Latest news with #EEOC
CBS News
3 days ago
- Business
- CBS News
Colorado bar owner settles with former employees over sexual harassment allegations
The owner of a Greeley bar who allegedly spoke about female job applicants as unsuitable for hiring because they were "too ugly" or "not f***able" agreed to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit that was filed by six former employees. James Jennings will pay $100,000 to the group, according to terms of the agreement. The former employees accused Jennings of creating an overtly sexual and hostile workplace environment at Starlite Station, a Western-themed bar and dance hall which opened in November 2018. Their lawsuit, led by attorneys at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claimed often touched female employees with their permission, pursued relationships with female employees, and pressured female employees to let him sleep at their home. "Unwelcome comments, unwelcome touching, the owner of the business touching women, making comments about female employees' breasts, buttocks, sex stereotypes," said Nathan Foster, a trial attorney with the EEOC, after the lawsuit's filing. "Our complaint alleges that that's a problem not only for the women who were talked about and who were discriminated against, but also for the male employees who didn't want to work an environment where that was the norm." CBS Jennings allegedly made inappropriate comments about some potential female employees being "too ugly" or "not f***able" to certain male employees. He also tried to engage the male employees in discussions about their sex lives. Those conversations included inquiries into whether the male employees were sleeping with any of the female employees. Foremost among the men who objected was Gary DeJohn, the manager hired by Jennings to get the business launched. "I stood up for women that needed to be stood up for," DeJohn said. "It was incredibly hard to deal with. There were times that I - the one with expertise - quit. I told him I wasn't going to put up with it. He actually fired himself when I quit." But Jennings went back on that promise and returned weeks later, DeJohn said. "It wasn't about money. It wasn't about being a business," DeJohn added. "I wasn't going to have my staff there drinking after hours and then sleeping there. That was a problem almost immediately." The EEOC complaint states Jennings had sex after hours at the bar with an intoxicated female employee who had no ability to consent. The Greeley Police Department investigated the 2019 incident and filed no charges against him. The EEOC, however, claims the encounter was captured on a security camera in Jennings's office. Further, a number of employees were told by Jennings in "counseling memos" they had violated company policy by opposing his conduct. The female employee was subsequently terminated when she refused to sign company documents related to the sexual encounter, per the EEOC complaint. The business temporarily lost its liquor license two months after the incident. Another of the former female employees in the EEOC complaint believed she was fired from her position for refusing to have a sexual relationship with Jennings, according to a court document. CBS Two Starlite employees who were not part of the lawsuit backed the sexual harassment allegations in it. Jennings's sexual overtones, they told CBS Colorado in 2022 after the EEOC complaint was filed, began during the interview process prior to the bar's opening. "I was like, 'Cool, I'll be here for an official interview tomorrow morning,'" said former employee Sophia McElroy. "He was like, 'Make sure you wear a low-cut shirt.'" Hailie Duncan was 18 when she applied. She and McElroy both confirmed Jennings did not take action against customers who sexually harassed them, and forced them to wear uniforms they were uncomfortable with. "He was like, 'You don't have to wear it, but you don't have to have a job here,'" said Duncan. In a press release announcing the settlement, the EEOC stated Jennings retaliated against employees in the lawsuit by filing his own defamation suit against them. That is what spurred the EEOC, with the former employees' complaint in hand, to file its lawsuit against Jennings. "This case demonstrates why owners should not think that they can escape liability simply by closing a business and filing retaliatory defamation lawsuits in an attempt to silence victims," stated Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC's Phoenix District Office (which includes Colorado), in the press release. The EEOC also accused Jennings and his mother of using corporate funds from their company, 'Murica LLC, to pay a mortgage on a home, a personal loan and personal credit cards. CBS Colorado reached out to Jennings for a response on the accusations and the settlement Sunday. No response has been received. The two parties signed the settlement agreement June 5. "For the five years that this has gone on," said a former female employee and plaintiff in the lawsuit who wished to remain anonymous, "and the damage that he has done, personally, mentally, and emotionally....$100,000 can't bring a life back." That woman and DeJohn both confirmed Michael Chacon, a seventh member of the group who filed the EEOC complaint, took his own life three years ago. The Starlite ordeal was partly to blame, both said. "He was one of the first to say, "I don't agree with what's going on here,'" DeJohn said, "and he tried to bring it up. We all have him to thank." Starlite Station closed in 2021. The strip mall in which it was housed was demolished and re-developed in 2022. DeJohn suggested anyone in the same position as he and the other Starlite staffers trust their instincts. "You know what's right," he said. "Just do what's right. Eventually, you'll be on the right side of it. "And don't be afraid."
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Denver trucking firm settles with EEOC, ending 9-year lawsuit
This story was originally published on Trucking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Trucking Dive newsletter. Trucking company Western Distributing Transportation agreed to pay $919,000 and adhere to other measures to settle a case with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over alleged disability discrimination. The case, filed in 2016, alleged the company violated labor regulations for terminating employees after they took medical leave, according to the EEOC. Western Distributing President and CEO Vieri Gaines signed a four-year consent decree last week that rejected the discrimination allegations while agreeing to pay damages and complying with third-party monitoring of employment records for several years. Twenty-five percent of the fee will go toward back pay, with the remaining money covering compensatory damages to various aggrieved individuals. The U.S. government identified 58 individuals who were allegedly denied reasonable accommodation or terminated, according to the decree, and the EEOC will create a final list of those entitled to compensation within 60 days of executing the settlement. "We are happy to put this chapter behind us and move forward — and we are just as dedicated as ever before to doing the right thing as we always have,' Gaines said in a news release last week. The nearly decade-long lawsuit comes as Western Distributing, which reported 162 drivers as of last July, is closing in on its 100-year anniversary in 2033. With ties as a Coors' distributor, the company's long-haul division was formally established in 1977 and features refrigerated, armored and specialty hauling, according to the company. A spokesperson for the company, Andy Boian, told Trucking Dive that there's conflict between Labor Department and Department of Transportation policies. The company followed DOT rules in not allowing drivers to drive for the business even if a medical doctor allowed it, he said. The settlement seeks to avoid further costs, disruption and delay, according to the consent decree, signed by both parties. 'Western continues to deny liability on all claims and stands by its strong safety protocols and commitment to fair, lawful employment practices,' the release said. The EEOC argued in its 2016 complaint that the business failed to make reasonable accommodations for individuals, including a driver who required open-heart surgery. That driver, who had a doctor seek to extend the worker's Family and Medical Leave Act time off, sought reassignment as a yard hostler or dispatcher, the lawsuit said. The company refused reasonable accommodations in connection with a Western Distributing employment policy, referred to as a 'full duty' standard, that required employees to return to work without medical restrictions, per the lawsuit. The EEOC alleged the approach violated labor laws. In a 2023 trial, a jury found the EEOC failed to prove two charges regarding a pattern of allegedly discriminating against and failing to accommodate qualified people with disabilities. But the jury did find the business at fault with a charge that certain policies adversely impacted qualified people with disabilities, such as the company's 'full duty' standard and other provisions requiring workers be able to push and pull 130 pounds of weight. The EEOC sought a retrial for the two charges the jury cleared less than a month later. 'Despite this decisive ruling, the EEOC opted to continue pursuing dozens of individual claims in separate proceedings, a process that could have gone on for years and placed significant financial strain on the company,' Western Distributing said in its release last week. Ultimately, the company said it sought a settlement to avoid a battle with an agency that had "virtually unlimited financial resources and an indefinite timeline that Western simply couldn't match." To bring the case to a close, Western Distributing consented to several conditions. Among them, the business agreed to: Delete any mention of 'full duty' in existing policies and 'explain that there is no requirement that employees be fully healed or without restrictions in order to return to work,' with reasonable accommodation involving an interactive process and individualized assessment Expressly state that an up to 12-week family medical leave policy could be extended if appropriate as a reasonable accommodation Develop and maintain a management evaluation of compliance with equal employment opportunities within 60 days of executing the settlement and submit EEO reports on an annual basis Recommended Reading Garten Trucking's union wage comment was improper, US appeals court says
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge finalizes $1.4M Waste Pro racial discrimination lawsuit settlement
This story was originally published on Waste Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Waste Dive newsletter. Waste Pro will pay $1.4 million to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced this week. The suit alleges that Waste Pro failed to intervene when a Black sanitation worker and 25 other employees in Jacksonville, Florida were subjected to what the EEOC described as frequent 'horrific racial slurs and epithets' and other severe harassment due to either their race, their background as Haitian Americans, or both. Some of the employees were also denied use of necessary tools or equipment needed to do their jobs or were singled out to complete harder or less desirable tasks than other workers, the lawsuit alleges. A judge approved the consent decree on June 5, the last step needed to finalize a consent decree that was first proposed in October 2024. EEOC filed the complaint in September 2023. As part of the consent decree, Waste Pro must provide specialized training on race discrimination to supervisors and human resources employees, the decree says. It specifies that Waste Pro CEO Sean Jennings and COO Keith Banasiak must attend the first training session. Waste Pro must also appoint an independent compliance officer, who will oversee the investigation of any race discrimination complaints the company receives at any of its locations throughout Florida, the EEOC said. Waste Pro will have to establish a centralized discrimination complaint tracking system and provide the EEOC with biannual reports noting any discriminatory conduct at its locations and describing what corrective measures were taken. Further, the company will need to create a written seniority system that assigns collection trucks and routes 'on a race-neutral basis.' The suit alleged that certain managers made 'an already difficult job – picking up Jacksonville residents' trash and recycling – intolerable by assigning Black employees to worse routes and trucks while forcing them to endure severe racial harassment,' EEOC said in a statement. 'This case underscores the urgent need for the EEOC's ongoing efforts to eliminate racism in the waste management industry,' said EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Kristen M. Foslid in a statement. 'The EEOC will continue to use all its tools — including vigorous enforcement and litigation where necessary — to confront employers who tolerate race discrimination in their workplaces and hold them accountable.' Tracy Meehan, Waste Pro's corporate communications director, said in an emailed statement that the company has 'always been committed to fostering a productive and healthy work environment for its employees that is free of harassment and discrimination' and has already implemented changes to its manager training program and its communications to employees about company anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies. 'This case stems from events alleged to have occurred in 2022, and while Waste Pro did not find evidence of intentional wrongdoing, a settlement was reached to avoid lengthy litigation and refocus on our commitment to our employees and the people we serve,' Meehan said. The EEOC complaint originally centered on an employee who reported harassment at a Waste Pro location in Jacksonville, saying he and another employee were regularly told to 'go back to Haiti' and endured other harassment on a regular basis. At one point, the worker said someone left a stuffed monkey on his desk as a reference to a racial epithet, the EEOC said. The suit alleges that the employee reported the harassment several times, but supervisors took no corrective action on the complaints until several months later, when HR called a meeting. After that meeting, according to the lawsuit, workers retaliated against that employee by hiding or locking away his equipment and leaving him the most difficult assignments. The case grew to include dozens of other workers who the EEOC said were harmed by similar ongoing racial discrimination. 'This case began when one worker bravely spoke out against race discrimination and filed a charge with the EEOC. Because of his actions, the company was forced to undergo significant change,' EEOC trial attorney Austin Case said in a statement. The original employee's decision to file the charge also helped his other coworkers 'receive some measure of justice for the discrimination they endured,' he said. Recommended Reading GFL, Waste Pro to pay millions for settlements of EEOC race and sex discrimination lawsuits Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Owners can't dodge liability ‘simply by closing a business,' EEOC reminds employers
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. 'Murica LLC and its owners agreed to settle for $100,000 a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, according to a news release issued by the agency Monday. The lawsuit, EEOC v. 'Murica, LLC, alleged that the owner of Western-themed Starlite Station bar and dance hall in Greeley, Colorado, created a sexually hostile environment for workers by frequently touching female employees without their permission, seeking out sexual relationships with female employees, pressuring female employees to let him sleep at their homes, and having sex with an intoxicated worker at the bar, among other actions. In a five-year consent decree, 'Murica LLC agreed to give monetary relief to the affected individuals, to require equal employment opportunity training for managers and employees, to send an apology letter to those affected, and to have its EEO policies reviewed by a SHRM-certified professional. 'This case demonstrates why owners should not think that they can escape liability simply by closing a business and filing retaliatory defamation lawsuits in an attempt to silence victims,' Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney for EEOC's Phoenix District Office, said in a statement. 'The EEOC will vigorously litigate against retaliatory defamation lawsuits and private settlements that seek to prevent communication with the EEOC and obstruct our enforcement of civil rights laws.' 'Murica LLC closed in November 2021 and has not operated or had employees since, according to the consent decree. The lawsuit alleged that the owner and his mother, a co-owner, were individually liable because they both used the company for their own personal interests, such as by using corporate funds to pay a home mortgage, a personal loan and personal credit cards. Because of the alleged misappropriation of funds, EEOC argued it could 'reach beyond the closed bar and satisfy any judgment with the two owners' personal assets,' per the release. According to the complaint, the owner of Starlite Station, a 'country restaurant, dancehall, and bar,' allegedly made sexual comments about female applicants, such as stating that they were 'too ugly' to be hired or that he had already had sex with them. The owner also allegedly frequently commented on female employees' weight and appearance and said that female workers who were thin and wore revealing clothing would not be in danger of losing their jobs, while those who didn't fit his ideal risked discharge or being scheduled for fewer hours, per the complaint. The company also retaliated against workers who complained or spoke out against the owner's conduct by firing or threatening to discipline them, EEOC said. Additionally, the company filed a retaliatory defamation lawsuit in state court against a group of former employees who had filed complaints with EEOC or made public statements, objecting to the owner's behavior toward female workers, including his alleged sexual contact with an intoxicated female employee, the release said. Title VII of the Civil Right Act prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and retaliation against employees for complaining about such behavior. 'The EEOC is committed to protecting employees from harassment by their employers, especially at the hands of owners. It is essential that employees can work freely without fear of being fired or facing other retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination or sexual harassment, which is protected activity under Title VII,' EEOC Phoenix District Director Melinda Caraballo said in a statement. Recommended Reading Former general manager can proceed with age bias case after Chili's failed to retain documents, 6th Circuit rules Sign in to access your portfolio
NBC News
6 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
A judge resisted Trump's order on gender identity. The EEOC just fired her
The federal agency charged with protecting workers' civil rights has terminated a New York administrative judge who opposed White House directives, including President Donald Trump's executive order decreeing male and female as two "immutable" sexes. In February, Administrative Judge Karen Ortiz, who worked in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's New York office, called Trump's order "unethical" and criticized Acting Chair Andrea Lucas — Trump's pick to lead the agency — for complying with it by pausing work on legal cases involving discrimination claims from transgender workers. In an email copied to more than 1,000 colleagues, Ortiz pressed Lucas to resign. Ortiz was fired on Tuesday after being placed on administrative leave last month. The EEOC declined Wednesday to comment on the termination, saying it does not comment on personnel matters. In response to the president's order declaring two unchangeable sexes, the EEOC moved to drop at least seven of its pending legal cases on behalf of transgender workers who filed discrimination complaints. The agency, which enforces U.S. workplace anti-discrimination laws, also is classifying all new gender identity-related cases as its lowest priority. The actions signaled a major departure from the EEOC's prior interpretation of civil rights law. In her mass February email criticizing the agency's efforts to comply with Trump's order, Ortiz told Lucas, "You are not fit to be our chair much less hold a license to practice law." The letter was leaked on Reddit, where it gained more than 10,000 "upvotes." Many users cheered its author. The EEOC subsequently revoked her email privileges for about a week and issued her a written reprimand for "discourteous conduct." Ortiz said she continued to "raise the alarm" about the agency's treatment of transgender and gender-nonconforming complainants, and convey her opposition to the agency's actions. She sent an April 24 email to Lucas and several other internal email groups with the subject line, "If You're Seeking Power, Here's Power" and a link to Tears for Fears' 1985 hit "Everybody Wants to Rule the World." She contested her proposed termination earlier this month, arguing in a document submitted by a union representative that she was adhering to her oath of office by calling out behavior she believes is illegal. Ortiz "views the Agency's actions regarding LGBTQIA+ complainants to have made the EEOC a hostile environment for LGBTQIA+ workers," and believes that leadership has "abandoned the EEOC's core mission," the document says. The judge was hired to work at the EEOC during the first Trump administration, and while she disagreed with some policies then, "she did not take any action because there was no ostensible illegality which compelled her to do so," the document stated. "What is happening under the current administration is unprecedented." The letter requested the withdrawal of Ortiz's proposed termination, the removal of all disciplinary documents from her personnel file, and that Ortiz be allowed "to continue doing her job." The six-page termination notice came anyway. In it, Chief Administrative Judge Regina Stephens called Ortiz' actions "distasteful and unprofessional," and concluded that Ortiz's "work performance is affected" by her disagreements with the current executive orders and direction of EEOC leadership. The notice also alleged that media circulation of Ortiz's emails had "affected the reputation and credibility of the Agency." It cited an Associated Press article that quoted Ortiz saying she stood by her email statements as evidence that her behavior would not change with "rehabilitation." In a Wednesday phone interview with The Associated Press, Ortiz said the news of her termination is "very sad," although not surprising. "I think the agency has now become something that, I don't know if I'd even really want to work there anymore. They've lost their way," she said. Lucas defended her decision to drop lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers during her confirmation hearing before a Senate committee last week. She acknowledged that transgender workers are protected under civil rights laws but said her agency is not independent and must comply with presidential orders. Ortiz said she traveled from New York to Washington "on my own dime, on my own time" to attend the hearing. "I needed to be there," she said, adding that she left thank-you notes for Senators who "put Andrea Lucas' feet to the fire." Ortiz said she isn't sure what comes next for her, only that it will involve fighting for civil rights. And in the short-term, picking up more volunteer dog walking shifts. "I will keep fighting for the LGBTQ community in whatever way I can," she told AP. She added: "It takes courage to take a stand, and be willing to be fired, and lose a six-figure job, and health insurance, and the prestige of the title of 'judge,' but I think it'll also serve an example to future lawyers and young lawyers out there that a job title isn't everything, and it's more important to stay true to your values."
