Here’s our latest update, after the break. This week’s update is composed of EEOC cases.
NJ — “Shopper’s Vineyard, a wine and liquor store in Clifton, N.J., agreed to pay $60,000 and provide substantial injunctive relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) . . . . The EEOC said in its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey (Civil Action No. 08-cv-1234 [DMC]), that [the Plaintiff] of Passaic, N.J., was the only African American front-line manager at the Clifton store. Shopper’s Vineyard told [the Plaintiff] in 2006 that he was being laid off because of economic reasons, but according to the EEOC’s lawsuit, [the Plaintiff] was actually laid off because of his race. Shopper’s Vineyard retained white managers with less tenure and experience and hired many new employees, including four new white managers, within the year after [the Plaintiff] was laid off, the suit charged.”
MD — “A Phoenix, Md., horse farm will pay $180,000 and furnish substantial remedial relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) . . . . According to EEOC’s suit (RDB 08-CV-0259), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, Fitzhugh, LLC, which operates Fitzhugh Farm, engaged in the sexual harassment of [the Plaintiff] while she was employed as a farmhand. The agency also charged that [the Plaintiff] and her coworkers . . . were fired after [the Plaintiff] complained about sexual harassment and identified the [coworkers] as witnesses who could support her claims. All three victims received housing as employees of the farm, and therefore lost their homes as result of their terminations.”
CA — “Union Pacific Railroad will pay $75,000 and furnish significant relief measures to settle a sex discrimination suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) . . . . The EEOC’s suit charged that Union Pacific refused to hire a female applicant to a system material foreman position at its Glamis, Calif., facility, even though she had more seniority than the other applicants. For years, the woman had worked on the rails alongside men, said the EEOC, and she had already been an assistant foreman in the division. The agency believes that, had she been hired, she would have been the first female system material foreman in the nation.”
VA — “Advance Stores Company, Inc., doing business as Advance Auto Parts, will pay $50,000 and provide other affirmative relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) . . . . According to the EEOC’s suit, Advance Auto Parts refused to hire [plaintiff] in September 2004 because he has cerebral palsy. [Plaintiff] had applied for a part-time sales position at an Advance Auto Parts retail store in Norton, Va. The EEOC said that [plaintiff] had successfully completed an internship as a salesperson at Advance Auto’s Staunton, Va., store through a training program in which he participated. The EEOC further charged that despite [plaintiff’s] qualifications and experience obtained through the internship, Advance Auto did not hire him but did hire at least one other person who was less qualified than [plaintiff].”
NC — “Burger King Corporation will pay $85,000 and furnish significant non-monetary relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) . . . . The EEOC had charged that a female employee of the Clemmons, N.C., Burger King was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment when she was 18-years-old. The EEOC charged in its lawsuit (EEOC v. Burger King Corporation, d/b/a Burger King, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00703, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina) that [plaintiff] was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment from approximately December 2006 to March 2007 by the general manager of the Clemmons, N.C.-based restaurant where she worked. The harassment included unwelcome touching, overt sexual advances, and frequent requests for sexual favors. The suit further asserted that [plaintiff] complained about the harassment to her assistant managers, who failed to take appropriate action to stop the unlawful conduct.”