All About Lawsuits™ » Employment – Labor

Wal-Mart Sued for Disability Discrimination

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:37:57 +0000

EEOC Says Retail Giant Violated ADA by Refusing to Accommodate Deaf Worker

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a disability discrimination lawsuit against global retail giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a deaf employee at Wal-Mart Store #2258 in Alexandria, Va.

According to the EEOC litigation, Wal-Mart violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing provide an accommodation to former employee Stephanie Holmes, from around November 2002 until December 2006. Holmes, who is deaf and communicates primarily using American Sign Language (ASL), worked as a stocker. The EEOC charged that in order to perform her job, Holmes needed an ASL interpreter and/or comprehensive written notes at various times throughout her employment to effectively communicate with her managers, co-workers and, occasionally, with customers. However, Wal-Mart refused to provide the accommodation, despite Holmes’ verbal and written requests in accordance with the ADA.

The EEOC further alleges that because of Wal-Mart’s failure to provide Holmes with a reasonable accommodation, she was denied equal access to the benefits and privileges of employment that other Wal-Mart employees enjoyed. For example, the suit alleges that Holmes was routinely denied access to information provided to other employees by Wal-Mart because she could not hear and/or understand the information, including information disseminated at staff meetings.

The ADA makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to provide a reasonable accommodation unless doing so would pose an undue hardship on the employer. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No.1:10-cv-00075), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for Holmes, as well as injunctive and other non-monetary relief.

“Employers must recognize that they have an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Lynette A. Barnes of the agency’s Charlotte District, which includes Virginia. “It’s unfortunate that twenty years after the enactment of the ADA, some employers still haven’t gotten the message that disability discrimination is unlawful and will not be tolerated. This suit should remind employers that the EEOC will not waiver in enforcing the ADA.”

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

EEOC Sues Law Firm Kelley Drye & Warren for Age Discrimination and Retaliation

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:36:32 +0000

New York-Based Firm Significantly Underpaid Attorneys After They Turned 70
Solely Based on Age, Federal Agency Charged

NEW YORK — Kelley Drye & Warren, an international law firm with its primary office in New York City, violated federal age discrimination law through its compensation system, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, in Kelley Drye’s system, attorneys who practiced law after turning 70 years of age received dramatically reduced compensation compared to similarly productive younger attorneys solely because of their age. The EEOC further charged that Kelley Drye unlawfully retaliated against Eugene T. D’Ablemont, an attorney who has practiced law at the firm for over 40 years, by further reducing his compensation after he complained about this discriminatory policy and filed a charge with the EEOC.

“Law firms that single out older attorneys for adverse treatment simply because of their age run great risk of violating the federal prohibition on age discrimination,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “This lawsuit should serve as a wake-up call for law firms to examine their own practices to ensure they comport with federal law.”

The EEOC’s lawsuit, Civil Action No. 10- CV-0655, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said that Kelley Drye requires all partners to give up their ownership interest in the firm at the age of 70. If an attorney continues to work, his or her compensation consists of an annual “bonus” payment in an amount totally within the discretion of the firm’s executive committee. Since D’Ablemont turned 70 in 2001, even though he routinely has obtained over $1 million in fees annually from his clients, his compensation has been substantially less than younger lawyers at the firm with similar productivity. Moreover, in 2008 and 2009, after D’Ablemont had complained internally about Kelley Drye’s age-based compensation system, ultimately resulting in his filing of an age discrimination charge with the EEOC, the firm reduced his bonus payment by two-thirds even though his productivity remained the same.

This alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits age-based employment discrimination against those aged 40 and older, and which also bars employers from retaliating against those who complain about such unlawful practices. The EEOC filed suit only after attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

“A law firm’s compensation for its attorneys should be based on ability and productivity, not on age-based stereotypes about declining effectiveness,” said Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney in the EEOC’s New York office.

Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., director of the EEOC New York District Office, added, “More and more attorneys are effectively practicing law into their 70s and beyond. This is also seen by the fact that most current Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are over 70 years old.”

In FY 2009, the EEOC received 22,778 age discrimination charge filings, the second highest level ever, accounting for 24% of its private sector caseload. EEOC’s age discrimination charge data are available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/adea.cfm.

The EEOC is the government agency responsible for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Further information about EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Boeing Settles Two EEOC Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuits for $380,000

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:35:19 +0000

PHOENIX — Chicago-based The Boeing Company, an aerospace giant that manufactures military aircraft and commercial jetliners, has agreed to pay $380,000 and administer far-reaching injunctive measures to settle two lawsuits brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

In one case, filed in 2005 (EEOC v. The Boeing Company, 05cv03034 PHX FJM), the EEOC brought sex discrimination and retaliation claims against Boeing on behalf of two female engineers at Boeing’s Mesa, Arizona facility. Antonia Castron complained of gender-based harassment, including sexist remarks, creating a hostile environment and, a few days later, she found herself transferred to a new unit that did not suit her skill set. Less than two months after the transfer, Boeing laid her off, purportedly because she could not perform as well as other engineers in her new unit.

“Instead of stopping the harassment or reprimanding the men who tormented me, they moved me to a unit that designed structures,” said Castron. “I was skilled at electrical engineering. That’s like asking a heart surgeon to do brain surgery. Then they evaluated me for layoff based on my ability to perform structural work. They set me up for layoff.”

The EEOC claimed that Boeing managers harbored discriminatory and retaliatory motives when it transferred and terminated Castron. Manufacturing engineer Renee Wrede twice complained of sex-based or sexual harassment, and twice Boeing’s internal investigators substantiated her complaints. Nonetheless, according to the EEOC, the company allowed her harassers to influence her layoff evaluations and reduce her scores. As a result, Wrede also received a layoff notice in October 2002. The EEOC’s investigation showed that Boeing manipulated evaluation scores used in its October 2002 reduction in force to justify the terminations of Wrede and Castron.

“An employer is only setting itself up for more trouble when it punishes a worker for exercising her right to complain about unlawful activity in the workplace,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC is always especially concerned when we uncover this kind of unlawful retaliation. It chills witnesses and victims from reporting illegal discrimination at work, and therefore interferes dangerously with the Commission’s law enforcement efforts.”

In an earlier lawsuit (EEOC v. The Boeing Company, CV-03-1210-PHX-PGR), the EEOC sought relief on behalf of Kelley Miles, a female mechanic at the Mesa facility, who works on the Apache helicopter that Boeing manufactures for the U.S. Army. The EEOC charged that Boeing allowed Miles’ co-workers to harass her on an ongoing basis due to her gender and allowed one or more managers to contribute to that harassment without taking appropriate steps to address the behavior. Much of the harassment directed at Miles was designed to make it more difficult for her to perform her job, the EEOC said. Male co-workers took Miles’ tools and either broke them, hid them, or changed the adjustments before returning them. Other harassment was sexual in nature. Miles reported this conduct to Boeing’s Human Resources Department, but the company did nothing to address it. As a result, the harassment continued.

The suit also charged that Boeing retaliated against Miles for complaining about gender-based harassment. After Miles reported her co-workers’ conduct to Boeing’s Human Resources Department, a manager warned several of Miles’ co-workers to be careful of what they said to her because the manager had them on a list.

Boeing’s alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation.

The consent decrees reached between the parties provide for $380,000 in monetary relief for Castron, Wrede and Miles and an injunction prohibiting future discrimination and retaliation. Further, the EEOC obtained curative relief, such as training, to prevent Boeing from engaging in any further discrimination and retaliation.

“The right of an employee to oppose discrimination in the workplace is fundamental,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “Employees should be able to report discrimination without fearing that their employers will make the situation worse by retaliating against them.”

Rayford Irvin, EEOC acting district director in Phoenix, added, “Covert attempts to mask discriminatory and retaliatory motives, such as Boeing employed, will fool no one.”

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

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

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:34:06 +0000

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

LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of two lawsuits against Landwin Management, Inc., a San Gabriel, Calif.-based hotel operator, for $500,000 and significant remedial relief in cases alleging national origin discrimination and sexual harassment. Both suits were filed in September 2007 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the first lawsuit (Case No. CV 07-06169 SJO), the EEOC charged that non-Chinese banquet servers were rejected for hire based on their national origin when the San Gabriel Hilton severed its contract and hired Landwin Management to operate the establishment in April 2005. The EEOC said that all the non-Chinese banquet servers who previously worked for the hotel at the time, many of whom were Latino, were not hired back during the turnover and instead replaced with less qualified Chinese workers.

In the second suit (Case No. CV 07-05916 PA), the EEOC alleged that the San Gabriel Hilton subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment, including verbal sexual harassment by the housekeeping department supervisor, who referred to the women as “whores” and “prostitutes” in addition to other offensive language. The supervisor also allegedly reprimanded the female employees if they even spoke to men, and Landwin failed to respond to the employees’ complaints of harassment.

In addition to the $500,000 in monetary relief, a three-year consent decree settling the two lawsuits will also ensure that (1) Landwin will implement hiring and recruiting goals for Hispanic employees; (2) Landwin will revise its written policies on discrimination, sexual harassment and recruitment and hiring; (3) employees will receive annual training regarding discrimination, including national origin discrimination and sexual harassment; (4) Landwin will retain an EEO monitor / consultant named by the Commission to assist with recruiting, hiring, training, revision of policies and record-keeping procedures; and (5) the company will provide annual reports to the EEOC regarding its employment practices.

“The days when employers make decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions shaped by the race or national origin of their employees should be far behind us,” said Anna Y. Park, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Further, sexual harassment should no longer be tolerated in any workplace, and employers should never condone or overlook the mistreatment of vulnerable victims, such as monolingual Spanish-speaking women.”

EEOC Los Angeles District Director Olophius Perry added, “Employers must take appropriate corrective action when they receive harassment complaints. We hope that other employers take the lead of the San Gabriel Hilton and take proactive action to ensure EEO compliance. Businesses should take advantage of EEOC trainings that are available to encourage compliance and proactive prevention.”

The EEOC Training Institute provides a wide variety of training to assist employers in educating their managers and employees on the laws enforced by EEOC and how to prevent and correct discrimination in the workplace. More information is available at http://www.eeoc.gov/field/washington/training.cfm.

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

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

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:32:50 +0000

235 Former Employees Terminated at End of Workers’ Compensation Leaves of Absence to Share Settlement Proceeds After Participating in Claims Process

CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced court approval of the distribution of a $6,200,000 compensation fund in the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) litigation between the EEOC and Sears, Roebuck & Co. The distribution is being carried out pursuant to the terms of a consent decree approved by Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson on September 29, 2009. In its lawsuit against Sears, the EEOC had alleged that Sears maintained an inflexible workers’ compensation leave exhaustion policy and terminated employees instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, in violation of the ADA. The case resulted in the largest ADA settlement in a single lawsuit in EEOC history.

Under the terms of the decree, the EEOC provided claim forms to certain Sears employees who had been terminated under Sears’ workers’ compensation leave policy. The claimants were asked to report to the EEOC, among other things, the extent of their impairments, their ability to return to work at Sears, and whether Sears had made any attempt to return them to work. Based on these criteria, the EEOC found that 235 individuals were eligible to share in the settlement. The average award was approximately $26,300. More than twenty claimants were found to be ineligible by the EEOC. As with all EEOC litigation, none of the settlement fund will retained by the EEOC; all of it will be distributed.

“It is a satisfying day indeed when victims finally receive compensation for the wrongful discrimination they have endured,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC is pleased and proud that we fought long and hard on this case to protect the rights of workers with disabilities, and that many Sears employees will now benefit from our law enforcement efforts.”

Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said, “The Sears case has been a long haul, but now it’s over—this is it. The court has enjoined future discrimination by Sears and approved the amount of money each class member will receive for the particular discrimination he or she suffered. Their day for compensation is here, and as far as the EEOC is concerned, that makes it a good day for everyone involved.”

EEOC Trial Attorney Aaron DeCamp noted that, in addition to the disbursement of settlement funds, the EEOC is seeing positive effects from the consent decree. “As a result of the decree, we believe Sears has an improved workers’ compensation leave process, and it has posted notices regarding the decree. We know that employees have been seeing the notices because we’ve been receiving inquiries as a result. So we think it’s pretty clear that our lawsuit genuinely benefited the employees of Sears and strengthened the company’s human resources processes.”

The lawsuit, filed in November 2004, was assigned to Federal District Court Judge Wayne Anderson of the Northern District of Illinois and Magistrate Judge Susan Cox, and is captioned EEOC v. Sears Roebuck & Co., N.D. Ill. No. 04 C 7282. Judge Anderson entered the order approving the monetary distributions on February 4.

The EEOC litigation team included, in addition to Hendrickson and DeCamp, Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour and Trial Attorneys Ethan Cohen, Deborah Hamilton and Laurie Elkin.

The EEOC Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

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