June/July 2006 Discrimination & Harassment News

• More Than 12,300 Women Nationwide To Receive $48.9 Million In Verizon Pregnancy Bias Settlement
  
• EEOC Investigating Fedex On Charges Of Companywide Race, National Origin Discrimination
  
• Wal-Mart and R.T.G. Furniture Settle EEOC Sexual and Racial Harassment Lawsuits for Total $590,000
  
• Alamo Car Rental Guilty Of Religious Bias: EEOC Said Muslim Employee Fired for Wearing Head Scarf Shortly After 9/11 Attacks
  
• EEOC Lawsuit Says Company Denied Women Promotion Opportunities, Told Female Employee 'Gals Should Work in Admin'
  
• Judge Orders John Pickle Co. to Pay $1.24 Million to 52 Foreign Workers in 'Human Trafficking' Case: EEOC Said Skilled Laborers Recruited from India were Imprisoned, Exploited and Abused

---

More Than 12,300 Women Nationwide To Receive $48.9 Million In Verizon Pregnancy Bias Settlement (6/5/06) - EEOC

NEW YORK, N.Y. - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that, pursuant to a court-filed consent decree, telecommunications giant Verizon Communications, Inc. will pay approximately $48.9 million to 12,326 current and former female employees in 13 states and the District of Columbia as part of a 2002 settlement of a landmark class action lawsuit alleging pregnancy discrimination against Verizon predecessor telephone companies NYNEX and Bell Atlantic.

EEOC and New York-based Verizon jointly submitted a final report today to U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin informing him that the claims process was completed in December 2004 and the total compensation paid to date under the settlement is more than $25.3 million. EEOC submitted a separate letter informing the court that it projected that an additional $23.6 million would be paid in future pension benefits. The size of the class and estimated value of monetary benefits make this the largest EEOC settlement of its kind involving pregnancy-related service credit adjustments. EEOC litigated the cases along with two unions representing the non-managerial employees, the Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

The consent decree resolved employment discrimination lawsuits filed by the EEOC's New York District Office in 1997 and 1999 against Bell Atlantic and NYNEX (now Verizon), and their predecessor companies and related subsidiaries. The suits alleged that the companies violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, by denying female employees service credit related to pregnancy and maternity leaves of absence taken between July 2, 1965 and April 28, 1979, and care for newborn children leaves of absence taken between July 2, 1965 and December 31, 1983.

"As retirement benefits become increasingly important to today's workers, it is critical to fight back when discrimination occurs," said EEOC's New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. "Employers should be aware that pregnancy discrimination in regard to benefits is just not acceptable - to workers and to the EEOC."

CWA Vice President Christopher M. Shelton noted, "CWA has been involved for many years in efforts to eliminate pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. This case represents an important victory for working women who should not have had to sacrifice their pension benefits because they had children." CWA represents nearly 70,000 clerical, sales, service and technical workers at Verizon, many of whom are located in the states covered by the lawsuit.

The consent decree covers all women employed at any time since January 8, 1994, by any former Bell Atlantic or NYNEX (now Verizon) company located in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and/or West Virginia, and who took a pregnancy or maternity-related leave of absence between July 2, 1965 and April 28, 1979, and/or a leave of absence for the care of a newborn child (CNC) between July 2, 1965 and December 31, 1983.

EEOC Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman, who oversaw the litigation effort, said, "We are pleased that so many women were able to come forward and participate in this settlement. Many of them will be seeing its results in their pension checks each month for years to come."

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. In addition to prohibiting sex-based discrimination, Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

Back to top

---

EEOC Investigating Fedex On Charges Of Companywide Race, National Origin Discrimination (6/6/06) - EEOC

PHOENIX -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has filed a subpoena enforcement action in its race discrimination investigation of FedEx Corporation to force the company to furnish key information on personnel procedures.

The EEOC is investigating a race discrimination charge by Tyronne Merritt against Fed Ex which accuses the company of engaging in a pattern and practice of discriminating against African Americans and Latinos in promotion. According to Merritt's charge, FedEx requires passage of a Basic Skills Test (BST), a cognitive ability test, for promotion from the entry-level position of handler to positions of customer service agent, ramp transporter driver, or courier. Merritt further alleged that the BST has an adverse impact on African Americans and Latinos, disproportionately impacting those groups, thus constituting race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

During its investigation of Merritt's allegations, the EEOC issued an administrative subpoena for basic information about the types of computerized or machine-readable files FedEx maintains regarding personnel decisions. FedEx refused to comply with the subpoena. In the subpoena enforcement action, the EEOC asks U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to order FedEx Corporation to show cause why it should not comply with the administrative subpoena issued to the company.

Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, said, "Mr. Merritt's charge raises very serious allegations that a major employer of international scope discriminates against its employees because of their race and national origin. Title VII prohibits an employer from using a test that has an adverse impact on any protected group unless there is no other means by which the employer can test employees. It is unusual for an employer to try to stonewall the EEOC at such an early stage in our investigation. We are hopeful that the court will order this employer to comply with the EEOC subpoena."

Chester V. Bailey, district director for the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, added, "No employer has the right to systematically deny promotional opportunities to entire demographic groups through a dubious testing process or any other means. This office will continue to vigorously investigate allegations of pattern and practice discrimination."

Back to top

---

Wal-Mart and R.T.G. Furniture Settle EEOC Sexual and Racial Harassment Lawsuits for Total $590,000 (6/1/06) - EEOC

TAMPA - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlements of separate employment discrimination lawsuits filed against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and R.T.G. Furniture Corp. for a combined total of $590,000 on behalf of five individuals who were subjected to egregious sexual and racial harassment at stores in Central Florida. In addition to the monetary relief, both employers will take significant steps to prevent and address any future reports of discrimination.

The lawsuits against both companies were filed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and resolved by consent decrees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. Wal-Mart will pay $315,000 to settle the EEOC's two suits (8:04-cv-01862 - SDM-MSS and 8:05-cv-313-JDW-MSS ) charging the Arkansas-based retail giant with subjecting three female employees to sexual harassment at the same Super Center store in Bradenton, Fla. The consent decree further requires that Wal-Mart comply with other non-monetary relief, such as posting its anti-discrimination policy; providing annual training for its managers regarding sexual harassment; and entering into a three-year monitoring period by the EEOC to ensure compliance with Title VII.

EEOC's first lawsuit against Wal-Mart, filed on August 12, 2004, charged the company with allowing sexual harassment of two of its female associates by a male department manager to go unchecked, notwithstanding the employees' complaints to management. The sexually hostile work environment at the store included the male manager exposing himself to the women; touching, grabbing and fondling the women; making sexually suggestive comments; requesting sex; and other lewd and unlawful conduct. Despite notice to Wal-Mart's management, the harassment continued until one of the female employees was forced to quit her job in January of 2003. The manager who perpetrated the sexual harassment ultimately resigned his employment.

The second suit against Wal-Mart, filed by the EEOC on February 17, 2005, charged the company with permitting another of its female associates to be sexually harassed by the store assistant manager at the same store location of the two women involved in the 2004 suit. In this case, the assistant manager who committed the harassment interviewed and hired the female associate in January of 2002. Shortly thereafter, he began sexually propositioning her, subjecting her to vulgar language and unwanted sexual comments, and touching private parts of her body. Despite notice received by the store manager regarding inappropriate sexual conduct, nothing was done to stop the illegal behavior until the assistant manager was transferred out of that store for unrelated reasons.

In addition to the Wal-Mart settlement, the EEOC's Miami District Office announced that R.T.G. Furniture Corp. will pay $275,000 to settle a lawsuit charging the company with subjecting two employees to racial and sexual harassment at its Rooms To Go Seffner Clearance Center in the Tampa area. The suit (civil action number 8:04-cv-2155-T24-TBM) was filed by the EEOC on September 28, 2004, after the agency first attempted to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

In the R.T.G. case, Tammy Leigh and Tanya Shelton, who worked as sales associates, contended they were sexually harassed by their immediate supervisor. The harassment ranged from highly charged sexual comments to inappropriate touching. Leigh, who is African American, also testified during depositions that she was subjected to racial harassment, including racial slurs and persistent racially offensive references to African American customers.

In addition to the monetary relief for the charging parties, the consent decree requires R.T.G. Furniture Corp. to enter into a three-year monitoring period by the EEOC to ensure compliance with Title VII; provide annual training for its mangers and supervisory personnel on the requirements of Title VII; and post an anti-discrimination notice affirming its commitment to comply with the law.

"Racial and sexual discrimination are intolerable in any workplace," said EEOC's Miami District Director Federico Costales. "The settlement of theses case advances the EEOC's efforts to eradicate employment discrimination, and should remind Florida employers to heighten their awareness to job bias by taking proactive measures to prevent it."

EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Delner Franklin-Thomas said, "These cases are similar in that they involve large employers who had in place written harassment policies. But policies alone are not always enough. The staff in charge of implementing the policies failed to take appropriate corrective action. Harassment policies work best when supervisors and managers are trained on what to do when they receive complaints. Employers should not just leave such policies on a shelf to gather dust."

Back to top

---

Alamo Car Rental Guilty Of Religious Bias: EEOC Said Muslim Employee Fired for Wearing Head Scarf Shortly After 9/11 Attacks (5/30/06) - EEOC

PHOENIX - In a legal victory for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Arizona Federal District Court Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that Alamo Car Rental committed post-9/11 backlash discrimination based on religion when it terminated a Somali customer sales representative in December 2001 for refusing to remove her head scarf during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Alamo Car Rental is owned and operated by Ft. Lauderdale-based Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC and ANC Rental Corporation - a subsidiary of Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc.

In the first post-9/11 backlash case brought by the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, the court took the unusual step of finding the religious discrimination so clear cut based on the pleadings that it did not need to be resolved by a jury.

"It is extremely rare that a court will find discrimination based solely on the pleadings," said Mary Jo O'Neill, Regional Attorney for the Phoenix District Office. "The court found undisputed evidence that Alamo should have approved this employee's request to wear her head scarf as a religious accommodation or proposed a reasonable alternative."

According to Judge Silver's ruling: "It is undisputed that the accommodation Alamo offered Ms. Nur required her to remove her head covering during Ramadan when she served clients but still required her to serve clients, making it impossible for Ms. Nur to avoid removing her head covering at work." Accordingly, Alamo's proposal would have failed to accommodate Ms. Nur's religious conflict and was not a reasonable accommodation."

The EEOC filed suit in September 2002 (EEOC v Alamo Rent -A-Car, LLC; ANC Rental Corporation, CIV 02 1908 PHX ROS) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona only after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary settlement.

Prior to being fired, charging party Bilan Nur had worked for Alamo since 1999. EEOC's lawsuit asserted that the company had permitted her to wear a head covering for religious reasons during Ramadan in 1999 and 2000. However, following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Alamo refused to permit Ms. Nur to observe this particular religious belief during December of 2001.

Alamo claimed that it told Ms. Nur that the company dress code prohibited wearing of a scarf. Notwithstanding Alamo's representation, the EEOC found that the company had no such policy. When Ms. Nur refused to remove the religious garment, Alamo disciplined, suspended and terminated her employment following consultation with regional level human resources officials and in-house counsel.

"I am very pleased that the judge believed that Alamo's actions were illegal," said Ms. Nur, who now resides in Minneapolis. "No person should ever have to be forced to choose between her religion and her job. Alamo appeared to understand this before the horrible attacks of September 11, 2001. Then something changed. This has been an incredible nightmare for me and I am very grateful to the EEOC for its efforts to correct this wrong."

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. Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion.

"Unless a religious accommodation imposes an undue hardship, employers are strongly advised to look favorably on such requests," said EEOC Regional Attorney O'Neill. "Given the strong facts of this case, we are surprised that a large employer as sophisticated as Alamo has repeatedly refused to stand up and take responsibility for such a conspicuous violation of law."

Chester V. Bailey, District Director for the EEOC Phoenix office, said: "As the court found, Alamo dismissed the requests by Ms. Nur for accommodation without consideration, in violation of the mandates of Title VII. This decision was made at the corporate Human Resources level apparently in consultation with in-house counsel., Alamo's violation is particularly noteworthy given that one of the individuals involved in the disciplinary action wore a cross at work."

According to its web site (www.alamo.com), Alamo Rent-A-Car is one of the nation's largest rental car companies operating in 1,000 locations nationwide and internationally. The Alamo Rent-A-Car brand is owned and operated by Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc., a worldwide organization with more than 3,200 locations in 83 countries and a domestic fleet of more than 217,000 automobiles.

Back to top

---

EEOC Lawsuit Says Company Denied Women Promotion Opportunities, Told Female Employee 'Gals Should Work in Admin' (5/31/06) - EEOC

SEATTLE - Les Schwab Tire Centers, one of the largest tire and automotive businesses in the West, violated federal law by failing to hire, train, and promote women into management jobs because of their sex, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Charging Parties Megan Morris and Jennifer Strange worked in various Les Schwab stores in the Puget Sound area in Washington, including Tacoma, Bellevue, SeaTac, and Puyallup. Although they requested to work in the tire bays, they were repeatedly denied these jobs and the opportunity for promotion due to their gender, according to the EEOC. The women brought charges of discrimination to the EEOC that form the basis of today's lawsuit.

The EEOC also alleges that Les Schwab failed to hire female applicants into sales and service department jobs. These positions - which involve mounting, dismounting, repairing and rotating tires -- are held mainly by males and are a prerequisite for entry into more lucrative management jobs. The agency found that Les Schwab excluded women from those roles for more than 50 years and only recently promoted one woman to the position of assistant manager.

"In 1996, I started at the bottom and worked up to sales and management for an independently owned Les Schwab Tire Center. But when Les Schwab corporate took over this store, they demoted me to bookkeeper," said Strange. "When I asked about my prior position, I was told 'No gal in the company would ever make that kind of money. Gals should work in admin.' I stayed for almost two years trying to move back into sales and management, but the company refused to consider me for that kind of job."

EEOC San Francisco District Director Joan Ehrlich noted, "Company founder Les Schwab's own published book exposes a corporate culture where men get the better jobs. Mr. Schwab's book describes in great detail how men get ahead in the company, and it reinforces a decades-old idea that men do certain jobs and women do others. Mr. Schwab published the book some time ago, but a copy is still available for sale in every Les Schwab store. Our lawsuit should go a long way toward bringing women into a workplace that historically has shut them out."

EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, "It is shocking to see a sex-segregated work force where qualified and capable female applicants and employees who want to move up the ladder of success are held back due to their gender. Our suit seeks monetary relief for a potentially large class of women, and we are also seeking corrective measures to remove the barriers of discrimination."

He noted that the EEOC filed this suit only after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation, and seeks monetary damages, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of notices at the work site and other injunctive relief.

According to the company's website, www.lesschwab.com, there are over 400 Les Schwab Tire Centers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California, Utah and Nevada. The company is based in Prineville, Ore.

Back to top

---

Judge Orders John Pickle Co. to Pay $1.24 Million to 52 Foreign Workers in 'Human Trafficking' Case: EEOC Said Skilled Laborers Recruited from India were Imprisoned, Exploited and Abused (5/26/06) - EEOC

TULSA, Okla. - In a significant legal victory for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal judge has ordered John Pickle Company, Inc. (JPC) and its president, John Pickle, to pay $1.24 million to 52 male victims of national origin discrimination and "human trafficking" who were recruited from India as skilled laborers and then subjected to widespread abuse, intimidation and exploitation.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged the Tulsa, Okla.-based oil industry parts manufacturer with recruiting the class of foreign employees to the United States with assurances they would work under conditions similar to those of Americans. However, in her 71-page written opinion, Federal District Court Judge Claire V. Eagan detailed evidence of unlawful and egregious conduct by JPC against the Indian-born high-tech welders, fitters, electricians, engineers and cooks once they arrived in the United States.

The judge ruled that JPC was responsible for subjecting the Indian workers to fraud and deceit, inadequate pay, sub-standard living conditions, false imprisonment, lockdowns with an armed guard, phone tapping, food rationing, restrictions on freedom to worship, degrading job assignments, ethnic slurs, intimidation, and the non-payment of wages earned. The court concluded that this conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, because the treatment was based on the national origin of the foreign workers.

"This is a case in which the American dream turned into a workplace nightmare," said EEOC's Dallas Regional Attorney Robert A, Canino, the agency's trial counsel and member of a federal interagency Worker Exploitation Task Force. "We expect that a decision like this, which wraps the civil rights laws of Title VII and §1981 around the country's growing problem of human trafficking, will serve as valuable precedent and give the government one more weapon in the fight against exploitation and forced labor.

Indian witnesses testified at trial to being deceived by JPC that they were being brought to the United States with the promise of lawful wages and appropriate working conditions. However, once they arrived, the workers had their identification and immigration documents confiscated by JPC, were crammed into a warehouse "dormitory," and only paid between $1.00 and $3.17 per hour (while non-Indian employees of JPC were paid approximately $14.00 per hour for performing the same type of skilled work).

The court relied on findings from testimony that the highly skilled welders and fitters from India were also made to perform janitorial work, replace a septic tank, and perform kitchen duties and yard work for JPC officers. Beginning in October 2001, the Indian workers were forced to live behind the gates of the company until escaping from the facility in February 2002 with the aid of area churches.

Regional Attorney Canino added, "This case is a prime example of where the purposes of the U.S. anti-discrimination laws and immigration laws converge to protect both American and foreign workers with needed skills. American companies would be undermined by unfair competition if employers like JPC were allowed to engage in illegal schemes to obtain cheap foreign labor."

Judge Eagan's 71-page decision followed two earlier trials and prior "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" issued in August 2004. The EEOC's lawsuit was joined with a related civil action which had been filed by the workers on their own behalf alleging false imprisonment, minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), deceit, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Chellen et al. and EEOC v. John Pickle Company, Inc., Case No. 02-CV-0085-CVE-FHM [Base File] and 02-CV-0979-CVE-FHM [Consolidated] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma). The total damages awarded by the Court addressed the claims in both the government's suit and the private action.

Back to top