Tag Archives: EEOC

by | October 18, 2013 · 6:26 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Employers Unaware Of A Co-Worker’s Harassment Are Still “Vicariously Liable” If Done By A “Supervisor”; Defined As Power To Take “Tangible Employment Actions” In “Hiring, Firing, Decisions On Benefits”

“…The enforcement guidance issued by the EEOC interprets broadly which employees should be considered “supervisors” under Title VII. Hospitality Industry Sexual Harassment LawsuitsAccording to the guidance, any individual with the ability to exercise significant direction over another’s daily work is a supervisor, and the employer would be liable for their acts…The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the EEOC’s stance with the 2013 case of Vance v. Ball State University. If the employer is unaware of a co-worker’s harassment, the Supreme Court decided that employers should only be vicariously liable under Title VII for a co-employee’s harassing behavior if the employer granted them the power to take “tangible employment actions,” such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, significant reassignment, or decisions causing significant changes in the employee’s benefits…”

Employers are not automatically liable for harassment committed by all employees. If the employer is aware of harassment occurring and does not take steps to address and stop it, then the employer has some exposure. If the employer is not aware of the harassment, the employer may be liable if the harasser is considered under the law to be a “supervisor.”

Some harassment lawsuits turn on whether the person who was doing the harassing should be treated as a supervisor. A recent Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision (which applies to Oklahoma employers), sets some guidelines for what employees are considered supervisors, for purposes of imposing potential harassment liability on employers.

Priess Enterprises operated a McDonald’s restaurant in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Megan McCafferty began working as a crew member on February  15, 2007. Her shift leader was Jacob Peterson. Peterson participated in the restaurant’s “Manager-in-Training” program. He was also responsible for directing day-to-day activities of shift workers like McCafferty. His responsibilities included assigning duties, scheduling breaks, authorizing crew members to leave early or stay late, and writing up employees for misconduct. Everyone agreed that Peterson did not have the authority to hire, fire, promote, demote or transfer other employees.

McCafferty, a high school student, agreed to cover another employee’s shift, but explained to Peterson she would need a ride from school. As promised, Peterson picked up McCafferty from school and checked her out of class early. Peterson told McCafferty that she had been excused from her shift, and asked her if she wanted to “hang out.”

When she accepted his invitation, Peterson offered McCafferty marijuana. Peterson and McCafferty spent the next two days together, which involved alcohol, methamphetamines and sex. Eventually, McCafferty’s sister spotted her, pulled McCafferty from Peterson’s car, and called the police. When McCafferty did not contact anyone at McDonald’s, the restaurant treated McCafferty as having resigned.

McCafferty filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and later filed a lawsuit against the restaurant and Peterson. McCafferty claimed Peterson was a supervisor under Title VII, and that she had been sexually harassed. McCafferty also included a state law claim, accusing the restaurant of being negligent in hiring, supervising and retaining Peterson.

For more:  http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Discrimination/Sexual-Harassment/Sexual-harassment-Is-employer-liable-for-shift-lea

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Employers Unaware Of A Co-Worker’s Harassment Are Still “Vicariously Liable” If Done By A “Supervisor”; Defined As Power To Take “Tangible Employment Actions” In “Hiring, Firing, Decisions On Benefits”

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | September 28, 2013 · 5:56 am

Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: New York Restaurant Settles “Sexual Harassment” Lawsuit For $35,000; Seven Female Workers Subjected To Groping, Explicit Propositions And Lewd Remarks

“…The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that Angelo’s owners subjected seven female employees to sexual harassment from January 2005 through September 2012.  Angelo’s Pizza was purchased by Kefalas in September 2012…in January 2013, Kefalas was added to the lawsuit as a successor EEOCemployer…According to the seven harassment victims, Angelo’s owners, Kostantinos Raptis, Nikolaos Raptis and Andrew Xenos, groped their breasts and buttocks and made sexually explicit propositions and comments, including requests for sexual acts and other lewd remarks…The EEOC further alleged that Kefalas fired two of the women in retaliation for complaining about the sexual harassment…”

Angelo’s Pizza and Grill, Inc. and Kefalas Enterprises, Inc., the former and current owners of Angelo’s Pizza and Grill, a full-service family restaurant located in upstate New York, will pay seven women $35,000.00 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

For example, one of the owners would hold a cucumber or orange traffic cone between his legs and simulate sex.  Another forced a female employee into a back storage room, where he shut the door, turned off the lights, touched her breasts and fondled her.  Angelo’s owners also routinely made comments about oral sex and body parts.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. Angelo’s Pizza & Grill, Inc., and Kefalas Enterprises, Inc., 8:11-cv-01043 (NAM) (RFT), in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in August 2011 after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Although Kostantinos and Nikolaos Raptis and Andrew Xenos, the original owners of Angelo’s Pizza, are no longer involved in the restaurant, both Angelo’s and Kefalas will be bound by a three-year consent decree settling the suit.  The decree, in addition to the $35,000 monetary relief, enjoins Angelo’s, its principals and any future businesses it may purchase or operate and Kefalas from engaging in future sexual harassment or retaliation.   Kefalas must also put mechanisms in place to protect any future employees from sexual harassment and retaliation.  The decree has been approved by Federal District Court Judge Norman A. Mordue.

“These women were subjected to especially crude and unacceptable conduct,” said EEOC New York District Director Kevin Berry.  “The EEOC will not stop aggressively pursuing remedies for victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Judith Biltekoff added, “The victims in this case have shown great strength in standing up to right the wrongs perpetrated against them by their former employer.  They live and work in a small town in upstate New York where jobs are at a premium.  It took courage to come forward at the risk of losing their jobs.  We are pleased that they will be compensated and that future harassment will be prevented.”

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Further information about the commission is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.  The Buffalo Local Office is part of EEOC’s New York District Office which oversees New York, New England and portions of New Jersey.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-27-13a.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: New York Restaurant Settles “Sexual Harassment” Lawsuit For $35,000; Seven Female Workers Subjected To Groping, Explicit Propositions And Lewd Remarks

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Training

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | September 23, 2013 · 5:47 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Restaurant Operator Sued By EEOC For “Religious Discrimination”; Fired Woman For Wearing Skirts As Part Of Her Pentecostal Church Beliefs

“…(the employee, Sheila Silver, was) a member of the Pentecostal church (and believed) women should wear skirts in accordance with this EEOCreligious belief…Silver worked for various Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants since 1992.  Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home purchased the KFC restaurant where Silver worked in April 2013.  At that time, they informed Silver she must wear pants to work because of their dress code policy.  Silver told Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home she could not wear pants because of her religious beliefs.  The companies ultimately fired her for refusing to wear pants to work…”

Scottish Food Systems, Inc. and Laurinburg KFC Take Home, Inc., two North Carolina corporations that operate a chain of Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in eastern North Carolina, violated federal law by failing to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and firing her because of her religion, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed today.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employees’ due to their religious beliefs as long as doing so does not pose an undue hardship.  The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (EEOC v. Scottish Food Systems, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken and Laurinburg KFC Take Home, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken, Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00796) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.  The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

“Employers must respect employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs and carefully consider requests made by employees based on those beliefs,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office, which includes the EEOC’s Raleigh Area Office, where the charge of discrimination was filed. “This case demonstrates the EEOC’s continued commitment to fighting religious discrimination in the workplace.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment.  Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-19-13c.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Restaurant Operator Sued By EEOC For “Religious Discrimination”; Fired Woman For Wearing Skirts As Part Of Her Pentecostal Church Beliefs

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | September 15, 2013 · 5:34 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Tennessee Restaurant Sued For “Sexual Harassment And Retaliation” By EEOC; Manager Made “Offensive Comments, Physical Contact” With Teenage Worker

“…About two months after she began working there, the KFC’s 54 year-old store manager began making unwelcome and offensive comments EEOCand physical contacts. The EEOC further charges that the company retaliated against the minor by removing her from the work schedule and firing her within weeks after she reported the harassment to other management officials… The lawsuit asks the court to grant a permanent injunction preventing Memphis Foods from engaging in or condoning sexual harassment; and award appropriate back wages, compensatory and punitive damages…”

Memphis Foods LLC, the owner of a Memphis KFC restaurant, violated federal law by subjecting a teenage employee to sexual harassment and retaliation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced yesterday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the 16-year-old female worked as a crew member for the KFC restaurant on Winchester Road in Memphis.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, (Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-02712) after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace are always unconscionable, especially when minors are targeted and victimized,” said Katharine W. Kores, director of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, which serves Tennessee, Arkansas and Northern Mississippi. “This agency considers the protection of minors in the workplace an important priority for eradicating employment discrimination.”

Memphis Foods LLC is an Arkansas limited liability company that owns and operates KFC and Taco Bell Restaurants throughout the greater Memphis area. Overall, the company operates more than 60 restaurants in Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois and Missouri.

The EEOC recently updated its Youth@Work website (at http://www.eeoc.gov/youth/), which presents information for teens and other young workers about employment discrimination. The website also contains curriculum guides for students and teachers and videos to help young workers learn about their rights and responsibilities in the workforce.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Tennessee Restaurant Sued For “Sexual Harassment And Retaliation” By EEOC; Manager Made “Offensive Comments, Physical Contact” With Teenage Worker

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | August 23, 2013 · 5:50 am

Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: Mississippi Hotel Sued For “Pregnancy Discrimination” By EEOC; Woman Fired On First Day Of Work After Informing Manager Of Pregnancy

“…According to the EEOC’s suit, (the employee) informed her manager of her pregnancy on her first day of work.  That evening, the manager terminated Harmon and replaced her with a non-pregnant employee, the EEOC said…”

EEOC“Employers cannot penalize women for choosing to have a family,” said Katharine W. Kores, district director of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi.  “This agency will continue to work to eliminate this type of discriminatory conduct.”

Jiji, Inc., a Holiday Inn franchisee located in Batesville, Miss., violated federal law when it fired an employee because of her pregnancy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00212, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.  The suit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement and injunctive relief.

Jiji, Inc. is a Mississippi corporation based in Batesville that owns, manages, and operates hotel facilities in Mississippi. The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-22-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Employment Risks: Mississippi Hotel Sued For “Pregnancy Discrimination” By EEOC; Woman Fired On First Day Of Work After Informing Manager Of Pregnancy

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | August 15, 2013 · 5:53 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Pennsylvania Restaurant Sued By EEOC For “Gender Discrimination”; Female Workers Paid “Lower Hourly Wage”, “Fewer Regularly Scheduled Hours”

“…These women were subjected to a double whammy of discrimination,” said District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office. “They were paid a lower hourly wage and regularly scheduled for fewer work hours than their male counterparts. That’s why we EEOCredoubled our efforts to win justice for them…EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, “The EEOC is strongly committed to enforcing the equal pay laws and will take whatever action necessary to defend people’s rights in the workplace…”

Enforcement of equal pay laws and targeting compensation systems and practices that discriminate based on gender is of one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan.

Market Burgers, L.L.C., doing business as Checkers, a fast food restaurant chain, violated federal law by paying women less than men and scheduling them for fewer hours than their male counterparts because of gender, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.

EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said, “This case demonstrates the significance of the agency’s strategic enforcement plan, reminding employers that the agency will exercise its authority to eliminate sex-based wage disparities in the workplace.”

According to the EEOC’s suit, LaToya Snyder began working as a cashier/sandwich maker at the company’s Checkers restaurant in West Philadelphia and was promoted to a shift manager position in 2010. The EEOC charges that Checkers routinely paid Snyder and other female shift managers lower wages than male shift managers even though they performed the same duties, including giving assignments and directions to other employees and scheduling and approving breaks. Checkers also paid female cashiers/sandwich makers less than their male counterparts even though they did substantially equal work, according to the lawsuit.

The EEOC further charges that Checkers suppressed the wages of Snyder and other female shift managers and cashiers/sandwich makers by scheduling them for 20 to 25 hours per week, even though they had requested full-time hours, while their male counterparts routinely were scheduled to work, on average, more than 30 hours per week. The general manager also required female employees to leave work early if the restaurant was not busy while male employees were permitted to work a full eight-hour shift.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-12-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Pennsylvania Restaurant Sued By EEOC For “Gender Discrimination”; Female Workers Paid “Lower Hourly Wage”, “Fewer Regularly Scheduled Hours”

Filed under Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | July 24, 2013 · 5:37 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Hotel Group Settles “Religious Discrimination” Lawsuit With EEOC For $45,000; Refused To Provide “Religious Accomodation” To Employee

“…The EEOC’s suit charged that the hotel group refused to provide Claudia Neal, a Seventh-Day Adventist, with a religious accommodation of not having to work on her Sabbath, which is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday.  Neal began EEOCworking at the hotel in May 2009.  Initially, Neal’s request not to work on her Sabbath was honored.  However, a change in management occurred in October 2010, and in November of that year, the hotel group refused to provide her with a religious accommodation, and fired her…”

A hotel group which owns and operates the Comfort Inn Oceanfront South in Nags Head, N.C., has agreed to pay $45,000 and provide substantial additional relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion.  The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Landmark Hotel Group, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Dare Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Jain and Associates, LP d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; and JRS Partners, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-158) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to providing monetary relief to Neal, the hotel group will implement policies designed to prevent religious discrimination and conduct training on anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws.  The hotel group will also provide reports to the EEOC regarding future requests for religious accommodation.

“Employers need to understand their obligation to balance the conduct of their business with employees’ needs and rights to practice their religion,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “Where there is minimal impact on the business, those religious needs must be accommodated.  No person should ever be forced to choose between her religion and her job.”

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-23-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Hotel Group Settles “Religious Discrimination” Lawsuit With EEOC For $45,000; Refused To Provide “Religious Accomodation” To Employee

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Training

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | July 12, 2013 · 6:12 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Maryland Hotel Group Sued By EEOC For “Pay Discrimination Based On Sex”; “Female Worker Paid Lower Wages”

“…Despite her years of similar experience at another hotel before she started work at Extended Stay Hotels and her five years of good job EEOCperformance at the hotel, the hotel paid newly hired male employees more money than it paid to Weaver, even though they performed substantially equal work, the EEOC charged. According to the lawsuit, the hotel paid a class of female guest services representatives lower wages than those paid to their male counterparts for performing equal work…”

A leading hotel chain, Extended Stay Hotels, unlawfully paid female employees lower wages than those paid to male employees for performing equal work, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today. According to the EEOC’s suit, Latoya Weaver worked as a guest services representative at the hotel’s Lexington Park, Md., location. Her duties included answering the telephone, making reservations and checking guests in and out.

Such alleged conduct violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. HVM L.L.C., D/B/A Extended Stay Hotels, Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-01980) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief prohibiting Extended Stay Hotels from paying female employees less compensation than their male counterparts for performing equal work, equitable relief that provides equal employment opportunities for women, as well as lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages and other affirmative relief for Weaver and other similarly situated female employees who were harmed by the hotel’s discriminatory conduct.

“Although we have made great strides in narrowing the wage gap between men and women, this case demonstrates that pay discrimination remains a serious problem in the workplace,” said District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office.

EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, “It is disturbing that even as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the EPA, some employers persist in paying women less than men for equal work simply because of their gender. The EEOC will take vigorous action to remedy sex-based wage discrimination.”

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-11-13a.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Maryland Hotel Group Sued By EEOC For “Pay Discrimination Based On Sex”; “Female Worker Paid Lower Wages”

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | July 3, 2013 · 12:21 pm

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Franchise Restaurant Sued By EEOC For “Pregnancy Discrimination”; Refused To Hire Woman Who Was Six Months Pregnant

“…(the plaintiff) interviewed for a team member position with the restaurant’s owner at the restaurant around Nov. 16, 2012…at the time of the interview Morrison was six months pregnant.  During the interview, the owner asked Morrison a series of pregnancy-related questions such as EEOChow many months she had been pregnant; when she was expected to deliver; her childcare plans after giving birth; and how much maternity leave she planned to take…”

“Working women who choose to have children cannot be penalized or treated differently from other employees simply because they are pregnant,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office.  “Employers must remember that refusing to hire a woman because she is pregnant violates federal law, and the EEOC will enforce that law.”

A Chick-fil-A franchise restaurant violated federal law when it refused to hire a female job applicant because she was pregnant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, John Charping, d/b/a Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons, refused to hire Heather Morrison because she was pregnant.    Although Morrison felt that the owner’s questions were inappropriate, she answered them because she wanted the job.  Three days after the interview, the owner called Morrison and informed her that she would not be hired.  The owner told Morrison to call back after she had the baby and had childcare in place.  The EEOC argues that Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons denied Morrison a job because she was pregnant.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).  The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. John Charping d/b/a Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons, Civil Action No.1:13-CV-00535), after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through the agency’s conciliation process.  The suit seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Morrison, as well as injunctive relief.

EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Tina Burnside added, “Pregnant women must be treated in the same manner as other applicants, and employers should not make inquiries related to pregnancy or deny a woman a job based on pregnancy.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-2-13a.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: North Carolina Franchise Restaurant Sued By EEOC For “Pregnancy Discrimination”; Refused To Hire Woman Who Was Six Months Pregnant

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | June 6, 2013 · 6:15 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Maryland Restaurant Owner Faces “Sexual Harassment And Retaliation” Charges In Lawsuit Filed By EEOC

“…the EEOC seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Basta Pasta from engaging in sexual harassment or retaliation, as well as lost wages and compensatory and punitive damages for Smith, Doe, Kokkinakos and other similarly-situated female employees, and other affirmative EEOCrelief…’No employee, male or female, should have to endure being subjected to offensive sexual comments and touching in order to earn a living, but the unlawful harassment is even more vile and intolerable when it includes sexual assaults by a company owner’…”

SPOA, LLC, which runs the Italian restaurants Basta Pasta in Fallston and Lutherville-Timonium, Md., subjected female employees to flagrant sexual harassment and fired a manager who complained about the harassment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The EEOC alleged that the restaurant owner repeatedly subjected female employees, some of whom were teenagers, to unwelcome and offensive sexual harassment, including touching them on their buttocks, lower backs and shoulders; rubbing his genitalia against the buttocks of female employees; leering at female employees and making comments about their bodies, including calling them “sexy” or “hot;” making sexually suggestive remarks and crude sexual innuendos; and asking for massages.

The EEOC further charged that the owner pressured female employees to have alcoholic drinks at the end of their shifts and acted offended if they did not stay and drink.  The EEOC alleges that the owner gave one female employee, “Mary Smith,” alcohol, causing her to pass out and later wake up vomiting, and that Smith believed the owner drugged her in an attempt to sexually assault her.  The EEOC also charged that the owner took another female employee, “Jane Doe,” to his house, purportedly to talk about a management opportunity, but instead Doe believes he drugged and sexually assaulted her.  (Given the public interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims and attempted sexual assault victims, the EEOC is utilizing pseudonyms.)

The sexual harassment was so intolerable that these two employees felt compelled to quit their jobs, the EEOC says in the lawsuit.  Jane Doe was 18 years old when she started working for the company and 21 years old when she was forced to quit her job due to the sexual harassment.

The EEOC also charges that a restaurant manager, Dimitra Kokkinakos, had complained to management about the owner’s sexually offensive behavior but the company failed to take action to stop the harassment.  After learning that Kokkinakos had been in touch with Jane Doe, the restaurant warned Kokkinakos to “keep her mouth shut” and fired her in retaliation for her opposition to the sexual harassment.  The restaurant also threatened Kokkinakos when she participated in the EEOC investigation, including pressuring her to recant her testimony, according to the lawsuit.

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-5-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Maryland Restaurant Owner Faces “Sexual Harassment And Retaliation” Charges In Lawsuit Filed By EEOC

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership

Tagged as , , , , , ,