Category Archives: Racial Discrimination

Stripclub Settles Racial Discrimination Suit Brought by Black Doormen

October 15th, 2010

iStock_000013949057XSmall.jpgThe owners/operators of a Stuart, Fla., strip club will pay $95,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that Papermoon-Stuart, Inc., and Imaginary Images, Inc., a Richmond, Va., parent corporation, violated federal law when they subjected two black doormen to racial harassment, segregation, and differing terms and conditions of employment. The company also retaliated against white employees who complained, the EEOC said.
According to the EEOC’s suit, managers at the Papermoon club in Stuart referred to black employees using offensive racial slurs, forced black employees to work in the back of the club instead of at the club entrance, and complained that “black music makes the club look bad.” According to the suit, company managers did not stop the harassment, but instead either forced out or fired white employees who opposed the abusive conduct.
In addition to monetary damages in the amount of $95,000, the 30-month consent decree resolving the case (EEOC v. Papermoon-Stuart, Inc. and Imaginary Images, Inc., d/b/a Papermoon, Case No. 0:09-cv-14316-Martinez/Lynch, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Ft. Pierce Division) includes injunctive relief enjoining the company from engaging in further race discrimination; requires the posting of a notice about the settlement; and obligates the company to conduct training and to report information about race discrimination complaints it receives to the EEOC for monitoring.

Atlanta-based Gerresheimer Sued for Paying Black Employees Less Than White Employees For The Same Job

September 28th, 2010

Gerresheimer Wilden Plastics (USA) L.P., a glass and plastics manufacturer based in Peachtree City, Ga., violated federal law when it paid an African-American employee less than non-blacks for performing equal work and then fired her in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, the employer terminated Donna McLeod from her position as a quality assurance manager in January 2009 in retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. McLeod, who was hired in February 2008, complained internally about race-based wage discrimination in October 2008. After the employer concluded there was no discrimination in wages, McLeod took her grievance to the EEOC. Within six weeks of receiving notice of the charge of discrimination, the employer terminated McLeod.
The agency alleges that Gerresheimer Wilden terminated McLeod because she filed a charge with the EEOC, and that such conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The agency filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:10-03082) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The EEOC is seeking back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for McLeod. The lawsuit also seeks injunctive relief designed to stop race discrimination and prevent it from recurring in the future.

$152,000 Settlement in Race Discrimination Suit against Cintas

September 28th, 2010

Cintas Corporation, the largest uniform manufacturer in North America and a provider of specialized services to businesses, including fire protection, will pay $152,500 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a federal racial and sexual harassment lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Claude Ash, Armand Upchurch and a class of African- American and male employees were subjected to egregious sexual and racial harassment by a co-worker with supervisory responsibilities in the company’s fire protection unit, which was then located in Warminster, and is now located in Conshohocken, Pa. The class members worked in the dry cell unit, which refurbishes and refills customers’ portable fire extinguishers. The EEOC charged that this supervisor’s unlawful harassment included: fondling the buttocks of class members; exposing his private parts and asking class members to expose their private parts to him; requesting sexual favors; and discussing his sexual exploits and sexual activities he would like to perform.
The EEOC further alleged that the supervisor engaged in unlawful racial harassment including: referring to the dry unit as the “ghetto division”; calling black employees nicknames using some derivation of “chocolate” such as “chocolate delicious”; and using a racial epithet to Upchurch and Ashe when professing why no one would believe their accounts about the harassment over company witnesses. The EEOC contended that the uncorrected harassment culminated in the discriminatory discharge of Upchurch, Ashe and other class members.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual and racial harassment. T he EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement prior to filing suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-04449.
In addition to the $152,500 in monetary relief to Upchurch, Ashe and the class members, the consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins Cintas from engaging in sexual or racial harassment or retaliation. The company must also provide training about federal anti-discrimination laws to all employees at the Conshohocken facility, report to the EEOC about the company’s response to any complaints of alleged discrimination, harassment or retaliation, and post a remedial notice.