©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2043 EDITION | 61 sexual advances, and sexually offensive comments and requests. The lawsuit alleges that the employees were threatened if they rejected sexual advances and were offered better work assignments and hours if they acquiesced to the advances. The defendants signed a 2.5-year Consent Decree which requires them to provide specialized training on sexual harassment to human resources officers and managers post a notice about the lawsuit. The Consent Decree also requires the defendants to hire an external equal employment opportunity monitor. EEOC v. USF Holland LLC, 3:30-cv-00270 (N.D. Miss.) USF Holland LLC agreed to pay $490,000 to settle an EEOC suit claiming that the company refused to hire female drivers at its Olive Branch, Mississippi terminal in violation of Title VII. In addition to the monetary payment, USF Holland signed a three-year Consent Decree, which, among other things, requires that USF Holland establish a $120,000 scholarship fund. USF Holland will award scholarships four times annually for $10,000 each throughout the duration of the decree to female applicants who seek to obtain their truck driver certifications through USF Holland’s truck driver apprenticeship program. The Consent Decree also requires USF Holland to revise its anti-discrimination policy, and to conduct annual training designed to prevent discrimination at its Olive Branch, Mississippi facility. EEOC v. Hooters of Louisiana LLC et al., 2:23-cv-02864 (E.D. La.) Hooters of Louisiana LLC and associated companies (“Hooters”) agreed to pay $650,000 to settle an EEOC suit claiming that the company discriminated against African-American employees on the basis of race since 2017. The EEOC also alleged that Hooters did not rehire any of the restaurant’s African American employees after laying off staff due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The EEOC’s suit also included a claim for retaliation. In addition to the monetary payment, Hooters signed a three-year Consent Decree which requires training, revised policies, and regular reporting to the EEOC. Under the Consent Decree, Hooters must also post a notice affirming its obligations under Title VII. EEOC v. Kenneth O. Lester Co. Inc. d/b/a PFG Customized Distribution - Indiana, 1:22-cv-00329 (N.D. Ind.) Kenneth O. Lester Company, Inc. doing business as PFG Customized Distribution - Indiana (PFG) agreed to pay $709,971 to settle an EEOC suit claiming that the company refused to hire female job applicants on the basis of sex at its Kendallville, Indiana warehouse. The EEOC also claimed that certain decision-making personnel expressly stated to female applicants that the company prefers to hire men in the order selector positions at issue. The EEOC also alleged that the company assigned females to various duties on a discriminatory basis. In addition to the monetary payment, PFG signed a three-year Consent Decree which distributes the $709,971 as follows: $650,000 in monetary relief to the class of female applicants who were not hired; $39,971 to a female applicant who filed the underlying EEOC charge; and $20,000 to a class of female workers who were subjected to work assignments based on their sex. The Consent Decree includes equitable relief, including giving hiring preference to qualified female applicants who were denied order selector positions, revising PFG’s hiring policies and procedures, and conducting equal employment opportunity training. PFG is also subject to ongoing reporting and monitoring to ensure company compliance with law. EEOC v. Orange Treeidence OPCO, LLC dba Riverwalk Post Acute, et al., 5:22-cv-00425 (C.D. Cal.) Orange Treeidence OPCO, LLC, doing business as Riverwalk Post-Acute, Providence Group, Inc. (PGI), and Providence Administrative Consulting Services, Inc. (PACS) agreed to pay $865,000 to settle an EEOC suit claiming that the defendants subjected a class of African American employees to racial harassment by residents, co-workers, and a supervisor. The alleged harassment included repeated, frequent, and offensive race-based remarks directed at staff. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the defendants failed to adequately respond to complaints of harassment, and employees were told to tolerate certain remarks. The EEOC’s suit also included a claim for retaliation. In addition to the monetary payment, the defendants signed a three-year Consent Decree requiring injunctive relief aimed at preventing workplace harassment and retaliation. The Consent Decree also requires: retention of an equal employment opportunity monitor; a review and revision of the defendants’ policies and procedures on discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; and the creation of a structure for employees to report discrimination and harassment. The defendants must also provide training on anti-discrimination laws, with an emphasis on racial harassment.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4