Findlay Honda to Pay $150,000 to Resolve EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit

Black Employees Endured Racial Comments, Bias and Reprisal for Protesting, Federal Agency Charged

LAS VEGAS – Shack-Findlay Automotive, LLC, doing business as Findlay Honda and Findlay Automotive Group, Inc., a car dealership in Henderson, Nev., will pay $150,000 to two black employees for subjecting them to discrimination, harassment and retaliation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.

The EEOC filed suit against the company on behalf of the two individuals in September 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (EEOC v. Shack-Findlay Automotive, LLC d/b/a Findlay Honda and Findlay Automotive Group, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-01692-KJD-RJJ). In its lawsuit, the EEOC asserted that a parts department manager made racially derogatory comments and jokes on a near-daily basis and imposed stricter work-related rules on black employees than non-black employees. Two black employees were eventually fired, one after communicating that he was going to file a discrimination charge against the company.

Race discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Findlay Honda agreed to enter into a consent decree with the EEOC resolving the matter. Aside from the monetary relief for the victims, the consent decree also requires that the company hire an outside EEO consultant; distribute its policies and complaint procedures with respect to workplace discrimination, harassment and retaliation; track future complaints; and provide annual equal employment opportunity training.

“We commend Shack-Findlay Automotive for taking proactive measures to ensure a workplace free of discrimination,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, whose jurisdiction includes Nevada. “We encourage other employers to take steps to ensure that managers are trained about their obligations under Title VII.”

Adriana Lopez, acting local director for the EEOC’s Las Vegas Local Office, added, “Retaliation is the No. 1 type of complaint filed with the EEOC nationwide and also in our district. Workers are increasingly aware that they have the right to report discrimination and harassment without reprisal by employers. We encourage employers to take preventative measures to combat this form of discrimination.”

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

Female Employee at Glendale Restaurant Subjected to Obscene Touching and Displays and Fired for Complaining, Federal Agency Charges

PHOENIX — Gala AZ Holdings, Inc., doing business as Del Taco, violated federal law by subjecting a female employee to sexual harassment and by firing her for her complaint, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, (EEOC v. Gala AZ Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. CV11-0383-PHX-JAT), filed yesterday in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleges that an assistant manager at the Del Taco location in Glendale sexually harassed Adriana Lopez by fondling himself in her presence, grabbing her buttocks, and attempting to grab her breasts. The EEOC alleges that after Lopez complained to her managers, she was suspended and then fired in retaliation for her complaint.

This alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which prohibit employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin, as well as retaliation. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for Lopez as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent any further sex-discriminatory practices.

“Employers who subject people to harassment based on sex are violating federal law,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “It is particularly important for the EEOC to vigorously enforce the anti-retaliation provisions in the employment discrimination laws. We have seen an alarming increase in retaliation charges, and we are very concerned that employees know that they can report discrimination without repercussions.”

EEOC District Director Rayford O. Irvin added, “”Employers must take complaints of discrimination seriously and address them appropriately. Retaliation against victims of harassment who have spoken out or reported such behavior is all too common and just as illegal as the harassment itself. The EEOC will not look the other way.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC’s Phoenix District Office has jurisdiction for Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and part of New Mexico (including Albuquerque). Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov

Brand Energy Fired Employee for Refusing Supervisor’s Requests for Sex, Federal Agency Charged

NEW ORLEANS – Four related national construction companies — Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, Inc., Brand Services, LLC, Brand Energy Solutions, LLC, and Brand Scaffold Services, LLC (Brand) — will pay $110,000 to settle a suit for sexual harassment and retaliation filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The court-approved settlement resolves the charge of a former employee, Jauronice Hayes, who worked for Brand at its Conoco Phillips facility in Belle Chasse, La.

In its suit, the EEOC charged that Hayes was sexually harassed by her male supervisor. The harassment included inappropriate sexual statements, requests and demands for sexual favors, and sexual touching, the EEOC said. The suit also charged that he exposed his genitals to Hayes and informed Hayes that if she did not have sex with him, she would be laid off. Hayes anonymously complained about the sexual harassment to a company hotline and also repeatedly opposed the sexual harassment and rejected her supervisor’s sexual advances, according to the suit.

As a result of her complaint, her opposition to this harassment and her rejection of his sexual advances, Brand fired Hayes, the EEOC said. After Brand terminated Hayes, her supervisor left the company’s employment.

The EEOC also alleges that this supervisor had previously harassed another female employee, who no longer works for the company.

“Egregious sexual harassment, including unwanted touching and demands for sex with the threat of being fired, fundamentally violates the notion of a fair workplace and is unlawful,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “When an employee is fired in retaliation for complaining about that kind of conduct, it is especially troubling. Employers must understand that if they subject employees to sexual harassment or fire them for complaining, there will be serious consequences.”

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“I just wanted to do my job and be left alone,” said Hayes. “My boss touching my body and trying to pressure me to have sex with him really hurt me. No woman should have to choose between putting up with this kind of abuse or losing her job and not being able to support her family. I could not stand the idea that the company or this man might do this again to someone else. I felt that if I did not stand up for myself, I would be letting others down and setting a bad example for my kids. People out there need to know that they have rights and that the EEOC can help them. The fact that the company will have to change the way it does things in the future was very important to me.”

Under the court-ordered consent decree settling the suit, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Case No. 10:3306 ), Brand will pay Hayes $100,000, and $10,000 to the second victim. The company will also provide annual training to more than 450 personnel in its Gulf Region, encompassing Texas and Louisiana, covering its operations involving about 6,500 employees. Brand will also report to the EEOC for two years on all complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation in the Gulf Region.

In 2008, the EEOC filed another suit against Brand in Texas, alleging similar harassment and retaliation (Case number 08-3305, Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division). Brand settled that case with the EEOC for $175,000 in 2009.

Jim Sacher, the EEOC’s regional attorney for the Houston District Office, which oversees all litigation in Louisiana, commented, “When a supervisor touches an employee repeatedly in sexually inappropriate ways, and takes away her job because she won’t have sex with him, it is a gross violation of the law, and is totally unacceptable. We are hopeful that with the training and reporting requirements under the settlement, problems like this will not happen again within this company. If they do, we will take appropriate action.”

The EEOC was represented in the case by trial attorneys Gregory T. Juge and Tanya L. Goldman.

The EEOC enforces federal law prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov

Hostile Warnings of Discipline and Termination After Complaint of Sex Discrimination Are Enough for Case to Go Forward, Judge Says

MILWAUKEE – Automobile giant Chrysler Group, LLC’s effort to have an U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claim of unlawful retaliation thrown out of court has failed, the agency announced today. The EEOC has received a February 17, 2011 Decision and Order from District Judge William F. Callahan, Jr., denying Chrysler’s motion for summary judgment. The judge held that the EEOC’s claims of retaliation on behalf of two women employed in the company’s national parts distribution center in Milwaukee should go forward. (EEOC v. Chrysler Group, LLC, E.D.Wis. No. 08-C-1067, Decision & Order, 2/17/2011, D.J. Callahan.)

The claims were brought by the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a lawsuit filed in December 2009. According to the EEOC, one of the women was taken off what the court described as a “coveted position” driving a power sweeper and assigned to more physically demanding work “picking” parts to satisfy a “hot order” in the “back order area” of the warehouse. The EEOC said that when the woman and a coworker complained that a male employee with less seniority should have been assigned to that job, they were accused of “disrupting the workforce” subjected to verbal harassment and threatened with discipline up to and including termination.

Chrysler urged the court to summarily reject EEOC’s claims because the women were neither discharged nor suffered any other tangible loss such as a loss of pay, benefits, or position. According to Chrysler, “the alleged verbal harassment and intimidation is simply not the kind of actionable harm which Title VII contemplates.”

The court rejected that line of reasoning. “An adverse employment action [necessary to sustain a claim for retaliation] need not be tangible,” Judge Callahan wrote. The court then reviewed the circumstances surrounding the statements to the women, finding that “the manner in which [the manager] delivered his message to each woman matters. If he were screaming and pounding his fists on the table while threatening termination, as [the women] testified, this scenario paints a much more hostile and intimidating atmosphere than if [the manager] delivered his message in a normal tone of voice, as he contends he did.”

Because of this controversy, the court concluded, the trial should go forward to determine whether Chrysler’s behavior “would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination.”

The EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago, John Hendrickson, said, “This is an important decision. It is a firm reminder that the concept of retaliation under the federal employment discrimination laws is a common-sense one. The Supreme Court has said that if an employer responds to a discrimination complaint in a way which would dissuade a reasonable worker from filing a charge, that’s retaliation. The EEOC will move swiftly to stem such actions.”

In addition to Hendrickson, the case is being litigated by Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour and Trial Attorneys Bradley Fiorito and Grayson Walker, all of EEOC’s Chicago District Office. The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

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

By James Witherspoon

Many people, especially those in the service industry, are the victim of unfair wage practices. Federal law requires that all workers are paid at least minimum wage and are not forced to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay. Unfortunately, employees often do not speak up against unfair wages for fear of retaliation from their employers. However, retaliation itself is also illegal under federal employment laws.

Federal Wage and Hour Requirements

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires that employees be paid fairly for the work they perform. The Act states that:

• Employees must be paid at least the federal minimum wage. The current rate is $7.25 an hour. (If your state has a higher state-wide minimum wage, your employer must offer you that wage rather than the lower federal minimum wage.)
• Employees must be paid one and one half times their hourly wage for overtime work, which includes any work past 40 hours per week.

Workers must be paid for their job-related activities performed before or after a shift ends, as well as for travel time between job sites.

Workplace Retaliation

When employers fail to pay their workers fairly, workers have a legal right to report the unfair practices. Sadly, sometimes bringing attention to an employer’s illegal practices causes the employer to retaliate by punishing or firing the employee. Therefore, many wage and overtime violations go unreported and employees are cheated out of the money they have rightfully earned and are owed.

However, federal employment law also prohibits employers from taking retaliatory action against employers who report violations. This means that it is illegal for employers to fire, demote, or otherwise punish workers for speaking up against unfair wages and requesting the money they are owed.

To learn more about retaliation and discriminatory workplace practices, visit the website of the Austin retaliation attorneys of Melton & Kumler, LLP.

James Witherspoon

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Witherspoon
http://EzineArticles.com/?Workplace-Retaliation-After-Reporting-Unfair-Wages&id=5852557

Print it out and add it to your bag of secret tactics to use against your employer.  If you haven’t done so already, download my free report for more help with trouble at work.

Keep documenting!

By James Witherspoon

In the United States, one of our greatest national goals is inclusiveness. As a society, we believe in judging individuals on their merits rather than on surface-level details. We even have laws in place to prevent small-minded people from acting on their prejudices.

Unfortunately, even though these laws are in place, employers violate them with shocking frequency. According to some statistics, roughly 25% of workers believe they have been the victims of discrimination. Even more disturbing, roughly 75% of respondents believed that all employers engage in some form of discrimination.

When small-minded personal biases cause employees to lose their jobs, a terrible injustice has been committed. It is especially important to recognize when a termination is unlawful, and to understand the recourses that you have.

Some of the most frequently cited examples of unlawful termination concern:

• Discrimination. There are numerous federal laws in place which protect workers from being fired because of sex, race, color, age, nationality, religion, pregnancy, disability, or other considerations. If you have been fired and you believe discrimination is at the root of your dismissal, your rights have been violated.

• Retaliation. Individuals who have filed complaints against their supervisors or managers are protected from retaliatory actions, such as firing. If you have lost your job as a result of a whistleblower action, it may be beneficial to discuss your case with a discrimination attorney.

• Hostile work environment. Occasionally, a manager will try to create an oppressive or hostile work environment to force an individual into quitting. This is also illegal. If you have quit a job for such a reason, you may be entitled to compensation.

Unlawful termination is a serious issue in the United States, and must be addressed. To learn more, visit the website of the federal employment lawyers of the Vaughn Law Firm today.

James Witherspoon

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Witherspoon
http://EzineArticles.com/?Recognizing-Unlawful-Discrimination-Practices&id=5247121

I been wondering about possible discrimination that’s happening at my job. I work in a casino and my department is made up of only war veterans and disabled war veterans. I proudly served my country for many years and I just want to know some things.

For the last couple of years every other department have gotten pay raises and just this year every other department got company benefits. I don’t understand why everybody else at this casino is getting everything and my department which is all veterans and disabled veterans is not getting anything.

They mock and laugh at us because they get everything and my department did not. Its creating a hostile workplace I come to work every night angry and leave work every morning even more angry. The disabled veterans do not have proper access to a bathroom that can properly handle there needs.

The casino has done nothing in 5 years to help the disabled veterans with there latrine needs they just ignore it. So would this be an example of discriminating against us war veterans and disabled war veterans?

Oh I forgot to add they hire kids right out of high school and they get paid more and get the benefits. While us veterans who has been here for at least 4 years do not get nothing and get paid less then some kid right out of high school. My bosses will not do anything about this situation they just ignore it completely. This is not right somebody out there please offer me some serious advice on this situation please!!

View the answer(s) below…

Cannon & Wendt to Pay $100,000 to Settle EEOC National Origin Discrimination / Retaliation Suit

PHOENIX — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced today that it has settled a national origin discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Cannon & Wendt Electric Co., Inc., one of the oldest and largest electrical contractors operating in Phoenix, Ariz., for $100,000 for Victor Cortez and a comprehensive consent decree, signed by Federal Judge Earl H. Carroll.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix, accusing Cannon & Wendt Electric Co., Inc. of discriminating against Victor Cortez when it subjected him to racist statements and then retaliated against him by terminating him after he complained about the unlawful discrimination.

According to the EEOC’s suit, EEOC v. Cannon & Wendt Electric, Co., Inc., CV-07-1710 PHX/EHC, employee Victor Cortez was unlawfully harassed because of his national origin by his immediate supervisor, Mark Ghose. The harassment included comments by Ghose, such as “I hate all Mexicans,” “they are worthless,” and “I hate Mexican music.” It was also alleged that Ghose openly stated his belief that Cortez was “useless” and he wanted to “get rid of him.” The EEOC also alleged that when Cortez complained to Cannon & Wendt’s then owner, Albert Wendt, Wendt failed to take any action except to ask “so, what do you want me to do about it?” The national origin harassment continued after Cortez’s complaints. Soon after he complained about the unlawful discrimination, Cannon & Wendt fired Cortez.

The EEOC obtained $100,000 for Cortez as damages for lost wages and benefits as well as compensation for the emotional distress. By entering into the consent decree, Cannon & Wendt agreed also to give Cortez an apology; subject Ghose to certain training; an injunction against national origin harassment and retaliation; reporting to the EEOC; the posting and distribution of a notice; change its anti-discrimination policies; and conduct extensive training for its supervisory and managerial workforce over the next three years.

Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the Phoenix District Office, said, “Each of the statutes that the EEOC enforces contain a specific prohibition against retaliating against any employee or applicant who opposes discrimination internally or files a charge of discrimination with a state or federal agency. Because there is a significant imbalance of power between employee and employer, this office will continue to vigorously enforce the statutes’ anti-retaliation provisions through its investigations and litigation. In Victor Cortez’s case, we are satisfied that he has been compensated for the egregious manner in which he was unlawfully treated.”

Janet Elizondo, acting director for the Phoenix District Office, said, “Title VII provides that employees, including Victor Cortez, are entitled to work and keep their dignity. No employee should ever have to sacrifice his or her identity in order to keep a job. This employer not only ignored Mr. Cortez’s rights to be free from discrimination, but also fired him because he complained about the unlawful discrimination. This is a particularly troubling case because the EEOC sued this particular employer for religious discrimination a few years ago. After being sued, most employers take their EEO obligations under the law seriously. It is troubling to the EEOC to see a repeat offender.”

EEOC Trial Attorney Veronica Molina said, “Cannon & Wendt’s treatment of Mr. Cortez was outrageous. If the company had not settled, this would have been a very good case for a punitive damages request from a jury.”

Cortez said, “I am very thankful to the EEOC for fighting for me. What happened to me was wrong. No one should have to experience what I did in order to support my family.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Although every individual will experience some sort of injury through the course of his or her lifetime, people usually make every attempt to responsibly prevent accidents from happening. If an accident occurs at work, there are many complications that may cause serious problems for the injured party, including lost wages, medical expenses, and tension between the worker and the employer.

Fortunately, most states provide protection for employees against retaliation from businesses for worker’s compensation claims. Business owners should understand that on-the-job accidents may happen and they should be prepared to deal with the consequences of such incidents. Employers should make sure to provide adequate workers’ compensation coverage for all employees and should be ready to handle issues as they arise.

Employees who are injured on the job may be fearful of the consequences of their actions. If a person is hurt while behaving in a negligent or reckless manner, he or she may not be eligible for worker’s compensation benefits. If the person was behaving in the correct manner and was injured in a genuine accident, they should be able to report the incident without fear of retaliation or condemnation from their employer.

Business owners and managers should be supportive of employees who come to them with a worker’s compensation claim in good faith. Most of the time, the employee may simply wish to have his or her injury addressed, examined, and taken care of so that they may return to work as soon as they recover. Worker’s compensation allows employees to address injuries and rehabilitate them without significant financial cost.

If a business owner retaliates against an employee for filing a worker’s compensation claim, the employee may be able to file a lawsuit against the employer. Lawsuits may seek compensation for medical bills, pain, suffering, lost wages, and punitive damages for the employer’s actions. If the employee can prove that the employer acted against him or her in a malicious manner, the court may award additional judgments against the business.

Injuries that occur in the workplace can have a serious affect on the injured party and the business. While the employee often has to face medical care and expenses, the employer often has to deal with a reduction of workforce, lowered productivity, and safety inspections to make sure the accident is not repeated.

If you have been wrongly denied workers’ compensation benefits or feel that your employer has retaliated against you, you may want to consult an experienced worker’s compensation attorney. For more information, visit the website of the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation lawyers of Lowenthal & Abrams, P.C.

Joseph Devine

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Joseph_Devine
http://EzineArticles.com/?Retaliation-For-Workers-Compensation-Claims&id=2690379