http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/employment_discrimination Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:20:23 -0800 pixel-app en http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/12511 Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/12511
The 2-1 decision by a judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals comes a year and a half after the case was initially argued and submitted, and it upholds the decision made by a District Court in 2004 in the case of Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The plaintiffs also filed a motion on April 28, 2003, to certify a class of female Wal-Mart employees who may have been affected by the company’s allegedly discriminatory policies.

In supporting the ruling, Judge Harry Pregerson wrote in his opinion, “We hold that the district court acted within its broad discretion in concluding that it would be better to handle this case as a class action instead of clogging the federal courts with innumerable individual suits litigating the same issues repeatedly…. Wal-Mart failed to point to any specific management problems that would render a class action impracticable in this case, and the district court has the discretion to modify or decertify the class should it become unmanageable. Although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable.”

The original complaint against the world’s largest retailer claimed that Wal-Mart violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “Plaintiffs contend that Wal-Mart’s strong, centralized structure fosters or facilitates gender stereotyping and discrimination,” wrote Judge Pregerson, “that the policies and practices underlying this discriminatory treatment are consistent throughout Wal-Mart stores, and that this discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked in Wal-Mart stores. Plaintiffs seek class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief, lost pay, and punitive damages. They do not seek any compensatory damages on behalf of the class, which is estimated to include more than 1.5 million women. The class encompasses women employed in a range of Wal-Mart positions–from part-time, entry-level, hourly employees to salaried managers.”

In his opinion, Pregerson noted, “Plaintiffs produced substantial evidence of Wal-Mart’s centralized company culture and policies, which provides a nexus between the subjective decision-making and the considerable statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discriminatory pay and promotions for female employees…. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it held that Wal-Mart’s subjective decision-making policy raises an inference of discrimination, and provides support for plaintiffs’ contention that commonality exists among possible class members.”

Wal-Mart had argued that each of its 3,400 stores operates as a largely independent entity, thereby eliminating the possibility of a class action.

However, Judge Pregerson added, “Plaintiffs’ expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence, and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support plaintiffs’ contention that female employees nationwide were subjected to a common pattern and practice of discrimination. Evidence of Wal-Mart’s subjective decision-making policy raises an inference of discrimination and provides further evidence of a common practice.”
]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/12510 Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/12510
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a 2004 federal judge's decision to let the nation's largest class-action employment discrimination lawsuit go to trial, possibly exposing the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailing powerhouse to billions of dollars in damages.

"Plaintiff's expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support plaintiff's contention that female employees nationwide were subjected to a common pattern and practice of discrimination," the court wrote in a 2-1 decision.

Wal-Mart said it would ask the court to rehear the case with the same three-judge panel or with 15 judges, a move likely to idle the case for months. Tuesday's ruling came 18 months after the case was argued.

"This is one step of what is going to be a long process," Wal-Mart attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. said. "We are very optimistic of obtaining relief from this ruling."

He said Wal-Mart's own review found no significant disparity in pay between men and women at 90 percent of its stores.

Wal-Mart, which currently employs 1.3 million workers, claimed that the conventional rules of class action suits should not apply in the case because its 3,400 stores, including Sam's Club warehouse outlets, operate like independent businesses, and that the company did not have a policy of discriminating against women.

U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins, the San Francisco trial court judge who said the case could proceed, had ruled that anecdotal evidence warranted a class-action trial. Wal-Mart took the case to the San Francisco-based appeals court.

Jenkins said if companywide gender discrimination is proven at trial, Wal-Mart could be forced to pay billions of dollars to women who earned less than their male counterparts. Jenkins rejected as "impractical" Wal-Mart's suggestion of having individual hearings for each plaintiff and he planned to use a statistical formula to compensate the women if they won.

Wal-Mart said the judge's scenario was an unprecedented denial of its rights and sought to dismiss the case. The company said women who allege discrimination could file lawsuits against individual stores.

The women's lawyers said the idea was ridiculous, and would clog the federal judiciary.

"Although size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the majority, which upheld Jenkins' decision in its entirety.

But Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in a dissent that women should perhaps file individual lawsuits to safeguard Wal-Mart from paying those who don't deserve money, and would also ensure women get the compensation they deserve.

The appellate court's decision, he wrote, "threatens the rights of women injured by sex discrimination. And it threatens Wal-Mart's rights."

One of the attorneys who represented the women suing Wal-Mart, said the decision would hurt the company's reputation.

David Nassar, executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, a group critical of Wal-Mart policies, said the decision vindicates "victims of the company's illegal and immoral gender discrimination."]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11487 Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11487
On Friday, Federal District Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. entered a consent decree that ends the workplace discrimination lawsuit brought by EEOC lawyers two years ago against the nationwide restaurant chain. The case was adjudicated in a courtroom of the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois.

Under the decree, 51 current or former employees of Cracker Barrel restaurants in Mattoon, Bloomington and Matteson will share the $2 million settlement fund. In addition, Cracker Barrel will be required to train all employees at those stores on harassment issues and post a notice regarding the outcome of the lawsuit, as well as report any complaints it receives about alleged sex or race discrimination to EEOC officials.

The lawsuit, first filed nearly two years ago, claimed 10 female employees were subjected to “pornographic photographs, cartoons, obscene jokes and sexual propositions” as well as groping and sexual assaults. In total, 51 employees were involved in the charges investigated by the EEOC.

“We’re very happy. This is a great result,” said June Calhoun, EEOC supervisory trial attorney. “It is also important to note that Cracker Barrel will be required to make periodic reports to EEOC when any complaints of harassment or discrimination come from their employees at those restaurants.”

In addition, the decree prohibits Cracker Barrel from retaliating against employees for complaining about illegal harassment or accepting benefits under the decree.

Calhoun said the strength of the case was the fact that several employees had the courage to come forward and complain. Then additional employees became involved when the investigation continued.

“We had 51 workers coming forward and telling the same stories,” she said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11055 Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11055
The harassment charges were initially filed by an 18-year-old African American woman, Michal Harris, who worked at the local restaurant in 2001. The EEOC then brought suit on behalf of other minority workers.

Under terms of the settlement, the restaurant's parent company, Carl Karcher Enterprises Inc., did not admit any wrongdoing but set aside the payment for Harris and others, and also will provide harassment prevention training for managers and employees in the Sacramento area.

The incidents in the case occurred in 2001. Upset by alleged epithets from the Carl's Jr. shift leader, Harris wrote a petition to complain to the local district manager and had eight other co-workers sign it, according to the EEOC.

A human resources manager then interviewed the shift leader about the alleged incidents, according to the EEOC. He denied any wrongdoing and, according to the EEOC, the workers who signed the petition were never interviewed.

"It was a very limited investigation," said Joan Ehrlich, director of the EEOC's California district.

Two weeks after submitting the written petition, Harris was fired, allegedly for eating food without paying for it, Ehrlich said. She also received a death threat on her answering machine and, without a job, was left homeless for two months, according to her attorney, Harold H. Franklin Jr. of Washington state. Harris, who according to her attorney has since married and changed her last name and moved out of the area, declined to be interviewed by The Bee.

The shift leader was never disciplined or fired, according to Franklin. He voluntarily left Carl's Jr. in 2002, according to the EEOC. Efforts to reach him were unsuccessful.

In a statement, the human resources vice president at parent company Carl Karcher Enterprises Inc. said: "Although CKE strongly disputes the EEOC's claims in this matter, it makes sense to settle this matter to avoid the costs and time which would be associated with defending this litigation. CKE remains committed to its policy of providing a workplace free of harassment and discrimination."

The settlement earmarked $105,000 for Harris and an additional $150,000 for any other minority employees who were allegedly harassed, according to the EEOC. Any remaining money will go to the William K. Morgan Scholarship Fund at McGeorge School of Law.

CKE also agreed to provide mandatory training in preventing racial harassment to all of its supervisors and managers in the Sacramento district, according to the EEOC.

Current manager Hang Nguyen, who did not work at the Elk Grove Carl's Jr. restaurant at the time of the alleged harassment, said she had no knowledge of the suit or the settlement.

Harris "was very traumatized initially, but she's young and she's bounded back," Franklin said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10958 Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10958
Jesus Romero was temporarily laid off along with other kitchen workers in September 2001 while the hotel remodeled its restaurant. Employees were advised they would be rehired less than a year later, the lawsuit said. However, Romero was denied the job because of an English fluency requirement, according to the EEOC.

The EEOC found the firing to be discriminatory because, as a dishwasher, Romero had little contact with the public. As a result, English fluency was not a business necessity. He had worked as a dishwasher for 16 years.

The case is one of several in which the EEOC has intervened on behalf of Spanish-speaking workers over English fluency policies, which the agency says have become an emerging issue with a growing immigrant population in the United States.

Although the hotel later abolished its English fluency policy, according to the EEOC, Romero was not rehired.

According to EEOC policy, a fluency requirement is permissible in workplaces only if needed "for the effective performance of the position for which it is imposed."

The settlement will provide Romero with back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. The settlement also includes an agreement that the hotel will provide training to managerial employees concerning the prohibition of national-origin discrimination and the potentially discriminatory nature and impact of English-fluency-requirement policies, according to the EEOC.

Discrimination filings by Hispanics with the EEOC have increased by almost 23 percent, from 6,250 in 1999 to 7,687 in 2004. In the same period, national-origin discrimination filings with the EEOC rose by 18 percent, from 7,108 to 8,361.

"Employees with firsthand knowledge of this situation were not available by the time the investigation began, so we were unable to ascertain the decision not to invite Mr. Romero back," said Melissa Thompson, a spokeswoman for Interstate Hotels & Resorts. She said Interstate cooperated with the EEOC "and felt a settlement was the best way to solve this situation."

The company will provide additional training to managers, she said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10959 Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10959
Without admitting wrongdoing, Amtrak agreed to an undisclosed financial settlement. It also said it would change how it records and documents discrimination complaints. Amtrak agreed to track complaints against employees and to have them investigated by its equal employment office rather than by an employee supervisor, as is the current practice.
    
Amtrak spokesman Clifford Black said the company was already working to implement nondiscrimination policies before the settlement was reached. "We agree with the policies that were set forth in the settlement and we're already putting them in place. We have zero tolerance for any discriminatory behavior on the part of any Amtrak employee," Black said.

The nation's passenger railroad system also has been hit in recent years by race discrimination lawsuits brought by its employees.

An attorney for the Amtrak passenger who was the plaintiff in the case, said Amtrak managers were too busy focusing on the railroad's financial problems to properly manage internal employee issues. "Discrimination was allowed to go unchecked for too long a period of time," he said.

The railroad's financial problems were again in the spotlight yesterday as the Government Accountability Office issued a report that said Amtrak management needed fundamental improvement in many areas including cost control, goods and services purchasing and overall accountability. Amtrak's financial difficulties prompted the GAO review of its management procedures.

"Although Amtrak management has taken steps to instill discipline and control over its operations, the corporation still lacks effective operating practices characteristic of well-run organizations, whether public or private," the report said.

Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta called the report "thoughtful" and "comprehensive" in its judgment of Amtrak's performance. "The Amtrak Board must stop and take a fresh look at how to proceed in the face of this nonpartisan, objective report of systemic failure," Mineta said in a written statement.

In one case, the report said Amtrak understated expenses by omitting $606 million in depreciation and $100 million in employee benefits.

A bipartisan House panel was appointed yesterday to assess the railroad's operations. The group is scheduled to present its findings to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in February.

Despite its problems, Amtrak won Senate approval yesterday of $1.9 billion in annual subsidies. In June, the House approved $1.18 billion in subsidies. The two houses must now reconcile the difference. President Bush has opposed the subsidies, arguing that Amtrak should be split into separate units and that subsidies should be significantly reduced.

The lawsuit settled yesterday involved a black passenger who charged that a white conductor discriminated against him and his family and humiliated them in front of other passengers on a trip in 2000.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10869 Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10869
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the settlement Thursday. It filed the lawsuit two years ago on behalf of Christine Gagliardi, who is learning disabled and required a job coach for her position as a greeter, cashier and server for the Golden, Colo.-based company from 1999 to 2001.

Neither Boston Market nor its attorney could be reached for comment.

The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that Gagliardi's co-workers and some supervisors taunted her because of her disability and because she needed a coach. In addition, a male co-worker repeatedly harassed her, sometimes in the presence of managers. The co-worker also made lewd comments and gestures and once pressed Gagliardi up against the wall and touched her inappropriately, the lawsuit said. He later pleaded guilty to criminal charges in connection with the harassment, the EEOC said.

"The EEOC is pleased that this lawsuit has been resolved in a manner that compensates Ms. Gagliardi for the harm she suffered and which also provides for protections against discrimination in the future," said Judy Keenan, the agency senior trial attorney who litigated the case.

Gagliardi, 30, worked with a coach because many mentally disabled workers are entitled to such an accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

As part of its consent decree Boston Market has to establish procedures for investigating employees' complaints about harassment and discrimination and provide prevention training for managers and employees.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10842 Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10842
The Department of Justice's complaint, which was filed in September 2004, alleged that the MTA engaged in unlawful employment practices by refusing to consider accommodations for bus operators who, for religious reasons, are precluded from complying with the MTA's requirement that bus operators be available to work weekends, on any shift, at any location.

The complaint also alleged that the MTA discriminated against Henry Asher, a member of the Jewish faith, by refusing to consider accommodating Asher's religious practice of observing the Sabbath from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday.

The settlement agreement specifies accommodations that are to be made available to bus operators and applicants for bus operator positions who, because of religious obligations, are precluded from complying with the MTA's availability requirements. The settlement also provides monetary relief to Asher.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10868 Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10868
FedEx Freight East is a subsidiary of Memphis, Tenn.-based FedEx Corp., which acquired American Freightways in 2001.

FedEx Freight said that in settling the case, it is not admitting discrimination against black employees, and in fact, denies it. The company, noting it does not tolerate discrimination in the workplace, said the alleged events occurred before FedEx acquired American Freightways in 2001.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

The EEOC sued in 2003 on behalf of 20 blacks who worked for American Freightways Inc. at the time of the alleged bias. The EEOC said blacks were denied promotions from part-time to full-time jobs at the company’s trucking terminal in St. Louis. Another was denied promotion to a supervisory position.

When the suit was filed in September 2003, attorney Jerome Dobson said the delays had significant effects on black workers who were seeking more hours, better routes and pay, and promotion opportunities. Meanwhile, he said, white workers “leapfrogged” over the black workers.

Six black dockworkers joined in the lawsuit and the settlement. In addition to the $500,000 settlement, which must still be approved by federal District Court, FedEx will be required to report on promotions to full-time dockworker positions and to dock supervisor positions.

“We are pleased that FedEx corrected the problems at its St. Louis terminal after it acquired American Freightways and now has reached a fair resolution of this lawsuit,” said Robert Johnson, attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis office.

“Unfortunately, 40 years after enactment of the landmark Civil Rights Act, the EEOC continues to see cases of race discrimination against African Americans.”]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10308 Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10308
If you are over 50 and looking for a job, “age bias” is your worst enemy.  It’s a form of “profiling” that would bring swift legal action if an employer was foolish enough to mention the issue in an interview or as a determining factor in filling a position. Unfortunately, it’s a form of bias that is easily hidden by prospective employers.

Telling an applicant that he or she is “overqualified” is often the easy way out of an uncomfortable situation where the best qualified candidate simply doesn’t fit the prime hiring age of 25 to 39.

There are a number of factors involved in creating the predisposition against hiring older workers even when they are the best qualified for the position. These include:

•    Older workers are prone to health problems which lead to more absences and higher health insurance costs.
•    Older, more experienced workers command higher salaries than younger, less experienced workers.
•    Older workers cannot be factored into a company’s long-term employment needs.
•    Older workers are “out of touch” with technological advances and do not fit in with younger workers who tend to be more computer literate.
•    Older workers with extensive experience tend to make younger supervisors and managers uncomfortable.

On the other side of the equation, however, are many reasons why older applicants may be far more qualified for many positions for which they are not being seriously considered.

•    Older workers bring enormous experience and confidence to a position.
•    Older workers do not need to be trained or monitored as extensively as those with less (or no) experience.
•     Older workers often stabilize a younger workforce and serve as mentors to younger coworkers.
•    Older workers tend to have a strong work ethic and pride themselves on their reliability.
•    People are living longer which makes the average work-life expectancy greater. Thus, older workers tend to be available for much longer tenures than in the past.
•    Recent massive corporate failures, bankruptcies, and scandals have left highly competent older workers, who had been near or at retirement age, in need of full- or part-time employment to recover from devastating losses to their savings, pension plans, or stock holdings. In short, these people really need the work and will do whatever is necessary to hold a job.

Many business writers and those familiar with the subject like Lore Croghan (New York Daily News), Betsy Cummings (How to Find a Job After 50: From Part-Time to Full-Time, from Career Moves to New Careers – Warner Business Books [Fall 2005]), Renee Ward (founder of Seniors4Hire.org [http://www.seniors4hire.org/]), The Five O’Clock Club (http://www.fiveoclockclub.com/), and the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons [http://www.aarp.org/]) have given a voice to older workers through their efforts to publicize the problem and/or assist in job searches and placement.

Another not-for-profit organization which has been in the forefront of assisting “highly skilled and experienced executives, managers, and professionals who are actively seeking employment” is Forty Plus of New York, Inc. (www.FortyPlus.com).  

Established in New York in 1939, the group “is a cooperative enterprise in which members share their knowledge and skills to reach a common objective: landing a job matched to each individual’s background and capabilities.” The success of the New York chapter led to the creation of other Forty Plus offices in some 21 cities in the United States and Canada.

Richard Calderhead, Chairman of Forty Plus of New York, acknowledged that: “There is plenty of actual bias out in larger corporations. Younger means cheaper and corporate cost-cutting is rampant.” He was quick to point out, however, that at Forty Plus of New York, “we build on the invaluable experience our members offer employers.”  In the end, regardless of what might appear to be important considerations, “nothing trumps experience.”

Another serious problem faced by older job seekers is discouragement. At Forty Plus of New York, weekly membership meetings, peer-review sessions, resume development, one-on-one counseling, and an upbeat, positive atmosphere help members avoid the doldrums and remain focused on the task at hand.

Networking skills are also stressed since, according to Calderhead, “over 70% of jobs are now influenced by Networking and not simplistic answers like broadcasting resumes.”
   
In the end, however, it would seem that, regardless of their experience, qualifications, and abilities, older job seekers must overcome one major obstacle their younger counterparts do not face, age bias and discrimination.
]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10025 Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10025
The federal lawsuit alleged that Plaza managers called Arab-American employees terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks, referring to them as "Osama" or "dumb Muslim."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Plaza and Fairmont Hotel Management LP in September 2003.

Since then, the Plaza has been sold to Elad Properties, which has closed the hotel for remodeling and plans to reopen it in fall 2006 as a condominium building and smaller hotel.

The settlement signed Tuesday by Fairmont covers the company's 14 hotels nationwide and will be in force at the new Plaza if Fairmont becomes its managing agent, said Sunu Chandy, an EEOC attorney.

The settlement also includes additional anti-discrimination training for the hotel staff.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9664 Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9664
The agreement, one of the biggest race-related job bias settlements in recent years, also includes detailed provisions for increasing diversity at the Gaithersburg, Md.-based company, including promotion incentives, monitoring and training.

The company said in a statement that it agreed to resolve the litigation in order to avoid protracting the case, which was set for jury selection Thursday in federal district court in Washington. It admitted no wrongdoing.

"This is an extremely positive result, both for the plaintiffs and for the company," said, the lead attorney for the employees. "The opportunities that this settlement provides both for African-American employees and for the company are the best possible outcome."

In a statement, Sodexho's President and CEO Richard Macedonia said: "We are pleased this case has been resolved. We are a stronger and better organization as a result of this process."

The case was filed in March 2001 against the company's corporate predecessor, Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc., after midlevel black managers said they realized nearly all had been denied promotions into upper management, while less-qualified counterparts rose through the company.

The settlement will mean payouts to 10 lead plaintiffs and as many as 3,000 other black salaried workers who worked at the company between 1998 and 2004, according to the settlement decree.

The compensation amounts will depend on each person's tenure with the company: Those hired after 2001 will receive $2,000 each and those hired before that will get $492 for each month of employment at Sodexho up to a maximum of 120 months. The lead plaintiffs will also receive $120,000 each.

The cash payouts will come in addition to money spent to set up monitoring, training and other diversity initiatives, said Leslie Aun, a company spokeswoman.

Of the company's 100,000-plus North American employees in 2004, about one in eight managers were black, Aun said. She said there are no figures available for upper management, but court documents said that, in 2000, blacks held 18 out of 700 upper management jobs and none of the 188 top corporate jobs.

In addition, plaintiffs alleged that so-called black accounts at historically black colleges and universities, for example were overwhelmingly staffed with black employees and managers, who were rarely promoted outside of those accounts.

Cynthia Carter-McReynolds, the lead plaintiff in the case, has been a unit manager at Howard University, a predominantly black campus in Washington D.C., since 1986. She said that she has unsuccessfully applied for more than 50 promotions.

"I'm overjoyed that it's over," she said Wednesday. "This lawsuit, I'm hoping, will open up the doors for more opportunities for African-Americans in the company to pursue their dreams and hopes."

Ellen Early, a plaintiff who quit a low-level management post after suffering job-related anxiety attacks, called the company's environment "infuriating."

"There was a limit as to how far African-American employees could go, and a limit as to what facilities African-American employees could go to," said Early, who now works for a competitor in the Baltimore-Washington region.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9324 Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9324
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the settlement in the case, which began in 2001 when Burger King assistant manager Thomas Guy alleged that he was disciplined and fired in retaliation for his opposition to a race-based reassignment of employees requested by a customer.

The EEOC filed action against Star City LLC, doing business as Burger King, PMI Services, Inc. and Petroleum Marketers Inc. in September 2003.

The consent decree states that the settlement does not constitute a finding on the merits of the case, but it also states that Star City management employees will be required to attend a training program of at least four hours regarding equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities, with a focus on retaliation.

Suzanne Nyfeler, trial attorney for the EEOC, said a black customer requested that a black employee prepare her sandwich, after returning a sandwich three times that was prepared by a white cook.

The black employee was a cashier, and Guy said it was against store policy to have a person working as cashier prepare food. Guy, who is white, perceived the request as racial discrimination, Nyfeler said, and told the customer he could not comply with it.

His refusal entitled him to protection from discipline or discharge under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Nyfeler said.

The woman complained to Guys employer, who fired him within two weeks of the charge. Guy appealed to the EEOC, alleging his dismissal was retaliatory.

His employer denied the allegation, and instead contended that Guy was dismissed for the way in which he responded to the customers request, Nyfeler said.

Attorneys for Star City could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon.

Star City operates about 10 convenience and fast food restaurants in Virginia and West Virginia.

If approved, Guy would receive $15,000 in settlement of claims for pay and benefits, and another $50,000 of claims for compensatory damages.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9325 Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9325
The complaint identifies 1,935 air traffic controllers it claims were adversely affected by the FAAs recent decision to contract out flight service to Lockheed Martin. The complaint is on file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the next 30 days, and then will be filed in U. S. District Court.

The FAA recently announced it had awarded a 10-year, $1.9 billion contract to Lockheed Martin to provide general aviation flight services currently performed by about 2,500 agency employees.

The union cited as one of its arguments the fact that agency officials announced one of the primary reasons for its decision to outsource flight service was because of the presence of a largely "retirement eligible workforce."

"We have been forced into a legal battle over our Federal jobs and retirement benefits that our members have worked for and earned and are now being denied," said NAATS President Kate Breen. "The FAAs vision to save money at the expense of its employees livelihood is despicable and cannot be allowed."

According to The Washington Post, FAA spokesman Greg Martin said the agency's legal staff "has reviewed the document and believes the filing is not supported by the facts."

According to The Post, Lockheed Martin has promised to offer jobs to all of the displaced FAA employees, with no loss in salary and comparable benefits.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9326 Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9326
Joe Stanley Brown filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that Hillcrest Foods, which operates 44 Waffle House restaurants, twice denied him promotions to a restaurant management position because he's black.

Days after filing his complaint, Brown was fired, and he filed a second EEOC complaint alleging he was fired in retaliation for his first charge.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Charlotte decided that Brown was not passed over for promotions because of his race, but said Brown's dismissal was in retaliation for his discrimination claim.

Brown, who has worked at a Charlotte Waffle House off and on for 19 years, is currently unemployed.

A Hillcrest Foods spokesman said it had legitimate reasons for firing Brown and intends to appeal the verdict.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9221 Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9221
The Commission alleged in the lawsuit that co-workers subjected the African American employees to racial intimidation which included hanging nooses in the workplace, assaults, threats of physical harm, displaying racially offensive graffiti, damaging property and other harassment. Consolidated, which filed a petition for relief under the Bankruptcy Code on September 3, 2002, and is now in the process of liquidation, was one of the largest freight transportation companies in North America.

In EEOC's suit, filed on May 31, 2002, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division (No. 4:02-CV-00519-DW), the Commission alleged that Consolidated knew about but did nothing to stop the racial harassment, and that it disciplined one of the employees for complaining about the harassment. The litigation was filed by EEOC after the agency investigated charges of discrimination, found merit, and exhausted its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

The settlement, in the form of a Consent Decree, provides monetary relief to former dockworkers at Consolidated's Kansas City, Mo.-based facility. It calls for Consolidated to pay $2,750,000 to the former employees and their private attorneys. The amount of the actual recovery will be determined by the Bankruptcy Court based on the company's remaining assets.

Lynn Bruner, Director of the EEOC's St. Louis District Office, said, "No employee should be subjected to graphic racial symbols, racial graffiti or threats of physical violence, and no company should tolerate such behavior in their workplace. By continuing to pursue this case even after the company filed for bankruptcy, EEOC hopes to alert employers everywhere that it considers this issue to be extremely serious and will act accordingly."

Consolidated denies the EEOC's allegations of race discrimination and asserts that it is entering into the Consent Decree because it believes that it is in the best interests of its bankruptcy estate and its creditors.

Robert Johnson, the EEOC's Regional Attorney in St. Louis, said, "The company's bankruptcy keeps us from obtaining full relief for these victims of gross racial harassment, but we expect that they will soon receive substantial compensation from the bankruptcy proceedings."]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9174 Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9174
The automaker says it did nothing wrong, but has agreed with its accusers to a settlement that awaits approval by federal judges in Cincinnati.

The case began when workers at Ford's Sharonville and Batavia plants complained to federal authorities of discrimination.

The lawsuits and identical settlement proposals in the two cases were filed last week with two federal judges, who could decide to consolidate the cases into one. No hearings have been set.

Lawyers have asked the federal courts to approve the settlement as covering approximately 3,400 black employees of Ford plants nationwide.

If the deal is approved, Ford would make payments to the eligible participants, set aside 279 positions in the apprenticeship training program for blacks and pay their lawyers' fees. The company operates 36 US plants.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9179 Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9179
The EEOC sued Northwest in 2001 over allegations that it excluded people with epilepsy or insulin-dependent diabetes from being considered for jobs as airport ramp workers and cleaners.

The Eagan-based carrier denied allegations raised under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Northwest said that its hiring processes are and were proper.

Under the agreement, Northwest will offer individual assessments of the ability of applicants to safely perform the key job functions. The airline said it had a longstanding practice of providing the assessments.

"Northwest is settling this case to expeditiously resolve the matter and avoid protracted litigation, but also because the procedures in the agreement reaffirm and are consistent with its commitment to equal employment opportunity," the EEOC said Thursday in a news release.

The airline agreed to pay a settlement of $510,000 that will be distributed among 28 people the EEOC represented.

"This lawsuit was an important reminder to employers that the ADA requires that they give individualized assessments to their employees with disabilities to determine whether they could perform their jobs with or without reasonable accommodation," said Chester Bailey, an EEOC official based in the Milwaukee district office.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9104 Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9104
The company, at the time called Federal Express Corp., must pay Theodore Maines $1.37 million for emotional pain and anguish and $200,000 in lost wages and benefits in the workplace retaliation case, the jury in Orlando ruled last week.

Maines, who is white, worked at FedEx's call center. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the package-delivery giant in 2002.

"It was very disillusioning to lose my career for doing what I believe was the right thing," Maines said Wednesday. "This is a bittersweet victory."

FedEx officials said they likely would appeal.

"We strongly believe that FedEx has a diverse work force," said Sandra Munoz, a spokeswoman for the Memphis, Tenn.-based company. "We do not tolerate discrimination."

The lawsuit stemmed from an incident in 2001 in which Maines, a senior manager in the customer account services department, sought to promote a black female employee and a Hispanic female employee.

Maines was overruled by a vice president, who favored a white female employee for the promotion, according to the lawsuit.

The vice president rescinded Maines' offer letters to the two minority candidates and instead promoted the white employee, the suit said. After Maines complained to the company's legal department, FedEx gave Maines the option of either accepting a demotion of five pay-grade levels or be issued a warning letter and face immediate termination for any subsequent infractions, the lawsuit said.

Maines quit the call center in 2001. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8961 Sat, 04 Dec 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8961
The suit claims the Kansas City-based bank refused to hire Rodney Graves in late 2002 as a customer support and sales agent because of his disability. Graves, 47, sustained paralysis from a football injury 29 years ago, the agency said.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, seeks back pay and damages for Graves.

"Employers must remember that disability does not mean inability," Lynn Bruner, a spokeswoman for the agency's St. Louis office, said in a statement.

UMB said it was disappointed to hear of the lawsuit, saying it "attempted to work with Mr. Graves in facilitating his employment" but that "both he and the UMB associates with whom he interviewed were of the opinion that he was unable to do the job for which he applied."

Bruner said the Kansas City man was a qualified applicant who was ready and willing to work, but UMB Bank denied him the opportunity. The bank job required phone sales and typing data into a computer and Graves had experience in a similar position with AT&T Corp. until he was laid off, the agency said.

Agency officials said they filed the suit under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act after out-of-court settlement efforts with the bank failed.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8960 Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8960
The class action suit, filed in 2001, claimed that black managers, administrators, accountants and other white-collar workers had a harder time advancing at Sunoco than white workers with similar skills and experience.

The lead plaintiff, DeWayne Ketchum, said he spent 30 years in various financial jobs for Sunoco, but never made it into an upper-level management job.

Those who brought suit against the company worked at company headquarters in Philadelphia, the South Philadelphia and Marcus Hook refineries, and an additional plant in the Frankford section of the city.

Sunoco spokesman Gerald Davis said company officials still believe the lawsuit was without merit, and that the company did not discriminate, but felt it was in the company's best interest to settle before the case got to trial.

"Sunoco is committed to providing equal employment opportunities to all qualified candidates," Davis said. "We feel good about the progress the company has made in the representation of African Americans in both supervisory and management positions."

As many as 200 current and former Sunoco employees at the company's Philadelphia headquarters and its facilities around the city would be paid varying amounts as part of the settlement.

A federal judge has given preliminary approval to the deal and conducted a hearing Friday into its fairness. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8869 Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8869
The Union County jury returned the verdict Monday for Karen Caggiano following a three-week trial.

Caggiano, 43, of Bridgewater, testified that she had to use the same bathroom and locker room as male officers in the late 1990s, and that pictures of naked women were posted on lockers.

She endured lewdness, including one sheriff's officer who repeatedly exposed himself in front of her, according to her lawyers.

One of them, Neil Mullin, said the department issued a "whitewashed" internal affairs report that found no merit to her complaints. Caggiano's superiors acted maliciously and intended to hurt her, Mullin told The Star-Ledger of Newark for Tuesday newspapers.

Sheriff Armando B. Fontoura had no immediate comment Tuesday on whether the department would appeal, a spokesman said.

Rosemary Alito, who represented Essex County at the trial, maintained that the department had a thorough response to Caggiano's complaints.

The trial was held in Union County instead of Essex County to avoid conflicts of interest.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8833 Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8833
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Columbia last month by Beaufort attorney Bill Harvey. It charges the state agency with failure to grant promotions on racial grounds in the cases of Wendell Mulligan of Beaufort and Malzone Russell of Ridgeland.

According to the suit, the two were repeatedly denied promotions while white employees with fewer qualifications and less education received advancements.

Russell has more than 10 years of continuous employment with the agency and Mulligan has 21 years. Both are engineers in the district's maintenance department.

According to the suit, there are no black district engineers or resident construction engineers in any of the DOT's seven district offices or 48 county offices.

The suit contends the discrimination is agency-wide and asks for a permanent injunction against further violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, plus an adjustment of salaries.

Peter Poore, spokesman for the DOT, declined to comment on the suit.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8834 Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8834
The lawsuit alleges that Hispanic, Native and black employees in the contracts department at the company's Anchorage headquarters were not promoted to jobs where they would work on procurement strategy because of their race or national origin.

The lawsuit asks the court to order Alyeska to give the employees back pay with interest, as well as punitive damages.

Alyeska, owned by five oil companies, runs the 800-mile trans-Alaska oil pipeline and Valdez tanker port and employs 858 people.

Only one employee, a Hispanic commercial auditor named Anthony Navarro, is named in the complaint, but EEOC attorneys claim the company also discriminated against others.

Navarro said he first complained about the alleged discrimination nine months ago to the Anchorage-based Joint Pipeline Office, a group of government regulators that oversee the pipeline.

Officials there started an investigation of Alyeska's equal employment opportunity program but suspended it after the company acknowledged some shortcomings and agreed to correct them, said Rhea DoBosh, a Joint Pipeline Office spokeswoman.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8835 Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8835
The settlement, which remains subject to judicial review, would resolve two federal class-action discrimination lawsuits filed last year in San Francisco and Camden, N.J., and a third suit filed Monday by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The private lawsuits accuse the retailer, based in Ohio, of overlooking Latino, Asian and other minority recruits in favor of white job candidates.

Plaintiffs' attorneys claimed that Abercrombie's minority hires were disproportionately assigned to behind-the-scenes positions such as stockroom clerks, while white employees were placed in conspicuous jobs where the company believed they projected a look more in keeping with its classic, clean- cut image. The retailer denied the discrimination charges.

The commission filing Monday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco made public a previously confidential investigation by the federal agency. The commission had responded to allegations that the retailer consistently failed to equitably recruit, hire and promote candidates regardless of race, national origin, gender and skin color, said commission attorney Anna Park in Los Angeles.

"It's a nationwide case. We allege that Abercrombie, on a nationwide basis, discriminated" against large categories of job candidates, including female applicants, Park said Tuesday.

Details of the proposed settlement were not made public, pending a hearing that's expected to take place within a few weeks, sources said.

Abercrombie & Fitch spokesman Tom Lennox declined to say whether the retailer admitted to wrongdoing as part of the settlement. He cited an agreement by all parties involved not to discuss the settlement until it's finalized.

Lennox said that the company has hired a vice president of diversity, Todd Corley, who started on Monday. The spokesman declined to comment on Corley's responsibilities or whether shoppers will see any changes inside the company's more than 760 stores as a result of the company's diversity initiatives.

Robert Singer, Abercrombie's president and chief operating officer, said in a conference call with Wall Street analysts Tuesday, "We decided to settle this because we felt that a long, drawn-out dispute would have been harmful to the company and distracting to management."

The company booked a $32.9 million charge due to the anticipated settlement, which slashed 22 cents per share off its earnings. That resulted in a 21 percent drop in third-quarter earnings, to $40.1 million (42 cents per share) from $50.5 million (51 cents) during the same period a year earlier.

The company also warned of weaker-than-expected profit in the current quarter. Shares of the retailer fell several percentage points after the report was released but recovered to close down 16 cents to $42.

The $1.7 billion-a-year retailer operates stores under the names Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie, Hollister Co. and Ruehl, a wilderness outfitter that counted Ernest Hemingway among its customers.

Abercrombie more recently has been involved in a series of scandals.

In 2002, it caused a high-profile ruckus when it sold T-shirts featuring caricatured Asian faces with slanted eyes and rice-paddy hats.

Last year, Abercrombie paid $2.2 million in California in a first-of-its- kind settlement to resolve allegations by state labor regulators that it illegally forced store employees to buy and wear the company's clothes on the job.

The discrimination lawsuits against Abercrombie have been watched closely by employers and workers' advocates alike at a time when discount giant Wal- Mart Stores Inc. faces high-profile lawsuits alleging mistreatment of women and minorities. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8796 Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8796
A federal court awarded $827,000 to a former Boston branch manager at Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. John Cariglia was 62 and had restored the money-losing branch to profitability when top executives fired him for poor performance involving equipment maintenance.

But US District Court in Boston ruled last week that his immediate supervisor, James Heard, who made discriminatory remarks about Cariglia's age, did not provide an accurate picture of Cariglia's performance to his own superiors. The executives then fired Cariglia based on incomplete information.

The court found Heard "was motivated by invidious discriminatory intent" in misinforming the executives. Judge Reginald Lindsay wrote in his Oct. 28 decision that the firm was "liable as to the plaintiff's claim of age discrimination."

Cariglia was Hertz Equipment's oldest branch manager, according to his lawsuit. He was reassigned to Boston when the office was suffering a string of losses, court documents said. Under him, the branch posted profits in 1993, 1994, and 1995. In 1995, profits hit $2.3 million. A man in his 30s replaced Cariglia, according to court documents.

Hertz Equipment's top executives said they fired Cariglia because he failed to have crane equipment painted, work that was being expensed by the company. The court said Cariglia's direct supervisor, Heard, did not tell the executives, including Daniel Kaplan, president at the time, and Gerald Plescia, a former vice president who is currently president, the reasons they weren't painted: They were rented out to customers, and Heard and Cariglia agreed the painting could wait.

Heard "knowingly induced" Hertz Equipment to fire Cariglia, Lindsay said.

The decision was significant because it effectively held Hertz liable for what top executives did not know, said attorneys who reviewed the decision, strengthening the tenet employers are responsible for what takes place in the workplace.

The decision "focuses on the tainted process, rather than isolating the inquiry as to whether or not the decision maker" top Hertz executives "harbored a discriminatory animus," said an attorney in Boston.

Marc Greenbaum, a Suffolk University School of Law professor, said the federal court ruling mirrors laws recently established in sexual harassment law, when a dismissal is the issue.

"If senior executives could hide behind claims of ignorance, even if well founded, it would severely undercut the enforcement of the discrimination laws," Greenbaum said. The ruling places the onus on executives "to monitor the conduct of their lower-level supervisors."

Hertz Equipment Rental has not decided whether to appeal, said spokesman Richard Broome, who maintains the dismissal was based on work performance. "Key points in the record were either ignored over overlooked, and those omissions provide the basis for a possible appeal," he said.

The case has been appealed once. Last week's decision came after a federal Appeals Court told Lindsay to review his prior decision, which had favored Hertz.

After 16 years at Hertz, Cariglia said in an interview that he was older than his peers "older than their fathers" and felt confident in his experience. But he said his supervisor, Heard, often commented on his age to co-workers.

Cariglia was awarded $657,026 for lost income and $170,000 for emotional distress. His attorney, said this was commensurate with his client's compensation, which the court said exceeded $80,000 for salary and bonus combined. When interest is added, the total award will be about $1.6 million, he said.

In federal courts, "you don't see hits like that," Holtz said. Employers "can no longer stick their head in the sand."

Norma Cariglia said her husband was "in a state of shock" after being fired. During nearly nine years his case churned through the legal system, John Cariglia thought many times that he could not win his case, though he never lost his determination to pursue it.

When one is successful, there are "people trying to knock you off your chair," Cariglia said. The results of his lawsuit, he said "came out well."

"They picked the wrong person" to fire, said Cariglia, who lost his Hertz pension and has another job selling cars. "I said to my wife, 'I'll go down with everything before I let them beat me.' "]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8797 Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8797
She's an employment counselor in Ogden, and helps fill open positions for jobs like maids, assembly line workers and warehouse workers.

She says some of the job descriptions require workers to speak, read/or write English, and is intended to exclude Latinos.

Ayala says the English language requirement has forced her to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

The lawsuit claims the department allows prospective employers to include the English requirement on job forms even when it's not needed to perform the work.

Department spokesman Curt Stewart says the agency does NOT comment on pending lawsuits, but has taken ambitious steps in helping Latino clients. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8684 Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8684
In a suit filed last week in Johnson County District Court, Shannon L. Derifield alleges he was denied promotions, treated unfairly and ultimately fired in January from MCI Mass Markets, 1925 Boyrum St., after nearly three years of employment. The lawsuit also names Derifield's former supervisor Jane Williams as a defendant.

The lawsuit alleges MCI violated its own non-discrimination policy by firing Derifield and that Williams "orchestrated, manipulated and encouraged an unfair accusation of poor performance on the part of (Derifield)," which resulted in his ineligibility for a promotion within the company. Derifield also alleges he was subject to an "intimidating, hostile and offensive" work environment.

Derifield also has filed complaints with the Iowa City Human Rights Commission and the Iowa Civil Rights Commission against MCI, according to the lawsuit. He is seeking unspecified damages for lost pay, benefits, court costs and emotional distress.

MCI spokeswoman Brittany Hoff declined comment on the lawsuit because she was not familiar with it.

"We have a no discrimination policy," she said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8685 Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8685
The lawsuit, filed by Kimberly Petersen, alleges CEO Brian O. Harris made offensive remarks about women, hired and fired women because of their looks, engaged in sexual relationships with employees he supervised, and fired Petersen for an improper reason.

The suit also alleges that three men associated with the clinic, Bob Marsalli, James Calvert and Montie Stembridge, falsely told community members or other organizations that Petersen had been fired. Marsalli is running for Klamath County commissioner, while Calvert is running for a seat in the Oregon House of Representatives.

Marsalli said Harris is relocating to a medical clinic in North Carolina. The move, he said, was unrelated to the lawsuit. Klamath Open Door has selected a finalist to become CEO to replace Harris, whose last day was Friday.

Neither Calvert nor Marsalli would speculate on the timing of the lawsuit filed five weeks before the November election.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Medford on Sept. 24. The Herald and News learned about the suit last week after receiving an anonymous letter.

Petersen's suit states that she heard Harris refer to women in terms such as "a fat pig," "typical fat-girl syndrome," "a nice rack" and being "dikes". It says Harris fired a female dental office manager because the woman was a "fat pig" and "he could not stand looking at her."

It goes on to state that Harris was intimate with several female employees, and promoted at least one based on their relationship. It states that Harris interfered with a work performance evaluation of a female employee that Petersen supervised, and contends that Harris publicly yelled at Petersen and physically intimidated her.

The Herald and News was unable to reach Harris for a response.

The document alleges that Calvert told prospective employers for Petersen that she had been fired from the clinic and a previous job at a different clinic, Cascades East. The suit also charges that Marsalli told Petersen's prospective employers she had been fired and was not eligible for rehire.

Marsalli, the human resources director at the clinic, said he has not done anything wrong, and neither has the clinic.

"I don't know why people bring these suits forward," Marsalli said. "All I know is that these allegations are false and without grounds and we will vigorously defend against them."

Calvert also denied the charges.

"We don't see that we did any wrongdoing, and we plan on defending this completely," he said.

Both men referred further questions to the clinic's lawyer, Mark Hackett.

Hackett said the trial would probably take place in nine to 12 months, unless a judge dismisses it. He said he couldn't provide very many details because of the ongoing litigation.

While Hackett declined further comment, he did refer to a written response he filed to Petersen's complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

Hackett denied most of Petersen's charges in his response to the Oregon bureau. He stated that Petersen lied to Harris about leaving work early one day and then tried to cover it up, resulting in her firing. He said the health clinic and Harris "vehemently deny each and every one" of the sexual discrimination claims. Hackett also said Harris denied making derogatory remarks about women.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8654 Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8654
Shaun Haghneviss of Texarkana, Texas, was general manager of Red Lobster in Texarkana for 7 1/2 years. He last worked for the company on Aug. 12, 2003.

The lawsuit is tied to information picketing at the new Texas-side Red Lobster earlier this year, said Haghneviss' lawyer.

The lawyer for Red Lobster did not return telephone calls made by the Gazette.

"As part of the process of opening a new restaurant in Texas and as a general Red Lobster policy, Shaun was instructed by the Red Lobster management to be looking for 'younger employees,' for their 'energy and fresh blood,'" according to Haghneviss' lawsuit filed in federal court in Texarkana, Texas. "He was advised that older employees should be actively let go and replaced with a younger staff. Shaun resisted these continued instructions because he knew them to be wrong and in violation of federal law, and because several of his best employees were over 40."

Haghneviss, in his lawsuit, argues he was "squeezed out" despite the restaurant's increased profits. He says his restaurant had ranked fifth in the country and had earned the company's "prestigious 'Diamond Club' award."

Haghneviss also believes he was subjected to other discriminatory actions including race, national origin and religion.

Haghneviss argues that the district manager, Alan Polock, stated that Christmas was important to Red Lobster's employees, "but that Shaun would not be able to understand that because it was 'not in his culture' to understand or respect such a thing as Christmas."

Haghneviss is Iranian and Muslim. Polock is Jewish. Haghneviss charges that Polock had issues with the differing faiths. Haghneviss also argues that his cultural background was brought up on several occasions.

"When Shaun took a cell phone call in one of the general management meetings, one of the managers said, 'I guess he is important like Osama bin Laden.'"

Haghneviss said the tense environment within the workplace increased in the wake of 9/11 and that led to Haghneviss leaving the company in what is termed as a "constructive termination."

Her attorney said Haghneviss took his complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued a right-to-sue letter. This means that while they did not render a finding of discrimination, the commission is allowing Haghneviss to take his beef against Red Lobster to court for a jury to decide.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8686 Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8686
The EEOCs suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages as well as other relief including a permanent injunction preventing defendants from discharging employees because of their race or national origin, among other things.

In a press release, the EEOC said it filed suit only after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

The EEOC is, unfortunately, unable to maintain an office in every community in West Texas. However, we hope to make our presence felt, in communities like Plainview, by investigating charges of discrimination filed by residents of such communities, and by filing lawsuits when we discover that residents have been subjected to employment discrimination, said a trial attorney with the EEOCs El Paso Area Office.

In addition to enforcing Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits gender-based wage discrimination; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8658 Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8658
Officer Diana Perry told U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission officials last month that for the year she has worked at the Police Department she has been subjected to ". . . disparate treatment, different terms and conditions, intimidation, and harassment."

In her complaint, Perry claimed that as the only woman on the city's drug task force she has been treated differently from male officers, denied ranking and that Police Chief Bill Davis consistently speaks to her "impolitely, using abusive language and is condescending."

Her complaint also claimed City Manager Lyndon Bonner told her in August, when she complained, that Davis came "from the old school where he believes that women should be home barefoot and pregnant."

Attempts to reach Perry were unsuccessful, and Bonner referred all questions about the issue to City Attorney Sid Nowell.

Nowell said the city plans to mediate the case but questioned the validity of the complaint.

"At this time, based on our initial review of the facts, we find no basis to her allegations," Nowell said. "But we will continue to review it and work with the agency to see if we can resolve it."

This is the second time in the past six months a woman police officer has filed a complaint with the EEOC against the Police Department, its police chief and supervising officers.

In April, Cpl. Irene Hosford claimed that for three years she endured ridicule, insults and "blatant sexual discrimination" from Davis and Sgt. Randy Burke. Her case also went into mediation and the details of it are unavailable.

While city leaders are restricted on what they can say because of the meditation, Mayor Joann King said she views both cases as being separate because Perry is still a probationary employee and the issues are different.

Bonner, who was accused of sexual harassment last year, said the two complaints don't reflect badly on the Police Department. The EEOC dismissed victim advocate Rachell Neuman's harassment case against Bonner.

"Just like any other agency or departments, whether it's internal or external, we have complaints and we have a process that we have to go through to find the answers," Bonner said. "Then we will act upon the answers in a responsible way. That's just the way we have done it since I have been here, and that's the way we will continue as long as I am here."]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8656 Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8656
According to the state Human Relations Commission, Hi-Tech Plastics agreed to pay more $52,500 in lost wages to a former employee.

The 51-year-old man was employed as a shift supervisor and had received favorable reviews. Soon after he was told his job was being eliminated, he saw it advertised in a newspaper.

Hi-Tech settled a similar case two years ago for $13,800.

In addition to paying lost wages, Hi-Tech developed a company policy to prevent discrimination.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8657 Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8657
Marietta Harvey was fired in February 2003 after working for the Dublin-based high-tech company as a human resources director for five years, earning a salary as high as $185,000.

The 40-year-old Livermore resident alleges she then sought two lower-level jobs at Sybase but was passed over in favor of two less qualified white men after Sybase CEO John Chen reportedly repeated another executive's comment that the human resources department had too many Asian American employees and "looked like an airport."

Sybase spokeswoman Leslie Nakajima strenuously denied that Chen made the comments. "Sybase has a long history of being an ethical company, an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer and has been voted many times as one of the best places to work in several of our key geographic locations," Nakajima said in an e-mailed statement.

Nakajima declined to say if Sybase would appeal the verdict but said the company plans to "pursue the next legal steps in the process."

"We disagree with the jury verdict," she said. "We believe that in the fullness of time, these charges will be demonstrated to be untrue and the case without merit."

In court papers, Sybase alleged that the company fired Harvey who in the past had received kudos from the company, including bonus stock options and an all expenses-paid trip to Hawaii for poor job performance and lying.

The jury award includes $1.3 million in lost wages and emotional distress as well as $500,000 in punitive damages. Pieter Van der Vorst, Sybase's chief financial officer, testified that the company planned to respond to the verdict by laying off employees to maintain the company's cash assets, according to Adams Nye Sinunu Bruni Becht, the law firm representing Harvey.

Van der Vorst could not be reached for comment late Tuesday.

Harvey, who cried when the verdict was read, said that she felt "very good" about it. "It was very, very emotional for me," she said.

Now Harvey says she hopes to get her career back on track. She is looking for a job in the technology industry and has two prospects lined up.

"It's been a long road for me," she said. "My life was kind of put on hold for a while. Now I can put this behind me and move forward."]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8687 Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8687
The suit filed Thursday, which represents only one side of the story, seeks $10 million in punitive damages and $2.5 million in compensatory damages. It asks for a jury trial.

The suit claims that Cingular's Ocean Springs branch, where the plaintiff, Roy Harville, who is bipolar, according to his attorney, worked for several years, failed to provide reasonable accommodations for several vacant positions for which the plaintiff was qualified.

"My client had applied for several job openings with Cingular, and the human resources director, in a meeting, flat-out said that they were not going to make any accommodations for people with disabilities, which is a clear violation of the American Disabilities Act of 1990," asserted Harville's attorney. "That is a powerful piece of evidence that will be displayed in the case."

The suit also claims Cingular did not have a policy prohibiting harassment and hostile work environment and discrimination related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans Disabilities Act of 1990.

The suit notes the claims were investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after Harville filed the complaints on March 1, 2003.

In July of this year, according to a document filed with the suit, the EEOC told Harville it found reasonable cause that violations occurred, but could not obtain a settlement with the firm "that would provide relief to you." The EEOC also noted it would not bring suit and was closing its file for the time being.

Attorneys with Cingular Wireless, which is based in Atlanta, declined to comment.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8688 Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8688
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit in July on behalf of Kerry Gillihan.

A consent decree outlining the settlement was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in St. Louis, the EEOC said.

Indianapolis-based Steak n Shake operates 400 restaurants in 18 states and employs more than 20,000 people.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8690 Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8690
The U-S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit last week against Granite Mill and Fixture Company on behalf of former 30-year employee Ralph Ruiz.

The lawsuit accuses Granite Mill managers of ignoring the discrimination in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Commission attorney Mary Jo O'Neill says an investigation revealed that Ruiz's supervisor "merely laughed" when Ruiz complained of the comments.

She also says a company vice president failed to take action when informed of the alleged hostile work place.

Granite Mill owner Gary Sandberg says before he saw the lawsuit, he was unaware of any complaints lodged by Ruiz.
]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8691 Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8691
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's suit alleged that AlliedSignal Automotive Aftermarket, during a companywide reorganization in 1997, either terminated or demoted a class of sales managers and representatives because of their age. The lawuit alleged younger workers with less experience were retained and/or offered those positions.

In the consent decree resolving the lawsuit, Honeywell denies any wrongdoing. Honeywell and the EEOC say they entered into the agreement in order to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation. Honeywell agrees to provide a total of $2,150,000 to resolve the lawsuit.

In addition, it agrees to post a notice concerning the lawsuit at appropriate facilities and to provide training in the provisions of the ADEA to all the managers and supervisors in the Consumer Products Group (CPG) and Frictions Materials (FM) businesses. The term of the decree is approximately two years.

"We hail the willingness of all the parties to work together to craft a thorough and effective resolution to this lawsuit," says Jacqueline McNair, regional attorney of EEOC's Philadelphia office. "While a substantial amount of money will flow to those who stepped forward and filed charges with the commission as well as to others affected by the pattern of alleged age discrimination, the training required by the consent decree is also noteworthy as it will benefit all Honeywell employees in the CPG and FM businesses."]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8692 Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8692
Joyce Head, a senior director, charged that she was harassed and denied a promotion to vice president of sales for one of L'Oreal's divisions.

L'Oreal, which sells the brands Lancome, Biotherm and Maybelline, denied discriminating against Head.

A lawyer for the company, M. Brenk Johnson, said Head was dismissed in early 2003 after about 20 years with L'Oreal.

Head claimed she was fired because of her age and because she complained about her treatment, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed a lawsuit on her behalf in federal district court in Dallas.

Head's private attorney negotiated a monetary settlement with the U.S. division of the French cosmetics company. Terms were not disclosed, which Johnson, the company's attorney, said was the preference of both L'Oreal and Head.

The commission said L'Oreal agreed to give Head a "neutral letter of reference" and remove all mention of her firing from her personnel file.

The company also agreed not to retaliate against anyone who helped Head or complained about age discrimination and to conduct a training session for managers and supervisors, the commission said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8554 Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8554
In announcing the settlement yesterday, the doughnut maker did not admit any wrongdoing, and terms of the out-of-court agreement are being kept confidential.

But the five ex-employees who filed the suit and their attorney said they were thrilled.

At a news conference, the former workers said they were glad they had stuck up for themselves, and encouraged others to do the same even if they don't speak English well or they otherwise feel helpless.

"Before, she is afraid. Today, she is not," said one of the plaintiffs, Maria De Jesus Deniz Murillo, through a translator.

The suit was filed in King County Superior Court in May 2003. Its claims centered around several different types of discrimination.

In addition to Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, it named as defendants ICON, an Illinois-based company, and its subsidiary, KremeWorks Washington the partnership operating Krispy Kreme outlets in this region.

Matthew Peterson, a supervisor in the Issaquah store, and another manager there, Humberto Esparza, were also named as defendants. An amended complaint filed last December dropped Esparza from the suit.

Most of the employees who sued began working at Krispy Kreme when its first Washington store opened in Issaquah on Oct. 30, 2001. It was an instant smash, breaking weekly sales records for the company.

The problems for Deniz Murillo named "Jane Doe" in the complaint began soon after she was hired. According to the lawsuit, Peterson, one of her supervisors, began demanding sexual favors.

When he threatened to fire Deniz Murillo, then 20 and a single mother, she succumbed to his demands, the lawsuit contended. All the sexual acts took place at the Issaquah store, the suit said.

Later, when Deniz Murillo declined to have sex with Peterson, "he subjected her to increased and unwarranted criticism or other adverse employment actions," the suit said.

In August 2002, Deniz Murillo stopped the sexual encounters for good. Soon after, pressure from Peterson forced her to quit, she later claimed.

The suit says Peterson also harassed another female worker, Margarita Salazar. On one occasion, in March 2002, he allegedly exposed himself to her. When she complained, the company took no action, the lawsuit said.

When two of the other plaintiffs, David Rico-Lopez and Ernesto Murillo, tried to speak up for their female co-workers, they were warned they had violated company rules, the suit said.

The suit also claimed both Rico-Lopez and Murillo were paid less than their white counterparts doing the same work.

Deniz Murillo, Salazar, Rico-Lopez and Murillo are all of Mexican descent. Most of them speak only halting English.

The fifth plaintiff, Victoria Rystad, is Spanish and Filipino.

Each, except Deniz Murillo, was fired.

Peterson and Esparza, both of whom no longer work at the Issaquah store, could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Gerard Centioli, KremeWorks' president and chief executive officer, declined comment. In previous interviews, he has vehemently denied the suit's claims and has said an investigation by a major Seattle law firm found nothing to substantiate them.

A company news release yesterday stated only that resolution had been reached on all the claims. The terms of the agreement are confidential, the release said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8548 Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8548
In the past year, the three big box chains also have faced claims of discrimination. Some hourly employees allege they were routinely passed over for promotions due to sex and race discrimination.

Home Depot was the first to resolve one of these lawsuits. On Aug. 25, it agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle a discrimination and retaliation charge brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of dozens of Colorado employees.

In the past five years, Wal-Mart has added more than 500 new stores and Costco has added 133 new stores. Home Depot expects to open 175 stores this year.

In reporting on these cases over the past three months, The Denver Post has received more than two dozen phone calls and e-mails from employees wanting to know how to join these lawsuits.

In the Home Depot suit, plaintiffs alleged that several stores in Colorado created hostile work environments where employees were discriminated against on the basis of sex, race and national origin and retaliated against if they complained.

Atlanta-based Home Depot did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, but agreed to train non-supervisory employees, managers and human resource employees in anti-discrimination laws.

Shirley Ellis of Arvada, Colo., sued Costco in August, alleging the firm discriminates against women. The suit claims Costco has denied hundreds of women advancement to high-paying management jobs. Attorneys for Ellis are seeking class-action status.

Costco, based in Issaquah, Wash., has denied the allegations.

Mark Stalwick, director of personnel for Costco, said the company has had a management-training program in place for more than 20 years.

"We focus on harassment, discrimination, the Family and Medical Leave Act all the things that hourly employees just don't have a clue about but need to understand right when they first get into a management position," he explained.

All new Costco managers are required to attend Costco University Leadership Development 101, an eight-week, 32-hour in-house program taught by senior managers. "It takes them basically through what it takes to be a good leader and how to take care of their employees," said Stalwick.

But since the course is only offered once a year, Stalwick said the company requires all new managers within 30 days of their promotion to sign a document stating that they've read Costco's ethics policy, and they must complete a two-hour online supervisor-orientation course.

Wal-Mart is the world's largest retailer and creates an average of 230 new jobs per day in the United States.

It now finds itself in the hot seat, facing a class-action discrimination lawsuit potentially representing 1.6 million past and current female workers.

The lawsuit claims Wal-Mart often pays female workers less than their male counterparts for comparable jobs and bypasses women for promotions.

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is fighting the lawsuit. But the company also has made changes to its employment practices. It put in place a new pay structure for hourly workers and next month will launch a "career preference system," enabling employees to indicate if they're interested in specific management jobs.

In the past year, Wal-Mart has created an office of diversity to oversee hiring and promotions.

"Our goal is to make sure that the percentage of qualified minorities and women we promote is equal to the percentage who apply," chief executive Lee Scott said in June. He said the company met that goal in 2003. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8550 Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8550
Deana Young, an African-American woman, claims she was subjected to racially derogatory comments by her direct supervisor and then fired when she complained to management.

A racial discrimination lawsuit was filed in Chicago federal court Friday against the Law Bulletin Publishing Co., publisher of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.

Young was hired as a data entry specialist in March 2004.

"This is a case in which the employee did everything right by immediately reporting the harassment to management. Unfortunately, Law Bulletin looks as if it did everything wrong," said John Hendrickson, EEOC regional attorney in Chicago. "Rather than investigating Young's complaint and taking appropriate action, Law Bulletin immediately fired Young."

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin publishes calendars for local, state and federal courts, legal notices and classified ads. Law Bulletin also publishes the monthly Chicago Lawyer magazine.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8551 Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8551
The suit said Metropolitan Transportation Authority discriminated against bus driver Henry Asher, who is Jewish, because it didn't accommodate his wish to observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

The suit seeks to stop MTA from practicing what it calls unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of religion, as well as asking for monetary damages and other relief for the employees.

"No employer should force its employees to choose between their faith and a job, when reasonable accommodations are possible," said R. Alexander Acosta, assistant attorney general for the department's civil rights division.

MTA spokesman Bill Heard said that because the agency's operations run around the clock, it's necessary for bus drivers particularly junior ones -to make such a commitment.

"Apparently, this gentleman, after being hired and trained decided he was not available for the job," Heard said.

He said the agency's employees understand that they may not be able to get off on Saturdays, Sundays or particular religious holidays until they have enough seniority.

Most of MTA's rank-and-file workers, from bus drivers to mechanics, are represented by unions.

"As you get more senior, then you can bid for days that might give you time off," Heard said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8518 Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8518
The company owner allegedly subjected the woman to derogatory remarks about blacks, plus made sexual comments.

Dana Walters formerly lived in Monroeville, Pennsylvania. She now lives in Richardson, Texas.

Flynn Construction Management General Contracting of Wilkinsburg admits no wrongdoing in today's agreement.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in March sued on behalf of Walters, who was the company's national marketing director.

She left the company in 2002 because of alleged harassment.

The complaint centered on Flynn's owner, Thomas O'Connor, who declined comment on the settlement.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8512 Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8512
The settlement ends a federal gender discrimination lawsuit Karen Gokay filed against the district nearly two years ago.

Gokay and district officials said the sides reached the agreement late last month in a meeting with U.S. District Court Judge Franklin Van Antwerpen.

Pennridge Superintendent Robert Kish said the district's insurance company told him the amount is the maximum settlement it would pay and agreed to cover the district's legal bills.

Kish said the district still disputes Gokay's claims and decided to settle the case to avoid the cost of a trial. Had the district gone to trial and lost, it would have been responsible for a jury award above $67,500, he said.

''I challenge anyone to come and look at our records,'' Kish said Wednesday. ''This board has never discriminated against anyone based on gender.''

Gokay, who originally asked for more than $450,000 and started settlement negotiations at $90,000, said she was satisfied with the outcome.

''I am happy to put it behind me,'' she said. ''I feel vindicated. I also felt vindicated when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agreed I had a valid case.

''Whether the district wants to admit liability or not, the fact that they paid a settlement suggests otherwise. It doesn't change the fact that I was a victim of discrimination and there had to be some acknowledgement of that.''

Gokay's case was given credence when the EEOC backed her claim. In February, Van Antwerpen agreed with the EEOC when he declined to rule in the district's favor to keep the case from going before a jury.

Gokay started at Pennridge as a part-time attorney in 1993. She was hired as the human resources director in 1996 and remained there until she resigned in 1999.

In November 2002, Gokay filed suit in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia against Kish and the school district. Kish was dropped from the suit in February.

Gokay claimed she asked the district on several occasions to bring her salary in line with other district administrators and area human resources directors. Gokay's last increase brought her salary to $78,015.

She was replaced by George Crawford, who was hired at an annual salary of $86,500 and raised to $88,230 shortly after.

On Wednesday, Kish maintained Crawford ''came here with 15 years' experience and took a pay cut to work here.''

Gokay lives in Berks County, where she works as the human resources director for the Berks County intermediate unit. She said she resents that Kish has continued to call her lawsuit frivolous.

''It has been almost five years, and enough is enough,'' she said. ''I wasn't looking to retire on any type of settlement. That wasn't a goal.'' ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8513 Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8513
Cpl. Willie E. Smith will get $70,000 under the deal carried out this week, according to a copy of the agreement.

Smith, who is a black person, sued in 2003 claiming he was demoted, denied promotions and job-transfer requests, and forced to work in a hostile environment after he criticized the state police in testimony during a June 2001 state Senate hearing. The hearing was held to examine claims of racial discrimination in the ranks.

Delaware denied Smith's allegations in court and the settlement agreement included a section in which the state admitted no wrongdoing. Smith sued state police and the Department of Safety and Homeland Security.

"It is a victory," he said Wednesday. "When it came to questioning my performance, I couldn't stand for it."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in August 2002 that department officials under former state police Superintendent Col. Gerald R. Pepper wrongly transferred Smith in retaliation for his statements to the committee that the agency fostered "an environment of intimidation and hostility."

Col. L. Aaron Chaffinch, who succeeded Pepper, issued a prepared statement Wednesday saying "I am happy that both parties were able to settle this matter amicably and the state police is moving forward as an agency."

Also under the settlement, state police will pull evaluations from Smith's personnel file dated between July 1999 and September 2000. The agency will replace them with a document that notes, in part, that Smith received commendation letters from people he trained at the state police academy. Martin said the paperwork being pulled included baseless statements critical of Smith's performance.

"It's good to see there's been some closure brought to this because I know it's been painful for both sides," Sgt. Bernard Miller, president of the United Troopers Alliance, said Wednesday. The Alliance is an organization of black troopers. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8515 Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8515
It will be up to the U.S. District Court in Camden, New Jersey, to sort things out, because that's where the EEOC filed suit against Sears last week.

The EEOC claims the department store chain discriminated against the manager, who is black, because it did not fire white managers who committed similar ethics violations.

In firing Edwin Broadard, who managed the Sears store in Maple Shade, New Jersey, Sears said he had failed to limit mechanical repairs to only certified technicians and failed to follow proper procedures for providing a free mechanical service to customers, according to the EEOC lawsuit.

The suit claims that white employees who engaged in the same or similar conduct received only warnings.

A Sears spokesman, Chris Brathwaite, told the Associated Press that Broadard's termination "had absolutely nothing to do with his race." Rather, he said, Broadard was fired for "repeated violations of company policy," though he declined to be more specific.

Brathwaite added that Sears has strict policies against discrimination and found after its own investigation that Broadard's termination did not violate those policies. The company plans to defend itself against the suit, he said.

The EEOC wants Sears to take several steps to resolve the matter, including giving Broadard back pay.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8516 Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8516
In addition to suing Sara Lee, Brenda Jarvis, 35, is suing C. Steven McMillan, the company's chairman and chief executive, for defamation.

The lawsuit asks for unspecified lost earnings and compensatory damages from Sara Lee, based in Chicago, and compensatory and punitive damages from McMillan. Sara Lee and McMillan denied any wrongdoing.

The marketing position reported to have been offered to Jarvis was with Sara Lee's Hanes division, which is part of the company's branded-apparel unit, in Winston-Salem.

The dispute received full-page coverage in the Sept. 6 issue of Fortune magazine, which said that McMillan, 58, is divorced.

The events that led to the lawsuit being filed July 27 in federal court in Illinois began in early July 2003 in Florida, where McMillan has a home, according to court papers.

Both sides agree that McMillan and Jarvis met at the house. From there, their stories differ dramatically, according to the complaint and Sara Lee's and McMillan's response.

Jarvis alleges that while staying at the house, McMillan said he thought that Sara Lee might have a job for her. Jarvis said that McMillan asked her to fly to Chicago for a job interview the last weekend of July last year, where he is reported to have offered her a job at a salary of $140,000.

She accepted. She and McMillan had sexual intercourse that weekend, she said.

Jarvis and McMillan talked about her future job duties in the Hanes division in late July and early August, her lawsuit says. In early August, McMillan asked Jarvis to accompany him to Italy on a business trip, but she refused to continue the sexual relationship and refused to go with him, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Jarvis asked for written confirmation of the job offer, but McMillan withdrew it.

Sara Lee and McMillan confirm that there was a sexual relationship between McMillan and Jarvis but deny that he ever talked about a job with her, or that he extended or withdrew a job offer. He also denied asking Jarvis to go to Italy with him.

Jarvis' lawsuit alleges that after McMillan withdrew the job offer, he informed several people that Jarvis "was 'following him,' that she came to Chicago uninvited, and was trailing after him demanding sex."

McMillan denied the allegation.

"The allegations regarding potential employment at Sara Lee are completely fabricated," Sara Lee said in a statement yesterday. "Mr. McMillan's contact with the plaintiff was very brief and strictly social. This lawsuit is completely without merit."

Jarvis' attorney strongly disagrees.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8517 Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8517
Gerald J. Thompson's complaints included being "traumatized" when he walked in on a sexual encounter involving the store manager and an employee.

Thompson now stands to receive one of the biggest individual payouts in a $5.5 million settlement resolving discrimination claims brought by former and current workers at the home-improvement chain's Colorado stores.

Attorneys for both Atlanta-based Home Depot and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Denver declined Thursday to comment on the prominent role Thompson's case played to end the EEOC's civil rights lawsuit and its statewide investigation against the retailer.

Pending a judge's approval, Thompson and 37 other workers will split $3 million. Thompson the only member of the group to have previously filed a discrimination lawsuit against Home Depot will get $250,000.

Home Depot will pay an additional $2.5 million to a special settlement fund, to be distributed among several hundred people who the EEOC said encountered discrimination while working at the company's 37 Colorado stores since January 2000.

Home Depot has denied it engaged in any workplace misconduct. The EEOC, adhering to terms of the settlement, has not disclosed specific allegations that accuse Home Depot of creating a hostile workplace based on gender, race and national origin at its Colorado stores.

But in his own federal lawsuit, Thompson said he personally spoke to Kenneth Langone, Home Depot's billionaire co-founder, more than four years ago about a white supervisor and store manager making racial comments that were directed against him and other minority workers.

Thompson, who is Hispanic, said he first met Langone at an employee event in Denver, and that Langone gave out his New York phone number, telling workers to call him about any unresolved problems with their store managers.

After phoning Langone for the first time, Thompson said Langone assured him that he would "look into the situation and take care of it."

Thompson's suit, however, states that no one got back to him and the workplace misconduct continued.

In a second call to Langone in December 2000, Thompson said he noted how cavalier management had become about the company's workplace rules: Thompson described walking in on the store manager having sex with a female employee on an office desk.

"Mr. Thompson was traumatized and completely shocked when he observed (the couple) engaged in sexual intercourse," according to his lawsuit, filed three years later in January 2003.

Thompson's lawsuit said he had previous run-ins with racial overtones with the store manager, so within days after witnessing "the Incident," called a toll-free company number for sexual harassment complaints.

In his last call to Langone, Thompson said he expressed his frustration that no one from Home Depot had followed up with him, even though he also had reported the alleged sexual encounter to a district manager.

He alleges in his lawsuit that he was fired the following month by the store manager after arriving one morning for work and forgetting to punch in his time card.

"The actions and inactions of Home Depot, its managers, supervisors and employees created a hostile work environment permeated with sexual harassment, race/national origin and Mexican ancestry discrimination that no reasonable person could endure," the complaint states.

Thompson, who started working in the lumber department in April 1999, initially earned $12 an hour. He filed an initial complaint with the EEOC in July 2001.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8519 Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8519
The ruling urges all of the bickering parties to resolve their disputes through negotiations. If that fails, they could be headed to court.

The Times has denied the claims, maintaining that it has anti-discrimination policies in place.

Still, the explosive complaints may roil The Times once again.

Leroy Hilton, an assistant foreman in the delivery department in the Edison plant, said he was subject to racial taunts by co-workers, according to the EEOC ruling.

The EEOC last week said that its investigation showed that Hilton and others at the plant were subject to a "racially hostile work environment."

In another complaint, Harvey Alpert, who also works in the Edison plant, alleged that a co-worker repeatedly referred to him with anti-Semitic epithets and expressed a desire to kill him. Alpert also said that other workers made mocking comments about Jewish holidays.

The EEOC ruled in Hilton's case in mid-July that The Times "did not take reasonable care to avoid harassment in the workplace by having an effective mechanism for dealing with complaints."

The federal agency also ruled that regarding Alpert, "there is probable cause that [Alpert] was discriminated against on account of his religion (Jewish)" and that managers did not put a stop to the behavior of the offenders.

"It is incomprehensible in this day and age that The Times should allow this to go on," claims Jeffrey Bernbach, attorney for both Hilton and Alpert. "Upper management knew about this and did nothing," he claims.

If the EEOC-ordered negotiations fail to resolve the differences, both of the discrimination cases could be headed to court, where Bernbach said he will seek punitive damages. Both of the employees continue to work at The Times.

"At this stage it would be inappropriate to discuss these most preliminary of findings other than to say that The New York Times Company has a comprehensive anti-discrimination policy that includes provisions for employees to raise concerns, and we strictly enforce that policy," a Times spokeswoman said.

In an ironic twist, the complaints are the polar opposite of the problems that rocked the paper during the Jayson Blair scandal, when a young black journalist who was forced to resign in May 2003 after nearly two years of fraud, errors, faked datelines and plagiarism came to light.

In that case, many felt that Blair was coddled and protected because of his race and that The Times brass, in trying to foster a more diverse newsroom, allowed him repeated chances despite early signs of some problems in his reporting. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/employment_discrimination Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/employment_discrimination Employment Discrimination People who are treated differently in the workplace based upon their race, (color, nationality, ethnic or national origins), religion, sexual preference/orientation, age or gender are all victims of employment discrimination. Pregnancy discrimination can also occur in the work field.

Race Discrimination: Involves differential treatment or harassment of an employee based on his or her race or national origin. Race discrimination can also be perceived characteristics or stereotypes associated with a particular race or ethnic group. People of all races and national origins must be treated equally in all aspects of the employment process, including help-wanted ads, interviews, pre-employment testing, hiring, job assignments, shift assignments, promotions, compensation, benefits, job training, layoffs or termination.

Religious Discrimination: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Act also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer.

Sexual Preference/ Sexual Orientation: Discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation is prohibited in New York and many other states. There are many state, city and county laws under which an employee can bring suit for discrimination based on sexual orientation. The following states have particularly strong local laws against sexual orientation discrimination: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

In addition, the following cities have particularly strong local laws against sexual orientation: San Francisco, San Diego, Oakland, Los Angeles, Columbus, Minneapolis, and St. Louis. Other states, cities and counties have varying laws against sexual orientation discrimination as well. Certain provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 have been interpreted to protect many federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Age Discrimination: The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits hiring or firing employees on the basis of age. Employers also may not force employees to retire before age 70, deny promotions based on age, or punish older workers with reduced pay or benefits. The ADEA only applies to workers aged 40 and over. Therefore, not hiring someone age 45 because of age considerations would be disallowed; but not hiring someone age 22 based on age would be allowed. Most states also have various age discrimination laws that are similar to the federal ADEA.

Gender Discrimination: Despite many improvements in the workplace for women, female employees continue to struggle for equal pay, equal opportunity to high level promotions, and an environment free of sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Today, women make up only 3.1% of the senior executives at Fortune 500 companies. Studies also suggest that between 40% and 70% of women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace.

Pregnancy Discrimination: The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, or PDA, states that it is illegal for employers to intentionally discriminate against a pregnant employee, or to maintain a company policy which, intentionally or unintentionally, adversely affects pregnant employees. An employer also cannot discriminate on the basis of childbirth or related medical conditions, and must give the same treatment and benefits to pregnant employees as it does to other temporarily disabled employees.

If you or a loved one have been discriminated against at your place of employment, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified employment discrimination attorney.]]>