Miami Employment Lawyer Blog

The Miami office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported last week that it settled a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit that it filed against Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, an Orlando-based resort company. In that case, an employee who worked as a recruiter was persuaded to resign her job when she became pregnant. According to the complaint that was filed in court, the company had promised to re-hire her after delivering her child. However, Hilton failed to hire her and actually passed her over for several positions when she applied. The consent decree entered by the court requires Hilton to pay $25,000 in monetary damages and also requires the company to conduct training regarding pregnancy discrimination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, treating women who have complications with their pregnancy different than other employees with a medical condition is pregnancy discrimination. The law provides that pregnant women and women who come back from maternity leave after giving birth, must be given the same rights as any other employee who incurred a similar medical condition.

Continue reading "Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Settled by Hilton" »

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) provides that it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of pregnancy. Despite the passage of this law more than 30 years ago, pregnancy discrimination is still a very real and common occurrence in the work place. In fact, many employers still think that pregnant women should not be working "for their own protection." Such comments not only show ignorance, but they demonstrate illegal discrimination. For example, just last week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Dreamz ATL, a large nightclub in Atlanta, Georgia, for terminating the employment of a waitress after learning that she was pregnant. The complaint alleges that the manger of the nightclub had taken the waitress off the work schedule when he found out that she was pregnant. When the waitress complained, he wrote her a text message stating "You are prego. You shouldn't be working."

An employer discriminates when it treats an employee or applicant for employment adversely because of pregnancy, childbirth or a medical condition related to pregnancy and childbirth. Under the provisions of the PDA, employers need not give pregnant women preferential treatment, but they must comply with the dictates of the law, which provides that "women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." This means that pregnant women must be allowed to continue performing their work and must be treated like any other employee that may be affected by a similar medical condition.

Continue reading "Even Well-Intentioned Comments and Conduct May Constitute Pregnancy Discrimination" »

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported last week that it settled a lawsuit that it had filed against a Sonic drive-in restaurant in Athens, Georgia. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia alleging that a female carhop was subjected to sexually charged comments, repeated sexual overtures and unwelcome touching from the store manager. The complaint alleged that as a result of the harassment, "the conditions of her employment were made so intolerable that she was forced to resign her position."

On April 15, 2010, after almost two years of litigation, the EEOC reported that the restaurant agreed to settle the lawsuit and sign a consent decree, agreeing to pay $70,000 and to implement equal opportunity training, reporting and postings at the work place.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), sexual harassment is a type of discrimination that is based on sex. Requests for sexual favors, unwelcome sexual advances, verbal comments and physical conduct of a sexual nature may all constitute sexual harassment. Under Title VII, in order to be actionable the harassment must be unwelcome and must unreasonably interfere with a person's work performance.

Continue reading "Sonic Drive-In Restaurant Settles Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit for $70,000" »

In a previous blog entry, we wrote that "Rejecting Job Applicants Because of Their Credit Report May Constitute Illegal Discrimination." We are happy to report that many state senators and legislators are now seeking to make the use of credit checks for job applicants illegal. See "States May Ban Credit Checks on Job Applicants" published in The Miami Herald on March 1, 2010. Indeed, in the midst of the recession that has gripped the nation (and the world for that matter), people are losing their jobs and the lack of available jobs naturally leads to them getting behind in paying their bills, which in turn makes their credit scores go down. Then, employers refuse to hire them because of their credit score. It becomes a vicious circle. However, the fact that a prospective employee has a poor credit report is simply not an indicator of whether the employee can do the job or whether he or she will perform well.

The discriminatory aspect of this issue is that studies show that minorities generally have worse credit reports than non-minorities. Therefore, when a company has a practice of rejecting applicants because of their credit reports, then that practice, which has a disparate impact on minorities, may be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unless the policy of rejecting job applicants because of their credit report is related to the job and consistent with business necessity, the practice may constitute illegal discrimination.

Continue reading "States Try to Curb Credit Checks for Job Applicants as Illegal Discrimination" »

We recently settled a pregnancy discrimination claim that we filed on behalf of an employee that worked for a Miami-based financial institution. In that case, the employee performed her work well for several months, but as soon as she told her supervisor that she was pregnant, the company began treating her differently than other employees and her requests for time off to see her doctor were met with much less tolerance. She was ultimately fired, at which point we filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). While we cannot give any more details, the case is typical of a pregnancy discrimination case.

A similar claim that was brought against the Kohler Company by the EEOC in Atlanta, Georgia was settled approximately two weeks for $175,000.00 and the company's commitment to conduct equal opportunity training. While the company denied liability, in that case the EEOC alleged that a showroom executive who had an excellent performance record was placed on probation after she informed management about her pregnancy and was ultimately fired prior to her delivery.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a form of sex discrimination. To prevail on a pregnancy claim, the employee must show that she was treated differently because of her pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition. The PDA provides that an employer must treat a pregnant employee the same as they would treat any other similarly affected employee. The comparator employees would be employees that suffer any other temporary medical condition, such as having to undergo minor surgery.

However, while the PDA requires the employer to ignore the employee's pregnancy, the employer is not required to ignore absences from work unless the employer overlooks comparable absences of nonpregnant employees. Therefore, one of the most difficult challenges that arise with pregnancy claims is the belief that pregnant employees are entitled to take time off of work to go to medical appointments. This is not true. In this respect, the courts have held that excessive absences from work, even if caused by the pregnancy, could result in the justified termination of the pregnant employee's employment. Moreover, the PDA does not require employers to offer maternity leave or to take other steps to make it easier for pregnant women to work. As one court noted, "employers can treat pregnant women as badly as they treat similarly affected but nonpregnant employees." Troupe v. May Dept. Stores Co., 20 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1994). The important point is that the treatment must be the same. Therefore, a pregnant employee must be careful to schedule medical appointments during non-work hours and to limit absences from work, otherwise, her pregnancy claim could be in jeopardy.

Continue reading "Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace Occurs Frequently, But Excessive Absences Due to the Pregnancy Could Justify Discharge of the Employee" »

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Florida), recently held that "mere flirting" in the workplace is not actionable because it is part of workplace socializing. In that case, Corbitt v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 08-12199 (11th Cir., 2009), two employees were subjected to comments, caressing, unwanted hugs, stroking of their hair, and touching of their thighs by their supervisor. The two employees were also subjected to sexually harassing telephone calls, invitations to go out for drinks, and comments about their appearances, such as being "cute" and the color of their hair and their private parts, as wells as suggestions that they would "like it" if they went out with their supervisor. On several occasions the supervisor would forcefully hug the employees in front of other employees and in company meetings.

The employees protested and requested that their supervisor stop because they were married and/or simply were not interested in him. Both employees made complaints to Home Depot's human resources department regarding their supervisor's advances, but the conduct and comments continued. Eventually one of the employees quit and the other was terminated for a violation of company policies. They both filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging sexual harassment. However, the EEOC terminated its investigation without a decision. The employees then brought suit in federal court.

Regarding the sexual harassment claims, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Home Depot stating that the conduct was simply not pervasive enough to constitute actionable sexual harassment or to create a hostile work environment. The employees appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court first stated that in order for the conduct to be actionable, the comments and conduct needed to be of a sexual nature. The Court then stated that not all of the statements or conduct complained of were of a sexual nature. For example, the Court stated that comments regarding the appearance of the plaintiffs, that their clothing was appealing, that their hair was beautiful, and that the supervisor liked their eyes were inappropriate workplace comments, but not actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they were not "based on sex." Yet, oddly enough, the Court stated that these were mere "flirtatious comments." Regarding the touchings and other physical conduct, the Court found that there were only four touchings that were sexual in nature. They that the supervisor put his arm around one of the employees was not conduct of a "sexual nature." Based on this analysis, the Court eliminated many of the alleged comments and touchings and then concluded that the remaining comments and touchings were insufficient to make out a case of sexual harassment because they were just not frequent enough.

The Court's decision is alarming because it fails to view the alleged conduct in its appropriate context and in its entirety, as the law requires. The Court simply eliminated some of the conduct that it considered not sexual in nature, as if it never happened. Then held that the isolated conduct did not constitute sexual harassment. In this regard, Judge Fawsett, of the Middle District of Florida, siting by designation, issued a 10-page dissent stating that the conduct alleged by the plaintiffs goes far beyond "ordinary socializing in the workplace," particularly if viewed in context and under the totality of the circumstances as the law requires. As an example, the Court had held that the supervisor's putting his arm around one of the employees was not sexual in nature. However, Judge Fawsett astutely noted that the Court's conclusion failed to indicate that at the same time that the supervisor had his arm around the employee, he had also put his hand on the employee's thigh under the table where they were seated. Judge Fawsett noted that "[s]elect comments, pulled from their context and deemed facially inoffensive by the majority, demonstrate an impermissible sex bias when viewed in context." Judge Fawsett would have allowed the jury to determine based on the totality of the circumstances whether or not the conduct and comments constituted sexual harassment.

This case shines a light on how cases of sexual harassment need to be addressed. In particular, one of the failings of the plaintiffs may have been their not addressing the conduct and the comments of the alleged harasser in their entirety. They should have shown how all of the comments and conduct had sexual undertones, since it appears that they they did. Indeed, many employees of the company started referring to one of the plaintiff's as "Lenny's bitch." How else could that have been interpreted?

Continue reading "Court Holds that "Mere Flirting" in the Workplace is Fine; Sexual Harassment Must be Pervasive in Order to be Illegal" »

Many clients that have come into our offices in Miami ask whether or not sexually-charged conversations among co-workers constitute sexual harassment even if that conversation is not directed at them. Unfortunately, the use of sexually provocative language and sexual "boasting" in the workplace is all too commonplace. Many employees feel disgusted by such conduct and comments, but are unaware if they can do anything about them, particularly if the comments are not directed at them. Recently, the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Florida clarified this issue and held that sexually offensive language need not be targeted at someone in order to create a hostile work environment. See Blizzard v. Appliance Direct, Inc., Case No. 5D08-4070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

In that case, the evidence showed that a male co-worker constantly talked about his penis, which included graphic descriptions of its size, and constantly bragged about his sexual prowess, history, successes and aspirations. He would make lewd comments about female workers and customers, and whinny like a horse when an attractive woman would come into the store. The comments were not directed at any employee, but one female employee was so disgusted with the constant barrage of comments that she filed a lawsuit claiming that his comments created a hostile work environment.

At trial, the lower court refused to allow the evidence to go to the jury, and Directed a Verdict for the employer. The trial court reasoned that even though there may have been lewd and vulgar comments of a sexually explicit nature, the comments were not directed at the female employee that had filed the lawsuit. They were just generalized comments in the workplace and, although lewd and vulgar, they did not create a hostile work environment because the female employee was not the target of those comments.

However, the Court of Appeals disagreed and specifically held that the plaintiff could have been subjected to sexual harassment by the comments despite not having been a target of the comments. They reasoned that she overheard and was exposed to the comments and vulgarities. That was sufficient under the law for the jury to consider whether or not a hostile work environment was created.

The Blizzard case is significant because last year the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided a similar case and held that a hostile work environment claim does not require the plaintiff herself to be targeted. See Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 525 F.3d 1139 (11th Cir., 2008). However, that decision was vacated in May 2009 when the Court ordered a re-hearing en banc (by the entire Court) of its decision. The Blizzard case helps to clarify the law in this circuit regarding what constitutes a hostile work environment.

Continue reading "Florida Court Holds that Sexually-Based Vulgarities and Comments May Constitute Sexual Harassment Even if not Directed at Any Specific Employee" »

I have seen a disturbing trend in the South Florida job market. Many clients have come into my office in Miami stating that they have been rejected for a job based on information in their credit report. Indeed, the practice of disqualifying a job applicant because of his or her negative credit history is becoming increasingly widespread. A recent study by the Society of Human Resource Management found that almost half of employers nowadays use credit checks as a screening measure for new employee hiring. In addition, a study by the University of Florida also found that almost half of all retail employers now use credit checks as a job screening tool.

This practice, however, may constitute unlawful discrimination. Specifically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits hiring practices that disadvantage minorities, even if the practice is facially neutral, unless the company can prove that the practices are related to measuring a person's capability to do a job. The Supreme Court of the United States stated long ago in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1974) that a facially neutral hiring practice that has a disproportionate impact on minorities is illegal unless it is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. In addition, recently, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) assistant legal counsel noted that rejecting job applicants based on financial criteria such as a poor credit rating may have a disproportionate impact on minority groups.

With respect to credit checks, the evidence is overwhelming that minority groups have a worse credit score than non-minorities. In fact, in a study by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), it was found that both African Americans and Hispanics have statistically significantly lower credit scores that their White counterparts. Furthermore, even the Federal Reserve found in 1991 that African American borrowers obtain loans far less often and on worse terms than non-minorities, concluding that there is widespread and institutionalized discrimination in the nation's banking system. Also, an article in the University of Miami Law Review in 2005 found that African Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of debtors in bankruptcy, which further affects a person's credit score. Therefore, it is unquestionable that minorities have on the average lower credit scores than non-minorities. As such, the use of credit checks in hiring practices will have a disproportionate impact on minorities and may constitute unlawful discrimination.

Because of these reasons, Courts are beginning to apply Title VII concepts to these types of employer practices. In fact, as early as 1974, a U.S. District Court in Illinois found that a police department could only use financial information in their background checks if using the information did not have an adverse impact on minorities or if it is job related and consistent with business necessity. See United States v. City of Chicago, 385 F. Supp. 543 (N.D. Ill. 1974). Recently, in 2004, an EEOC charge was filed against the Johnson & Johnson Company alleging that an employee was denied a position because of a credit check. That case resulted in a settlement that changed the way that the company uses credit checks in their hiring practices. Even the EEOC in a 2006 Directive for its Compliance Manual stated that the practice of screening job applicants based on credit history would be subject to challenge under the discrimination laws.

Despite this alarming trend, there may be some relief coming in the future. An example is the bill introduced on August 10, 2009 by Wisconsin State Representative Kim Hixon that seeks to prohibit the use of credit checks as a job screening tool by employers. According to Rep. Hixon, Assembly Bill 367 will stop employers from using poor credit history as a deciding factor for employment.

Continue reading "Rejecting Job Applicants Because of Their Credit Report May Constitute Illegal Discrimination" »

We recently litigated a hostile work environment claim raised by a female employee against her South Florida employer. One of the principal issues in the lawsuit was not whether the employee had been subjected to a hostile work environment, but whether or not she had taken advantage of the anti-harassment procedures implemented by her employer. In the case, the employee filed a lawsuit against her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging that she had been subjected to racial and sexual harassment, which created a hostile work environment.

Specifically, in the complaint, the employee claimed that she had been the subject of sexually and racially harassing remarks during her employment. The employer, however, contended that it was unaware of the hostile work environment because the employee never made any complaints to management or to the Human Resources Department about the sexually and racially harassing remarks. The employer had previously published an Employee Handbook that contained specific procedures that needed to be followed in the event that any employee was faced with harassment or a hostile work environment. The Employee Handbook provided that anyone who felt that they were the subject of discrimination or harassment must report the incidents to management or to the Human Resources Department.

Under the law, an employer can effectively defend a hostile work environment claim by showing that (1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing behavior, and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the corrective opportunities provided by the employer. This legal doctrine was first announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 8071998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765 (1998). Under the doctrine, if an employer shows that it promulgated and disseminated a procedure to be used by employees in the event that they are subjected to harassment, and the plaintiff failed to use the anti-harassment procedure, then the employer will not be held vicariously liable even if a hostile work environment was found to have existed. This would apply only if the employee did not suffer an adverse employment action, i.e., was demoted or discharged.

In the case that we litigated, the facts showed that the employee had not followed any of the procedures outlined in the Employee Handbook. She did not raise any hostile work environment complaints with any management employee or the Human Resources Department. There were no reports of sexual or racial harassment. The employer had no opportunity to investigation and resolve any of the claims. The inference was that abusive events claimed by the employee may not have occurred. The case turned on this fact. Therefore, to the extent that an employer promulgates and disseminates an Employee Manual that contains EEO procedures, employees must avail themselves of these procedures. However, if after availing themselves of the procedures, the company fails to take corrective action, the employer may nevertheless be held liable for a hostile work environment.

Continue reading "Employees who feel that they are being Subjected to a Hostile Work Environment Must Take Advantage of the EEO Procedures Implemented by Employer" »

We filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently against a hospital in the Miami area for failure to accommodate a known disability of one of its medical interns. In that case, the medical intern was deaf and required the assistance of a sign language interpreter in order to communicate. The hospital refused the accommodation and flatly stated that they did not have a policy that would provide sign language interpreters for employees. However, after we filed the charge they agreed to settle for an amount sufficient to compensate the employee.

A similar lawsuit was filed this week by the EEOC against national retailer Target Stores, Inc. for unlawfully denying a reasonable accommodation to an employee with multiple disability-based impairments and substantially. The complaint also alleged that they reduced his hours because of his medical conditions. Specifically, the worker could not effectively communicate without the assistance of a job coach because of his cerebral palsy and limited intellectual functioning.

According to the complaint, Target would fail to notify the employee's job coach and parents of in-person meetings involving work issues and job performance. The disabled employee had repeatedly requested that his job coach and parents be notified about these types of meetings so that they could assist him. According to the complaint, Target had hired the employee knowing that the employee had a disability and knowing that he needed a reasonable accommodation. As such, the complaint alleged, Target discriminated against the employee for failure to provide this notification.

The complaint alleged that the company's conduct violated Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC's Regional Attorney stated that "Target's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation denied him equal benefits and privileges of employment. Despite his disabilities, the employee in this case was qualified and motivated to work, but Target denied him an equal opportunity to succeed in the workplace."

Under the ADA, an employer must provide a "reasonable accommodation" to an employee with a known disability, but not if it will create an "undue hardship" on the employer's business. This means that the employer must change the requirements of the job so that the employee with a disability can perform the job. However, if such changes cause significant difficulty or expenses to the employer, taking into account the employer's size, financial situation and its operations, then that would be an undue hardship.

Also, an employer does not have to lower quality standards or decrease production standards in making a reasonable accommodation. Personal use items, such as glasses or hearing aids need not be provided by the employer.

Continue reading "Florida Employers Must Provide a Reasonable Accommodation to a Known Disability" »

Many clients that come into our offices in Miami, Florida complain about being overworked and suffering from chronic fatigue. Especially nowadays where employees are being asked to put in extra effort, employees are asking if there is some relief. Well, recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that chronic fatigue syndrome could qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which would require employers to accommodate the disability. That means that an employer may be required to allow napping and to alternate tasks frequently.

Under the ADA, employers must accommodate a known disability of an employee as long as it will not create an "undue hardship" on the employer's business. Providing a reasonable accommodation means changing aspects of the job so that the employee with a disability can perform the job. Undue hardship means something that causes significant difficulty or expense to the employer, considering the size, financial resources, and the nature of the employer's operations.

In the Fifth Circuit case, EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., LP, No. 07-20661 (5th. Cir. 6/5/2009), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. alleging that the company fired an administrative aid because she requested the accommodation that had been suggested by her doctor. Her doctor had suggested that she be permitted to nap and that she be given alternating tasks. The issue arose about two years after the employee began working with Chevron. She began experiencing sleep disruptions, fevers, headaches, trouble walking and problems with memory and concentrating. She was allowed to take a two week leave and when she returned to work, she provided a note from her doctor stating that she had chronic fatigue syndrome and that she needed to be at a location closer to her home. She was not permitted to relocate, but then her doctor stated that she needed to be allowed napping during lunch and had to be provided alternating tasks. She implemented these accommodations on her own after informing her employer. Five days later, the company suspended her without pay and eventually fired her, alleging that she failed to disclose the impairment on the medical questionnaire that she was required to fill-out upon being hired.

The EEOC filed suit in federal court, but the court threw out the case stating that "no reasonable jury could find that [the employee] had a disability within the meaning of the ADA." The EEOC appealed the decision and the Circuit Court found that chronic fatigue syndrome could be a disability. The court further held that a jury ought to have the opportunity to decide whether the employer failed to accommodate the disability and fired her on the basis of her disability.

This case is typical of the results that many expect to come out of the new amendments to the ADA, which took effect in January 2009. These amendments may make it easier for claims to be brought under the ADA. Employee claims are expected to now be evaluated on the basis of whether discrimination actually occurred, and not whether an employee can actually provide a disability.

Continue reading "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome May Qualify as a Disability" »

Basic Energy Services, a Texas-based oil well contractor, has agreed to pay $250,000 to settle a sex discrimination and retaliation suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The lawsuit alleged that the company discriminated against a former field attendant because of her sex and then fired her because she complained about sexual harassment and a promotion denial.

According to the complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, the plaintiff Tawnya Smith alleged that she was subjected to months of sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor and, when she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, the company discharged her in retaliation. The complaint also alleged that Basic Energy Services denied Smith, who worked for the company as a field disposal attendant, a promotion to field supervisor in 2006 because of her gender.

As part of the settlement, the company agreed to pay Tawnya Smith $250,000 in damages. They also agreed to post and disseminate new anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies and have many of its corporate officers and managers undergo annual training on sex discrimination and the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The company also agreed to develop and implement a recruiting and/or job training program designed to increase a pool of female candidates for promotion in all the company's field positions over the next three years.

The EEOC's regional attorney in Houston, Texas stated that "This resolution not only benefits Ms. Smith, but also serves the interests of all working women, particularly in industries and jobs that remain dominated by men. This suit reminds employers yet again that, regardless of the industry or job in question, qualified female workers must be granted the same opportunities as qualified males and be free to work without bias, harassment or fear of retaliation. Employers who refuse to grant female workers equal opportunities in the workplace and retaliate against them for lodging discrimination complaints clearly do so at their peril."

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Settled by EEOC" »

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has settled a case of employment discrimination against Nordstrom Department Stores in Florida. In that case, which was filed on September 27, 2007 in the Southern District of Florida, Palm Beach Division, the EEOC brought suit on behalf of 10 former employees. See EEOC v. Nordstrom, Inc., Case No. 07-80894-Civ-Ryskamp/Vitunac. The EEOC charged that a department store manager harassed Hispanic and black employees based on their national origin, race, and color, and retaliated against those who complained about the harassment.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, an alterations department manager had complained that she "hate[d] Hispanics," and that Hispanics were "lazy" and "ignorant." Hispanic tailors were allegedly chastised by the alterations manager for speaking to each other in Spanish. The same manager made other derogatory remarks such as "I don't like blacks" and "you're black, you stink."

The employees complained to Nordstrom about the harassment, but the harassment allegedly continued. Furthermore, the alteration's manager allegedly retaliated against those who complained by continuing the racially offensive comments, unfairly berating employees and citing them for alleged performance problems.

Nordstrom agreed to settle the case for $292,500 in damages, as well as agreeing to (i) provide harassment training, (ii) distribute its policy addressing unlawful harassment to all employees in the Wellington and Palm Beach stores, and (iii) submit semi-annual reports to the EEOC on all harassment complaints received during the next two years.

Upon announcing the settlement, the EEOC stated that "[e]mployers must act swiftly to correct harassment and prevent abusive conduct. Instead of dealing with the despicable racial and ethnic comments, Nordstrom management allowed the harasser to retaliate against the complaining employees for complaining."

Continue reading "Florida Employment Harassment Case against Nordstrom Stores Settles" »