Color Bias Lawsuit

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-7-12

Company Subjected Employee of Pakistani Origin to Harassment, Federal Agency Charged

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Rugo Stone, LLC, a Fairfax County, Va.-based stone contracting company, agreed to pay $40,000 and furnish other significant relief to settle a national origin, religion and color discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. Rugo Stone has worked on a variety of high-profile buildings in Washington, D.C., including the U.S. Department of Transportation, the International Monetary Fund, the American Red Cross and the Newseum, as well as the embassies of Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates.

According to the EEOC’s suit, from around January 2007 through around January 2009, Shazad Buksh, an estimator and assistant project manager for Rugo Stone, was subjected to derogatory comments from his supervisors, project manager and the company’s owner on the basis of his national origin (Pakistani), religion (Islam), and color (brown). The EEOC said that the comments occurred almost daily and included things like Buksh being called a “Paki-princess” and told he was the same color as human feces. The lawsuit also alleged that Buksh was told that his religion (Islam), was “f---ing backwards,” and “f---ing crazy,” and was asked why Muslims are such “monkeys.” Finally, the lawsuit alleged that Buksh complained about the conduct and comments, but the harassment continued.

Harassment based on national origin, religion, and/or skin color violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rugo Stone, LLC.; Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-915 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Pursuant to the three-year consent decree resolving the litigation, Rugo Stone agreed to pay $40,000 in monetary relief to Buksh. In addition, Rugo Stone must take other actions set forth in the consent decree resolving the case, including redistributing the company’s anti-harassment policy to each of its current employees; posting its anti-harassment policies in all of its facilities and work sites; providing anti-harassment training to its managers, supervisors and employees; and posting a notice about the settlement. Further, Rugo Stone is enjoined from engaging in any further discrimination against any person on the basis of color, national origin, or religion and has agreed to be monitored by the EEOC for the term of the decree.

“Employers must remember that federal law prohibits harassment based on national origin, religion and color,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office, whose jurisdiction includes Virginia. “This case and its resolution should serve as a reminder that the EEOC will protect workers from employment discrimination, including harassment.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-7-12b.cfm

Chubb Insurance To Pay $110,000 To Hmong Employee In EEOC Discrimination Suit

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
5-4-11

Company Rejected Woman for Promotions Based on Her Asian Race, Retaliated Against Her for Complaining to EEOC, Federal Agency Charged

MILWAUKEE – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that a federal judge has entered a $110,000 consent decree that resolves an EEOC race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought against Federal Insurance Company, doing business as Chubb & Son, a U.S.-based property and casualty insurance giant with business worldwide.
The EEOC charged that Chubb refused to promote Kong Chee Vang, a Hmong employee, in its Milwaukee underwriting office because of her Asian race. The EEOC contended that Chubb failed to stop its managers from using stereotypes and negative assumptions based on race while supposedly considering Vang in 2006 and 2007 for a promotion to underwriter.
The suit further asserted that Chubb retaliated against Vang after she filed a complaint with EEOC alleging that her Hmong national origin and Asian race were the reasons she did not get the promotion. The retaliation, the EEOC said, consisted of Chubb’s rejecting Vang for a second promotion later in 2007.
Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that job discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation for complaining about it are illegal. The EEOC enforces both provisions of Title VII, and has recently seen an increase in retaliation complaints nationwide.
The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Insurance Company, d/b/a Chubb & Son, Case No. 10-c-0849 (E.D. Wis.), was filed in September 2010 and was scheduled for voluntary mediation before U.S. Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein. The parties reached an agreement before the scheduled mediation and the resulting consent decree was approved by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman yesterday, May 3, 2011. Brian Tyndall, an EEOC Trial Attorney in Milwaukee, led the agency’s litigation effort.
Vang, who still works for Chubb, will receive back wages of $60,000 and compensatory damages of $50,000 for emotional distress.
“Business decisions involving jobs -- including decisions on promotions -- cannot be based on negative racial assumptions or stereotypes,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District, which includes Wisconsin. “When race gets into employment decision making, the process itself is fatally defective, and the EEOC will not hesitate to challenge it. The same is true when retaliation infects the situation. Managers who may think they are ‘just standing up’ for their companies when they retaliate against complainants are, in fact, just doing more damage.”
The decree also provides non-monetary relief, including an injunction against further discrimination or retaliation, required anti-discrimination training for Chubb employees, and reporting to EEOC in the event of future discrimination complaints made to Chubb by employees.
“The aim in all EEOC litigation is to end the discrimination and prevent a recurrence,” said EEOC Associate Regional Attorney Jean P. Kamp, who supervised the litigation. “The consent decree here puts the protections in place to make that a reality, and we are pleased that Chubb found a way to work with us at the EEOC to promptly bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.”
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, 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 is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-4-11.cfm

EEOC Sues Over India Immigrant Workers' Treatment

ABC News/Money
Associated Press

A federal agency claims in a lawsuit filed this week that hundreds of people recruited in India to work for an oil rig construction company in Mississippi and Texas in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina were forced into oppressive living arrangements and subjected to harsh language and discriminatory working conditions.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit Wednesday against Signal International LLC in U.S. District Court in Gulfport, Miss., alleging discrimination based on race and place of birth. The lawsuit seeks class action status for about 500 Indians who came to the United States on the H-2B guest worker program to take jobs as welders and pipefitters in Pascagoula, Miss., and Orange, Texas.
Signal International did not respond to messages left by The Associated Press seeking comment.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=13430256

EEOC Sues Three South Carolina Companies For National Origin Discrimination

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 2-3-11

Assembly Technician, U.S. Citizen, Fired Because She Was Born in Guatemala, Federal Agency Charged

GREENVILLE , S.C. – AJK Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Express Employment Professionals, a Greenville-based employment staffing firm and Proformance Group Inc., a Greenville-based industrial subcontractor, violated federal law by discriminating against a Guatemalan-born employee because of her national origin, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, on October 3, 2008, Rosmery Diaz Caraballo, a Guatemalan-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was assigned by staffing firm Express Employment Professionals to work as an Assembly Technician for Proformance Group. After working at Proformance Group’s facility for about two hours, Caraballo was confronted by a representative of Express Employment and asked to produce a birth certificate. The EEOC said that Proformance Group required that Caraballo provide a birth certificate proving she was born in the United States in order to continue working on the assignment. When Caraballo responded that she did not have a U.S. birth certificate because she was born in Guatemala, but did have a U.S. passport proving her U.S. citizenship, she was told that she could not continue to work on the assignment.
According to the EEOC, the assignment that Caraballo worked on at Proformance Group involved assembling control panels for use at a U.S. nuclear facility in Piketon, Ohio. Under the requirements of that project, all employees had to be citizens of the United States. The EEOC argues that proof of U.S. citizenship could have been verified through one of many documents, including a birth certificate or a U.S. passport. The agency contends that Caraballo was discriminated against based on her national origin despite her U.S. citizenship and her offer to prove her citizenship using her passport, when she was not allowed to work on the project because she was not born in the United States.
Although the EEOC contends that Caraballo was terminated based on her national origin, the complaint alleges in the alternative, that she was never hired by the defendants due to the short period of time which Caraballo worked at Proformance Group before being sent home.
National origin discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Express Services, Inc., AJK Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Express Employment Professionals, and Proformance Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-00279-HFF-BHH) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The lawsuit also names Express Services, Inc. (ESI), a Colorado corporation, as a defendant. ESI is the franchisor for Express Employment and has franchise locations worldwide. The EEOC said that Express Employment and ESI operated as an integrated business enterprise and that Proformance Group was a joint employer of Caraballo with Express Employment and ESI. The complaint also argues that Proformance Group interfered with the employment relationship between Express Employment, ESI and Caraballo.
The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Caraballo, as well as injunctive and other non-monetary relief.
“Although citizenship is not a protected status under Title VII, a citizenship requirement can have the effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “Employers must be careful when applying citizenship requirements to ensure that persons who are citizens of the United States, but who were born outside the country, are not discriminated against because of where they were born.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination. More information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-3-11b.cfm

Questions And Answers About Employer Responsibilities Concerning The Employment Of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, And Sikhs

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state and local fair employment practices agencies have recorded a significant increase in the number of charges alleging discrimination based on religion and/or national origin. Many of the charges have been filed by individuals who are or are perceived to be Muslim, Arab, South Asian, or Sikh. These charges most commonly allege harassment and discharge.
While employers have an ongoing responsibility to address workplace discrimination, reaction to the events of September 11, 2001 may demand increased efforts to prevent discrimination. This fact sheet answers questions about what steps an employer can take to meet these responsibilities. The Commission has also prepared a companion fact sheet that answers questions about employee rights. For additional information, visit the EEOC's website at http://www.eeoc.gov.
Introduction
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, country of origin, race and color. Such discrimination is prohibited in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, benefits, training, job duties, and termination. Workplace harassment is also prohibited by Title VII. In addition, an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation for religious practices unless doing so would result in undue hardship. The law prohibits retaliation against an individual because s/he has engaged in protected activity, which includes filing a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, or opposing a discriminatory practice. Employers with 15 or more employees are required to comply with Title VII. Title VII also prohibits discrimination by most unions and employment agencies.
Hiring And Other Employment Decisions
Narinder, a South Asian man who wears a Sikh turban, applies for a position as a cashier at XYZ Discount Goods. XYZ fears Narinder's religious attire will make customers uncomfortable. What should XYZ do?
XYZ should not deny Narinder the job due to notions of customer preferences about religious attire. That would be unlawful. It would be the same as refusing to hire Narinder because he is a Sikh.
XYZ Discount Goods should also consider proactive measures for preventing discrimination in hiring and other employment decisions. XYZ could remind its managers and employees that discrimination based on religion or national origin is not tolerated by the company in any aspect of employment, including hiring. XYZ could also adopt objective standards for selecting new employees. It is important to hire people based on their qualifications rather than on perceptions about their religion, race or national origin.
Harassment
Muhammad, who is Arab American, works for XYZ Motors, a large used car business. Muhammad meets with his manager and complains that Bill, one of his coworkers, regularly calls him names like "camel jockey," "the local terrorist," and "the ayatollah," and has intentionally embarrassed him in front of customers by claiming that he is incompetent. How should the supervisor respond?
Managers and supervisors who learn about objectionable workplace conduct based on religion or national origin are responsible for taking steps to correct the conduct by anyone under their control. Muhammad's manager should relay Muhammad's complaint to the appropriate manager if he does not supervise Bill. If XYZ Motors then determines that Bill has harassed Muhammad, it should take disciplinary action against Bill that is significant enough to ensure that the harassment does not continue.
Workplace harassment and its costs are often preventable. Clear and effective policies prohibiting ethnic and religious slurs, and related offensive conduct, are needed. Confidential complaint mechanisms for promptly reporting harassment are critical, and these policies should be written to encourage victims and witnesses to come forward. When harassment is reported, the focus should be on action to end the harassment and correct its effects on the complaining employee.
Religious Accommodation
Three of the 10 Muslim employees in XYZ's 30-person template design division approach their supervisor and ask that they be allowed to use a conference room in an adjacent building for prayer. Until making the request, those employees prayed at their work stations. What should XYZ do?
XYZ should work closely with the employees to find an appropriate accommodation that meets their religious needs without causing an undue hardship for XYZ. Whether a reasonable accommodation would impose undue hardship and therefore not be required depends on the particulars of the business and the requested accommodation.
When the room is needed for business purposes, XYZ can deny its use for personal religious purposes. However, allowing the employees to use the conference room for prayers likely would not impose an undue hardship on XYZ in many other circumstances.
Similarly, prayer often can be performed during breaks, so that providing sufficient time during work hours for prayer would not result in an undue hardship. If going to another building for prayer takes longer than the allotted break periods, the employees still can be accommodated if the nature of the template design division's work makes flexible scheduling feasible. XYZ can require employees to make up any work time missed for religious observance.
In evaluating undue hardship, XYZ should consider only whether it can accommodate the three employees who made the request. If XYZ can accommodate three employees, it should do so. Because individual religious practices vary among members of the same religion, XYZ should not deny the requested accommodation based on speculation that the other Muslim employees may seek the same accommodation. If other employees subsequently request the same accommodation and granting it to all of the requesters would cause undue hardship, XYZ can make an appropriate adjustment at that time. For example, if accommodating five employees would not cause an undue hardship but accommodating six would impose such hardship, the sixth request could be denied.
Like employees of other religions, Muslim employees may need accommodations such as time off for religious holidays or exceptions to dress and grooming codes.
Temporary Assignments
Susan is an experienced clerical worker who wears a hijab (head scarf) in conformance with her Muslim beliefs. XYZ Temps places Susan in a long-term assignment with one of its clients. The client contacts XYZ and requests that it notify Susan that she must remove her hijab while working at the front desk, or that XYZ assign another person to Susan's position. According to the client, Susan's religious attire violates its dress code and presents the "wrong image." Should XYZ comply with its client's request?
XYZ Temps may not comply with this client request without violating Title VII. The client would also violate Title VII if it made Susan remove her hijab or changed her duties to keep her out of public view. Therefore, XYZ should strongly advise against this course of action. Notions about customer preference real or perceived do not establish undue hardship, so the client should make an exception to its dress code to let Susan wear her hijab during front desk duty as a religious accommodation. If the client does not withdraw the request, XYZ should place Susan in another assignment at the same rate of pay and decline to assign another worker to the client.
Background Investigations
Anwar, who was born in Egypt, applies for a position as a security guard with XYZ Corp., which contracts to provide security services at government office buildings. Can XYZ require Muhammad to undergo a background investigation before he is hired?
XYZ may require Anwar to undergo the same pre-employment security checks that apply to other applicants for the same position. As with its other employment practices, XYZ may not perform background investigations or other screening procedures in a discriminatory manner.
In addition, XYZ may require a security clearance pursuant to a federal statute or Executive Order. Security clearance determinations for positions subject to national security requirements under a federal statute or an Executive Order are not subject to review under the equal employment opportunity statutes.
Where To Go For Guidance
The EEOC is available to provide you with useful information on how to address workplace problems relating to discrimination based on religion, national origin, race or color. We conduct various types of training, and we can help you find a format that is right for you.
Small businesses are faced with unique challenges in promoting effective workplace policies that prevent discrimination. Our Small Business Liaisons are located in each of our District, Local and Area offices to assist you in compliance with EEO laws.
You should feel free to contact EEOC with questions about effective workplace policies that can help prevent discrimination. We are also available to answer more specialized questions. Please call 1-800-669-4000 (TTY 1-800-669-6820), or send inquiries to:
Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOffice of Legal Counsel131 M Street, NEWashington, D.C. 20507

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/backlash-employer.cfm

Cannon & Wendt Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply Fully with Consent Decree

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
10-14-10

Court Grants EEOC’s Request to Order Company to Provide Back Pay Without I-9 Form, Gives Federal Agency Say in Selecting Anti-Discrimination Instructor
PHOENIX -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that a federal court has granted in part the EEOC’s request that the court hold Cannon & Wendt Electric Co., Inc., in contempt for failing to comply with the terms of a consent decree settling a discrimination suit. The court ordered Cannon & Wendt Electric Co., Inc., to pay $20,000 in back pay to Victor Cortez, as previously agreed to by the company, rejecting the company’s demand that the discrimination victim submit a new I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification) form as a precondition.
The court further ordered that Cannon & Wendt use an instructor approved by the EEOC in carrying out the training on national origin discrimination and retaliation as was also required by the decree.
The decree had been signed by the parties and entered and ordered by the court to resolve the EEOC’s national origin discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the company. According to the EEOC’s suit, EEOC v. Cannon & Wendt Electric, Co., Inc., CV-07-1710 PHX/EHC in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix, employee Victor Cortez was unlawfully harassed because of his Mexican national origin by his immediate supervisor, Mark Ghose. The harassment included comments by Ghose, such as “I hate all Mexicans,” and “(Mexicans) are worthless.” The lawsuit further alleges that Cannon & Wendt retaliated against Cortez by terminating him after he complained about the harassment.
Cannon & Wendt agreed to the terms of the consent decree and signed it in April 2010. The decree was submitted to the court by the EEOC and Cannon & Wendt and approved by the court on April 12.
Under its terms, Cannon & Wendt agreed to provide Cortez $100,000 as damages for lost wages and benefits as well as compensation for the emotional distress ($80,000 for compensatory damages and $20,000 in back pay), and also agreed to provide a letter of apology. By entering into the decree, Cannon & Wendt agreed also to subject Ghose to certain remedial training; to an injunction against national origin harassment and retaliation; to provide reporting to the EEOC; to post and distribute a notice; to change its anti-discrimination policies; and to conduct extensive training for its supervisory and managerial work force over the next three years.
However, Cannon & Wendt refused to pay the $80,000 in compensatory damages and issue the letter of apology until the EEOC filed the contempt action in court. Additionally, Cannon & Wendt refused to provide the back pay without receiving a new I-9 form from Cortez. The EEOC objected to the request for the new I-9 since Cortez is a permanent resident of the United States and is authorized to work in this country. Further, the EEOC pointed out, the company had already employed Cortez for nearly five years and he had given the company all of the appropriate documentation when he started work there.
“Cannon & Wendt’s demand that Cortez provide an I-9 can only be interpreted as another form of national origin harassment, given that Cortez is a permanent resident with the right to work here and had already worked for the company for almost five years with proper documentation,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional Attorney for the Phoenix District Office.
Rayford O. Irvin, District Director of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, added, “Such a demand is not required or allowed by the law. We question whether Cannon & Wendt would have asked for this if Cortez were not from Mexico.”
The EEOC additionally objected to the instructor selected by Cannon & Wendt to conduct the training required under the consent decree. The EEOC alleged that the instructor Cannon & Wendt had selected, who is a manager for the company, had engaged in retaliation against Cortez. The court agreed with the EEOC that under the consent decree Cannon & Wendt must obtain the EEOC’s approval in selecting an instructor.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at http://www.eeoc.gov/.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-14-10.cfm

EEOC Sues New York University for National Origin and Racial Harassment, Retaliation

U.S. Equal Employment Opporunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
9-27-10
Supervisor Regularly Called African Employee “Monkey” and “Gorilla,” Federal Agency Charges

NEW YORK – New York University, the largest private university in the United States and one of New York City’s ten biggest employers, violated federal law by creating a hostile work environment for an African-born employee that included degrading verbal harassment based on national origin and race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, the supervisor of the mailroom in NYU’s Elmer Holmes Bobst Library regularly subjected his assistant, who is a native of Ghana, to slurs such as “monkey” and “gorilla,” and made comments such as “go back to your cage,” “go back to the jungle,” and “do you want a banana?” The supervisor also frequently mocked the assistant’s accented English, deriding it as “gibberish,” and expressed hostility toward immigrants generally and Africans specifically.
Although the assistant complained repeatedly to NYU management and human resources personnel, NYU took months to investigate and then took virtually no action to curb the supervisor’s conduct. Even after the assistant alerted NYU that the supervisor had retaliated against him for complaining, such as by fabricating grounds for disciplining him, the university did not stop the harassment.
All of this alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), or national origin, and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation. The EEOC filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (10-CV-7399) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court.
“Forty-five years after national origin and race discrimination were outlawed by federal law, this case shows that too many employees still face ugly epithets and other hostile treatment because of who they are and where they are from,” said Gillian L. Thomas, a trial attorney in the EEOC’s New York District Office. “It is especially shocking that NYU, a prestigious university that touts its commitment to a diverse student body drawn from around the world, would tolerate such egregious conduct. With this suit, the EEOC is sending the message that no employer is above the law.”
Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., director of the EEOC New York District Office, said, “The EEOC is determined to stop harassment based on workers’ national origin and race. This lawsuit aims to fairly compensate the victim for the harassment he suffered and to implement policies that will effectively prevent such discrimination in the future.”
The EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws in employment. Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-27-10g.cfm

EEOC Sues JBS Swift for Religious and National Origin Discrimination in Colorado and Nebraska

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
8-31-10

Meat Packer Harassed Somali Muslim Employees, Refused to Accommodate Their Prayer Needs, Federal Agency Charges

DENVER – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed two lawsuits today in federal court alleging that JBS USA, LLC, which does business as meat packing company JBS Swift & Company, discriminated against a class of Somali and Muslim employees at its facilities in Greeley, Colo. (its headquarters facility), and Grand Island, Neb.
The suits allege that JBS Swift created a hostile work environment for its Somali and Muslim employees due to their race, national origin, and religion. The complaints allege that supervisors and coworkers threw blood, meat, and bones at the Muslim employees and called them offensive names. The complaint filed in Colorado alleges that there was offensive graffiti in the restrooms at the Greeley facility, EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC d/b/a JBS Swift & Company, 10-CV-02103 PAB-KUM (D. Colo.), which included comments such as “Somalis are disgusting” and “F..k Somalians”, “F--k Muslims, and “F--k Mohammed.” The suit filed in Nebraska alleges that supervisors and coworkers made comments to Somali employees at the Grand Island facility such as “lazy Somali” and “go back to your country.” EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC d/b/a JBS Swift & Company, 8:10-cv-00318-TDT (D. Neb.).
The two complaints include allegations that JBS Swift engaged in a pattern or practice of religious discrimination when it failed to reasonably accommodate its Muslim employees by refusing to allow them to pray according to their religious tenets. Both complaints further allege that JBS Swift retaliated against the employees by terminating their employment when they requested that their evening break be moved so that they could break their fast and pray at sundown during the month of Ramadan, an Islamic holiday requiring a daytime fast from sunup to sundown.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This litigation originated from the filing multiple charges of discrimination with the EEOC. During 2008, the EEOC received 83 discrimination charges from employees at the Greeley facility and 85 from employees at the Grand Isle facility alleging discrimination on the basis of religion, race, color or national origin. The charges of discrimination were jointly investigated by the EEOC, the Colorado Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies, and the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission.
“The issue of national origin and religious discrimination in the workplace has become more significant as more immigrants with different ethnic and religious backgrounds join our workforce,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “The laws of this country prohibit harassment based on national origin, and mandate that employers accommodate employees’ religious practices so long as doing so does not create an undue burden on the employer.”
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-31-10.cfm

Justice Dept. files suit vs. junior colleges in Maricopa County

AZCentral.com
by Mary Beth Faller - Aug. 31, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the Maricopa County Community College District on Monday, accusing it of discrimination for requiring extra paperwork from new employees who were not U.S. citizens.
The suit claims that at least 247 newly hired employees who were not citizens were required to present additional work-authorization documents beyond those required by law between July 2008 and January 2010.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/30/20100830maricopa-county-community-college-federal-lawsuit.html#ixzz0yBfWJTDC

Delano Regional Medical Center Sued For National Origin Discrimination

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
8-19-10

Company Policy Targets Filipino Employees and Creates Hostile Work Environment, Federal Agency Charges

FRESNO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the filing of a national origin discrimination lawsuit against the Delano Regional Medical Center, an acute care hospital in California’s San Joaquin Valley.
According to the EEOC, the hospital prohibited Filipino staff from speaking Tagalog (or other Filipino languages) while allowing non-Filipino employees to speak other languages, such as Spanish. The EEOC contends that hospital management subjected Filipino staff to a hostile working environment by singling them out for reprimands in company meetings, threatening them with audio surveillance, and encouraging other staff to report on them. The Commission alleged that the medical center’s directive created a hostile working environment with supervisors and other staff taunting and threatening the Filipino staff on a regular basis, creating tension between Filipino and non-Filipino employees. This alleged national origin discrimination and harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The EEOC filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (EEOC v. Central California Foundation for Health d/b/a Delano Regional Medical Center, Case No. 10-CV-01492-LJO-JLT ), after efforts to reach a pre-litigation settlement failed. The suit seeks monetary relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction against future discrimination.
“Employers must ensure that company policies are applied equally,” said Anna Park, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Targeting workers of a particular national origin is not only illegal, it also erodes company morale, pitting groups against one another.”
Melissa Barrios, local director of the EEOC’s Fresno Local Office, added, “The EEOC enforces laws that protect against harassment based on one’s country of origin. The targeting of one group in this particular case for behavior that was condoned for other groups is simply deplorable.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Landwin Management to Pay $500,000 for National Origin Bias and Sexual Harassment

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
2-3-10

EEOC Said Hotel Refused to Hire Non-Chinese Banquet Servers and Subjected Women to Verbal Abuse

LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of two lawsuits against Landwin Management, Inc., a San Gabriel, Calif.-based hotel operator, for $500,000 and significant remedial relief in cases alleging national origin discrimination and sexual harassment. Both suits were filed in September 2007 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In the first lawsuit (Case No. CV 07-06169 SJO), the EEOC charged that non-Chinese banquet servers were rejected for hire based on their national origin when the San Gabriel Hilton severed its contract and hired Landwin Management to operate the establishment in April 2005. The EEOC said that all the non-Chinese banquet servers who previously worked for the hotel at the time, many of whom were Latino, were not hired back during the turnover and instead replaced with less qualified Chinese workers.
In the second suit (Case No. CV 07-05916 PA), the EEOC alleged that the San Gabriel Hilton subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment, including verbal sexual harassment by the housekeeping department supervisor, who referred to the women as “whores” and “prostitutes” in addition to other offensive language. The supervisor also allegedly reprimanded the female employees if they even spoke to men, and Landwin failed to respond to the employees’ complaints of harassment.
In addition to the $500,000 in monetary relief, a three-year consent decree settling the two lawsuits will also ensure that (1) Landwin will implement hiring and recruiting goals for Hispanic employees; (2) Landwin will revise its written policies on discrimination, sexual harassment and recruitment and hiring; (3) employees will receive annual training regarding discrimination, including national origin discrimination and sexual harassment; (4) Landwin will retain an EEO monitor / consultant named by the Commission to assist with recruiting, hiring, training, revision of policies and record-keeping procedures; and (5) the company will provide annual reports to the EEOC regarding its employment practices.
“The days when employers make decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions shaped by the race or national origin of their employees should be far behind us,” said Anna Y. Park, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Further, sexual harassment should no longer be tolerated in any workplace, and employers should never condone or overlook the mistreatment of vulnerable victims, such as monolingual Spanish-speaking women.”
EEOC Los Angeles District Director Olophius Perry added, “Employers must take appropriate corrective action when they receive harassment complaints. We hope that other employers take the lead of the San Gabriel Hilton and take proactive action to ensure EEO compliance. Businesses should take advantage of EEOC trainings that are available to encourage compliance and proactive prevention.”
The EEOC Training Institute provides a wide variety of training to assist employers in educating their managers and employees on the laws enforced by EEOC and how to prevent and correct discrimination in the workplace. More information is available at http://www.eeoc.gov/field/washington/training.cfm.
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.