Attorneys with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced in an April 8, 2010 EEOC news release that a Sonic Drive-In in Grapevine, Texas has agreed to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit for $31,000.00. See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-8-10b.cfm .  According to the press release, EEOC attorneys charged in the sexual harassment lawsuit that SDI of Grapevine [2240 Hall Johnson Road], a Texas Partnership, subjected a seventeen-year-old carhop to a sexually hostile work environment created by the general manager of the restaurant.  As the EEOC further stated, the general manager allegedly subjected the employee, an academic high school standout, to unwanted sexual conduct, including, for example, puckering his lips as if to give her a kiss, telling her how a woman should perform oral sex on a man, and pushing her head down in order to attempt to simulate oral sex when she would bend down to put on her roller skates.  The EEOC further contended that after the employee’s mother reported the conduct to company officials, the company failed to conduct a proper investigation and did not appropriately discipline the manager, even though the company found that he had engaged in “harassing behavior.”

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and, in this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal law prohibiting employment discrimination, including sexual harassment and sex discrimination which creates a sexually hostile work environment.  EEOC attorneys filed the lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas.  An attorney with the EEOC’s Dallas District Office commented in part that “Young workers are often vulnerable … because … they are taught or accustomed to respect and obey persons in position of authority.” 

During Fiscal Year 2009, the EEOC and state and local fair employment practice agencies (FEPAs) received a combined total of 12,696 sexual harassment charge filings nationwide.  Further information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether workplace sexual harassment occurs in Dallas, Fort Worth, Grapevine or elsewhere, victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a sexual harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential hostile work environment case.

In a press release at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/April/10-crt-380.html , lawyers for the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a federal district judge in Texas has sentenced a Rio Honda, Texas man to three years in prison and five years of supervised release for violating the civil rights and the sexual abuse of females in his custody at a Port Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, Texas.  According to the April 7, 2010 press release, the former detention center guard pleaded guilty in September 2009 to a six-count criminal information charging him with three counts of abusive sexual contact and three counts deprivation of rights under color of law.  As stated in the DOJ press release, the former guard admitted that on several occasions in March and April of 2008, he snuck into medical isolation rooms at the detention center infirmary to grope female patients and that his actions caused the female victims psychological pain and embarrassment.

The man reportedly worked at the detention center for six-and-a-half years as a guard and was employed by a private company that contracted with the United States government.  In this regard, the DOJ said that when confronted by agents from the U. S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the man admitted to sexually touching five different women.

Trial attorneys with the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuted the civil rights case in the U. S. Southern District of Texas.  For more information about the U. S. Department of Justice and its Civil Rights Division, see www.justice.gov .

Religious discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for the sincerely held religious beliefs of their employees as long as no undue hardship is posed against the business.  In this regard, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-30-10.cfm that agency attorneys filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against a home improvement company, alleging that the business violated federal law by requiring an employee to work on his Sabbath and by harassing and retaliating against the employee, causing him to lose hours.  According to the EEOC’s March 30, 2010 press release, the lawsuit charges that the company refused to accommodate a current employee’s sincere religious belief as a Baptist against working on the Sabbath, Sunday.  As stated in the press release, EEOC attorneys contend in the case that the employee’s written requests for religious accommodation were ignored for two months and then denied because the company asserted that it might create a hardship on other employees who might like to have Sundays off.  EEOC attorneys filed the suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement. 

The EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including religious discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC and the federal laws enforced by the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether religion based employment discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a religious discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

Lawyers with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, have announced in a March 26, 2010 press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-26-10a.cfm that a retaliation lawsuit has been filed against a trucking company charged with violating federal law by allegedly firing an employee for complaining about sexual harassment.  According to the EEOC press release, agency lawyers contend in the case that a truck driver complained to management officials that she had been subjected to unwelcome sexual advances and remarks over the CB radio by her co-workers.  As further stated in the press release, the EEOC contends that she was fired shortly after her complaint in retaliation for complaining about the sexual harassment.

Retaliating against an individual for reporting sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  EEOC lawyers filed the retaliation lawsuit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation, voluntary settlement.  In this regard, an EEOC Director was quoted in the press release as saying “The EEOC will act to prevent this type of misconduct, and we urge employers to take swift and decisive action in response to reports of sexual harassment and hostile work environments.”  Further information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether employment-related retaliation for complaining about or opposing workplace sexual harassment occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if a retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential retaliation claim.

In a March 24, 2010 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) press release at http://www.justice.org , the DOJ announced that a federal jury in Sacramento, California has convicted a 28-year-old man of a federal hate crime for assaulting an African-American man in a Chico, California bar.  The conviction occurred after a 3 day trial.  According to the DOJ, the evidence at trial showed that after entering the bar the perpetrator used a racially derogatory term to object to the victim’s presence.  As stated further in the press release, the slur was used several times and, a short while later, without any verbal or physical provocation, the perpetrator approached and punched the victim in the face.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, announced in a March 30, 2010 press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-30-10a.cfm that a baking company will pay $350,000 to settle a national origin harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys in Illinois.  According to the agency press release, EEOC attorneys charged that the company tolerated harassment of employees of Mexican national origin by a manager at its Aurora, Illinois facility, and, when a number of those employees complained about the harassment, the manager retaliated against them by subjecting them to further verbal harassment, long hours, and harsher working conditions.  The EEOC sought relief for a class of seven employees, four of whom intervened in the lawsuit as plaintiffs.  In this regard, the EEOC lawsuit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits national origin discrimination and retaliation in employment.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the press release said, in part, that “The derogatory language and other harassment directed at the employees in this case are entirely inappropriate in the workplace.”

Further information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces regarding employment discrimination may be found at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether workplace harassment directed at workers of Mexican national origin occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential harassment case.

In a press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-24-10.cfm , lawyers with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that Kmart Corporation will pay $120,000 and furnish other relief to settle an age harassment, constructive discharge and retaliation lawsuit filed by the federal agency.  According to the March 24, 2010 press release, EEOC lawyers had charged in the case that the company discriminated against a 70-year-old pharmacist at a Honolulu store when, over the course of four years, a pharmacy manager openly professed on several occasions that the pharmacist was “too old,” and was “greedy” for continuing to work at age 70.  In addition, the EEOC alleged that the manager continued to humiliate the pharmacist in writing by stating, “The pharmacy is no longer your forte” and “You need to retire from pharmacy work now,” in a communication book open to the entire department.  EEOC lawyers further alleged that the victim complained to a district manager, general manager and human resources manager concerning the age based harassment, to no avail, and the company threatened legal action against the victim using a pretext on an unrelated matter to retaliate against her for her discrimination complaint.  Finally, the EEOC said, she had to quit to escape the mistreatment. 

Such alleged mistreatment and the company’s failure to adequately address it violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including age related harassment and retaliation for complaining about it.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

Amnesty International USA, a human rights organization, offers information to the public in its website at http://www.amnestyusa.org about taser abuse, explaining that since June of 2001 more than 351 individuals in the United States have died after being shocked by police Tasers.  In this regard, the organization states that most of those individuals were not carrying a weapon and Amnesty International is concerned that the devices are being used as tools of routine force - rather than as an alternative to firearms.  According to postings by Amnesty International USA, medical studies so far on the effects of Tasers have either been limited in scope or unduly influenced by the weapons’ primary manufacturer, so no study has adequately addressed the impact of these devices on potentially at-risk individuals, including, for example, people with medical conditions and the mentally ill.  Consequently, Amnesty International recommends that police departments either suspend the use of Tasers and stun guns pending further safety research or limit their use to situations where officers would otherwise be justified in resorting to firearms.  In its website, Amnesty International offers stun gun information to the public, including Taser Reports and Briefings by Amnesty International and Taser Policy Recommendations and Campaigning Tools, as well as United Nations Documents on Use-of-Force Guidelines for Law Enforcement Agencies.

In a press release at http://www.justice.gov , the United States Department of Justice announced that it has reached a settlement, in the form of a consent decree, with the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company that, if approved by the U. S. District Court in Oklahoma City, will resolve its lawsuit filed on behalf of a U. S. Army reservist.  According to the March 2, 2010 press release, the Justice Department’s lawsuit charged that the company violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by failing to promptly reemploy the army reservist following his military service.  Under the consent decree, the company must pay the army reservist $40,000 in back wages and other damages.  In addition, the company must supplement its policies at its Lawton, Oklahoma plant to ensure that returning service members are promptly reemployed in accordance with USERRA, and must submit to a period of monitoring by the Justice Department to ensure the company’s compliance with USERRA. 

Subject to certain limitations, USERRA requires employers to reemploy a returning service member in the position the employee would have held had his or her employment not been interrupted by military service.  In this regard, the Department of Justice enforces USERRA and offers additional information about USERRA at http://www.servicemembers.gov .

The United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced in a press release at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/osha/osha20100332.htm that it has ordered Tennessee Commerce Bank in Nasville to reinstate a former corporate officer and pay more than $1 million in back wages, interest, attorney’s fees, compensatory damages and other relief.  According to the March 18, 2010 press release, the department found that the bank had fired the individual in violation of the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  As further stated in the press release, the complaint, which was filed with OSHA in 2008, alleged that the employee was placed on administrative leave in March 2008 and fired in May 2008 after raising concerns about internal controls, employee accounts, insider trading and other issues.  OSHA investigated the complaint as part of its responsibilities to enforce the whistleblower provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley and 16 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various securities laws; trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, rail and workplace safety and health regulations; and consumer product safety laws.  Under the numerous whistleblower provisions enacted by Congress, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the employer or to the government. 

In this regard, fact sheets and detailed information on employee whistleblower rights are available online at http://www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/index.html .  Employees who believe they have been retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint with the secretary of labor for an investigation by OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program.  More information on this subject is available at http://www.osha.gov .