Enter one or more keywords
 

EEOC Continues its Enforcement Efforts against Harassment

2018-06-19

EEOC files seven lawsuits against employers across the country, alleging harassment

In a multi-state action by the EEOC to reinforce to employers that harassment, on all bases, is a violation of federal law, the agency filed seven lawsuits over the past nine months.   Some of the lawsuits include:

  1. Master Marine, Inc. (Birmingham District Office) – suit alleges racial and same-sex sexual harassment for allowing one of its lead welders to sexually and racially harass a male Asian-American welder at its Alabama headquarters.  The company allegedly also subjected three African-American employees to racial harassment.  The lawsuit claims that a supervisor repeatedly used racially derogatory terms, including making insensitive remarks regarding the victim’s Asian heritage and for making unwanted sexual comments and inappropriately touching the welder.  The alleged supervisor reportedly referred to them as “n___r,” “monkey,” and “boy.”
  2. Real Time Staffing Services, Inc. dba Select Staffing (Albuquerque Area Office) – suit alleges that the company allowed a group of female employees to be subjected to sexual harassment at the Albuquerque Police Department.  The women were exposed to pervasive unwelcome sexual comments about their breasts and buttocks; referred to as “prostitutes” and “sluts” and were inappropriately touched.
  3. G2 Corporation dba Screen Tight (Dallas District Office) – suit alleges that the company subjected a female employee to unwelcome physical and verbal sexual harassment by her production manager and another high-level corporate officer.  While the employee was cleaning bathrooms, a manager followed her while making sexual comments and attempting to force himself on her.  EEOC also claims that VP made graphic and intimidating sexual comments to her.
  4. New Prime Trucking, Inc./Prime, Inc. (St. Louis District Office) – suit alleges that the company allowed sexual harassment and threatening of a female truck driver even though they knew that one of their independent contractor drivers had sexually harassed at least one female driver trainee.  Although the alleged harasser was stopped from training, he was allowed to continue driving for the company and had Prime employees assigned to work with him as co-drivers, including the alleged female.
  5. Sierra Creative Systems (Los Angeles District Office) – suit alleges that the company subjected female workers to ongoing verbal and physical sexual harassment at two facilities.  EEOC said that a supervisor rubbed the backs of female employees while making comments about their undergarments and “accidentally” grazed their breasts with his elbows while working at the printing machines.  Additionally, employees were subjected to verbal harassment, being called “whores” or “sluts” and being referred to as “cows” or “donkeys” and being called useless, stupid and ignorant.  When the harassment was repeated the company failed to do anything about it.
  6. Tapioca Express (Los Angeles District Office and San Diego local office) – suit alleges that the owner of two of the company franchises inappropriately touched women and made repeated comments of a sexual nature to them resulting in their constructive discharge.
  7. Total Maintenance Solutions (Indianapolis District Office and Cincinnati Area Office) – suit alleges that an employee was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment which included unwanted touching, sexual comments, overtures, and ogling, by the company owner.  EEOC claims that he called an employee his “little young ass” and told her how sexy she looked.  He allegedly hugged her, made repeated sexual comments about her body and called her after working hours at her home suggesting that they have a sexual relationship.  After complaining of the behavior, the employee was fired in retaliation. 
The foregoing has been prepared for the general information of clients and friends of Workplace Dynamics LLC and is not being represented as being all-inclusive or complete. It has been abridged from legislation, administrative ruling, agency directives, and other information provided by the government. It is not meant to provide legal advice with respect to any specific matter and should not be acted upon without professional counsel.