Posted by marykeating on March 2, 2010 under Sex-based discrimination | 
The EEOC just settled a massive sex discrimination case against Walmart. Walmart was accused of refusing to consider women for order filling positions in its Kentucky distribution center, telling applicants that these jobs were not suitable for women. And yes, in case there is any question, these acts occurred in the 21st Century. Walmart will pay $11.7 million and the taxes payable on that amount, plus up to $250,000 in the administrative costs of distributing the money.
Walmart has been the defendant in a number of other cases ranging from disability and race discrimination to wide ranging allegations that its managers required workers to work off the clock. But it has moved past the boycott days, when the systematic refusal to pay benefits and keep hours low put many of its workers on state medical assistance and food stamps.
The EEOC’s website notes that it is hiring more investigators, and it appears to be going after bigger fish, making bigger waves in the fight against discrimination. Its settlements are not secret, and require the employer to be under scrutiny for a period of time, and to make up for past discriminatory actions. In the warehouse case, Walmart will fill the first 50 open positions with women, then give every other position to a woman, and then every third. After those first 150 positions, it is hoped, management at the facility will be used to women working in the warehouse, and will apply neutral standards.
Posted by marykeating on January 21, 2010 under Sex-based discrimination |
The post on January 15 described the furor about the panel described as having “distinguished gentlemen” weighing in on the strengths and weaknesses of women lawyers. The panelists, who apparently are well known for their mentoring of women lawyers, have all dropped off and the program’s description altered. These particular participants were not challenged, it was the poorly worded blurb leading to the perception that only men had the inner knowledge of what women needed to succeed.
Posted by marykeating on September 14, 2009 under Sex-based discrimination |
Last year the EEOC sued the Baltimore supermarket chain, Mars Super Markets, Inc., in the United States District Court in Baltimore, alleging sex discrimination. It accused the supermarket of refusing to permit women employees from becoming meat cutters in its deli departments. After a clerk in the Dundalk store was refused the job, the EEOC investigated and discovered a pattern, and filed suit in federal district court.
Mars agreed to settle the case earlier this month. In addition to paying a settlement of $275,000 to several women who were illegally denied these jobs, Mars agreed to train its supervisors in avoiding discrimination, to offer meat cutter jobs to women who had previously been denied them, to develop meat cutter job descriptions, to keep better records, and to post notices about the employees’ rights.
This case is a little unusual in its pattern of discrimination. It seems that most employers have caught on to the laws against gender discrimination, and the complaints of discrimination are often based on subtle indications of bias. In this case, though, the supermarket is accused of applying a blanket prohibition against women becoming meat cutters. Why – because men are thought to have superior physical strength? Or some notion that it’s a masculine job? In any event, Mars is taking detailed steps to prevent the same prejudices from barring women from performing this job.
Posted by marykeating on August 18, 2009 under Constructive discharge, Race-based discrimination, Racial harassment, Sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment |
In sexual and racial harassment cases, one of the most difficult decisions an employee can make is what to do when the employer is insufficiently responsive to complaints. It’s safe to say that employers have all learned to parrot the lines “we take allegations of sexual harassment seriously,” and “racial comments are not tolerated in this workplace.” But sometimes they are. When an investigation is cursory or a farce, the complaining employee is often faced with escalated harassment, as the bullies realize they are winning, and are not happy that she called in the higher ups. If the harassment is sufficiently severe and the employee cannot tolerate the atmosphere anymore, is she free to quit? If she continues to go to work, is the atmosphere perhaps not that abusive after all? The idea of constructive discharge is commonly rejected by courts.
This is the essential conflict in the case of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Central Wholesales, Inc., a company in Laurel, Maryland. A three year employee transferred to a new department and immediately was subjected to severe racial and sexual harassment. Her coworkers used the “b” and “n” words daily, a man in an adjacent cubicle had a pornographic screensaver, and when his screen wasn’t being saved, he was watching pornography on it; the employee had to listen to it. Two male coworkers kept mop-haired dolls in nooses in their offices. She complained to the coworkers, then to her supervisor, then to the president of the company, and finally to her former supervisor. For the most part, nothing was done, and her supervisor even made a joke of her treatment. At that point, the employee left the job and was unable to return.
The EEOC brought suit on her behalf. The trial court held that the employee was not harassed as a matter of law. It decided that the sexual harassment was not severe enough, and that the employee left her job before the company could remedy the racial issues. The Fourth Circuit, often not a friend of the employment discrimination plaintiff, reversed the decision.
Under the law of harassment, an employee needs to show that the harassment was both objectively and subjectively hostile and abusive. That is, the employee must have found the atmosphere upsetting, and a reasonable person in her position would also have done so. Under the Fourth Circuit’s precedent, plaintiffs must clear a “high bar” to show that the objectionable conduct was severe or pervasive. In other words, to make out a case of sexual or racial harassment, the plaintiff has to show that there was so much unwelcome, racially or sexually charged conduct that the employment situation was altered, poisoned.
In this case, the employee did make enough of a showing that she is entitled to a trial. It is not easy to bring all the elements together, especially when the employee leaves the workplace. But at least here, the employee’s dilemma, of staying in a toxic environment for the sake of her lawsuit or quitting and preserving her mental health has not doomed her opportunity to make her claim.
Posted by marykeating on July 20, 2009 under Sex-based discrimination |
An article in today’s National Law Journal discusses the use of text messages as evidence of sexual harassment. Texting provides an easy means of communication, and it may feel as ephemeral and private as an oral conversation. Phone calls, however, are not usually recorded, and in this state anyway, can’t be recorded legally without the consent of both sides or a court order. Text messages leave electronic footprints, and can be forwarded, retrieved, printed, and saved for posterity.
The article discusses a case in which the “he said-she said” nature of many sexual harassment claims unraveled when the harasser’s text messages were revealed, showing that the claimants were indeed telling the truth about the college coach’s inappropriate activity. Read more here.
