July 31, 2012
Judge's Disability Case Against EEOC Revived
By TIM HULL
Courthouse News (CN)
The 9th Circuit revived a former administrative law judge's disability discrimination case against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Mary Bullock worked as an ALJ for the commission from 1999 to 2007. She has Multiple Sclerosis and Systemic Lupus.
She originally filed her complaint alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in 2003, to mixed results. A judge found that the EEOC had retaliated against her for making the charges, but that she was not qualified to bring them because she couldn't do her job with or without accommodation.
The judge awarded Bullock $25,000 in nonpecuniary damages, $108,680 in attorney's fees and $7,823.24 in costs.
Bullock then filed an optional administrative appeal with the EEOC, but soon withdrew it in favor of a federal lawsuit in San Diego. Presiding U.S. District Judge William Hayes dismissed the case, holding that Bullock had failed to wait the requisite 180 days to file her lawsuit after withdrawing her appeal, and thus had not yet exhausted her administrative remedies.
A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court reversed from Pasadena on Monday, clarifying the 180-day rule in cases where a plaintiff files suit after withdrawing an optional appeal with the EEOC.
"In sum, we hold that an aggrieved employee subject to the procedural rules of Title VII exhausts her administrative remedies by filing a formal complaint for adjudication by an ALJ," wrote Judge Judge William Fletcher for the unanimous, three-judge panel. "Once final agency action has been taken on her complaint, she has the option of either filing an administrative appeal or filing suit directly in federal district court within 90 days of receiving notice of the agency action. If the employee files an optional administrative appeal, she may withdraw that appeal and file suit in district court without waiting 180 days from the filing of the notice of appeal. The employee's lawsuit in district court may proceed even though the employee filed and then withdrew an administrative appeal. As Bullock filed suit within 90 days of receiving notice of final agency action on her complaint, we have no occasion to decide whether an employee's lawsuit could proceed if the employee prematurely withdrew from an administrative appeal and filed suit more than 90 days after receiving notice of final agency action on her complaint."
Showing posts with label EEOC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EEOC. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Shame on National Education Association
In May 2006, EEOC San Francisco District Director Joan Ehrlich stated, “It is shocking that a union dedicated to representing the rights of teachers and other public school employees would permit this harassment to happen in its own backyard."
(She was talking about the harrassment discussed in my previous post.)
Are you listening, David A. Sanchez, president of California Teachers Association? And Jim Groth, on the board of directors?
I'm afraid these "leaders" listen only to Carolyn Doggett and Beverly Tucker, the Executive Director and Chief Counsel who seem to have all the real power in CTA.
EEOC still functions during Bush admininstration--when the target is NEA
Well, it took me about ten minutes to find out I was wrong in thinking that the $700,000 settlement by the EEOC in 2000 that I mentioned in my previous post would still be holding the EEOC record for biggest settlement. (Well, I might be right that it still holds the record for Arizona, and it might hold the record for racial discrimination.)
I'm glad somebody is holding National Teachers Association (NEA) accountable for wrongdoing, but I wish the administration would go after all organizations equally.
Here's the story:
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND ALASKA AFFILIATE TO PAY $750,000 FOR HARASSMENT OF WOMEN
Female Former Employee in EEOC Case Said Male Boss was ‘a Ticking Time Bomb’
SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today at a press conference the $750,000 settlement of a sex discrimination lawsuit against the National Education Association (NEA) and its affiliate NEA-Alaska on behalf of three female former employees who were subjected to persistent verbal abuse and intimidation by a belligerent high-level male manager. In addition to the monetary relief, the unions agreed to make policy changes to address any future discrimination.
EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No. A01-0225-CV (JKS)), filed in July 2001, charged that manager Thomas Harvey, then interim assistant executive director for NEA-Alaska, subjected Carol Christopher, Carmela Chamara and Julie Bhend to abusive treatment on a daily basis. Harvey targeted the female staff by screaming and yelling at them with little or no provocation, often using profanity and frequently berating them in public, the EEOC said. The women described Harvey as turning bright red with bulging neck veins as he screamed, coming so close they often felt his saliva spit on their faces. He also physically intimidated the women by sneaking up behind them and watching over their work for no apparent reason. Further, Harvey would shake his fists at the women and come within striking distance, raising fears that he would physically attack the women.
The Alaska Federal District Court had dismissed the EEOC’s case on the ground that the behavior was not overtly sexual and thus not unlawful sex harassment. The EEOC appealed that ruling and in September 2005, the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the lawsuit, stating that it was wrong for the lower court to dismiss the case because harassing conduct does not have to be motivated by lust or blatant misogyny to be illegal sex discrimination.
The Ninth Circuit quoted Chamara describing her work environment as, “working with a ticking time bomb because you’re sitting by and you’re waiting for your turn to be next. You know its going to happen when you hear the sound of his feet walking towards your area. It… raises the hairs on your neck because you just don’t know what you’re going to get.”
Although top NEA-Alaska management officials, such as the president and previous executive director, personally witnessed some of Harvey’s behavior and received complaints about him, they failed to take action to stop the harassment. In fact, despite the complaints, Harvey was subsequently promoted to be NEA-Alaska’s executive director.
After filing the lawsuit against NEA-Alaska, the EEOC uncovered evidence that the national NEA helped place Harvey at the Alaska affiliate, despite knowing of his lengthy record of targeting women for abuse (including his behavior while working at NEA’s Mississippi affiliate). As a result, the EEOC added the national teachers union as a defendant to the lawsuit.
After the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the lower court, the unions and the EEOC engaged in mediation resulting in the settlement. In addition to the monetary relief to be shared by the three women, both NEA-Alaska and NEA agreed to review their employment policies, provide effective means to address discrimination complaints, and educate their employees about their rights and responsibilities in the workplace.
EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo said, “More and more women are in the workforce and may work for less enlightened but nevertheless powerful supervisors. These facts were all about the abuse of power. This lawsuit and $750,000 settlement send the message that abusive behavior targeted at women is unlawful and will not be tolerated by the EEOC. We’re glad that the Ninth Circuit’s decision not only gave these women a chance to press their claims against the NEA and its Alaska affiliate, but affirmed that abuse targeting one gender is illegal. We commend the unions for working with us to resolve this matter. ”
EEOC San Francisco District Director Joan Ehrlich stated, “It is shocking that a union dedicated to representing the rights of teachers and other public school employees would permit this harassment to happen in its own backyard. This case sends an important message to millions of working women nationwide: abusive behavior targeted against women or any other protected group is illegal, and employers will be held accountable for it.”
Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on May 22, 2006.
I'm glad somebody is holding National Teachers Association (NEA) accountable for wrongdoing, but I wish the administration would go after all organizations equally.
Here's the story:
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND ALASKA AFFILIATE TO PAY $750,000 FOR HARASSMENT OF WOMEN
Female Former Employee in EEOC Case Said Male Boss was ‘a Ticking Time Bomb’
SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today at a press conference the $750,000 settlement of a sex discrimination lawsuit against the National Education Association (NEA) and its affiliate NEA-Alaska on behalf of three female former employees who were subjected to persistent verbal abuse and intimidation by a belligerent high-level male manager. In addition to the monetary relief, the unions agreed to make policy changes to address any future discrimination.
EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No. A01-0225-CV (JKS)), filed in July 2001, charged that manager Thomas Harvey, then interim assistant executive director for NEA-Alaska, subjected Carol Christopher, Carmela Chamara and Julie Bhend to abusive treatment on a daily basis. Harvey targeted the female staff by screaming and yelling at them with little or no provocation, often using profanity and frequently berating them in public, the EEOC said. The women described Harvey as turning bright red with bulging neck veins as he screamed, coming so close they often felt his saliva spit on their faces. He also physically intimidated the women by sneaking up behind them and watching over their work for no apparent reason. Further, Harvey would shake his fists at the women and come within striking distance, raising fears that he would physically attack the women.
The Alaska Federal District Court had dismissed the EEOC’s case on the ground that the behavior was not overtly sexual and thus not unlawful sex harassment. The EEOC appealed that ruling and in September 2005, the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the lawsuit, stating that it was wrong for the lower court to dismiss the case because harassing conduct does not have to be motivated by lust or blatant misogyny to be illegal sex discrimination.
The Ninth Circuit quoted Chamara describing her work environment as, “working with a ticking time bomb because you’re sitting by and you’re waiting for your turn to be next. You know its going to happen when you hear the sound of his feet walking towards your area. It… raises the hairs on your neck because you just don’t know what you’re going to get.”
Although top NEA-Alaska management officials, such as the president and previous executive director, personally witnessed some of Harvey’s behavior and received complaints about him, they failed to take action to stop the harassment. In fact, despite the complaints, Harvey was subsequently promoted to be NEA-Alaska’s executive director.
After filing the lawsuit against NEA-Alaska, the EEOC uncovered evidence that the national NEA helped place Harvey at the Alaska affiliate, despite knowing of his lengthy record of targeting women for abuse (including his behavior while working at NEA’s Mississippi affiliate). As a result, the EEOC added the national teachers union as a defendant to the lawsuit.
After the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the lower court, the unions and the EEOC engaged in mediation resulting in the settlement. In addition to the monetary relief to be shared by the three women, both NEA-Alaska and NEA agreed to review their employment policies, provide effective means to address discrimination complaints, and educate their employees about their rights and responsibilities in the workplace.
EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo said, “More and more women are in the workforce and may work for less enlightened but nevertheless powerful supervisors. These facts were all about the abuse of power. This lawsuit and $750,000 settlement send the message that abusive behavior targeted at women is unlawful and will not be tolerated by the EEOC. We’re glad that the Ninth Circuit’s decision not only gave these women a chance to press their claims against the NEA and its Alaska affiliate, but affirmed that abuse targeting one gender is illegal. We commend the unions for working with us to resolve this matter. ”
EEOC San Francisco District Director Joan Ehrlich stated, “It is shocking that a union dedicated to representing the rights of teachers and other public school employees would permit this harassment to happen in its own backyard. This case sends an important message to millions of working women nationwide: abusive behavior targeted against women or any other protected group is illegal, and employers will be held accountable for it.”
Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on May 22, 2006.
$700,000 settlement for racial discrimination
This story is about a settlement reached between the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and an employer accused of racial discrimination. No, don't fall off your chair. The date is May 2000, back before the executive branch of US government got turned into a political campaign organization.
In 2000, this was the largest monetary settlement, $700,000, for race discrimination in the State of Arizona. My guess is that the record still stands.
Here's the story:
PHOENIX - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that several African American former employees of Direct Marketing Services' Peoria, Ariz., facility will receive a total of $700,000 as part of the terms of a consent decree settling charges of racial harassment and other race-based discrimination issues filed against the company. The decree, the largest monetary settlement of a race discrimination case in the history of the agency's Phoenix office, was also approved today by federal district court Judge Stephen M. McNamee.
EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro said that each of the eleven individuals who suffered the discrimination will receive a letter of apology from the company. "This might help bring closure to the humiliation they suffered," she said, "but, from the perspective of the EEOC, it merely highlights the unfortunate fact that the American workplace is far from turning the corner on race bias. The EEOC will continue to root out racial harassment and other forms of illegal discrimination through vigorous enforcement of the laws prohibiting such practices."
The consent decree settles a lawsuit filed by the EEOC after an investigation concluded that the former employees of the telemarketing firm were racially harassed, paid unequal wages, and denied promotions at the company. Efforts by the EEOC to conciliate the charges prior to filing suit were unsuccessful.
Under the decree, which will be enforced over the next two years, Direct Marketing Services will provide mandatory training on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to all employees at its facilities. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The decree further enjoins the company from engaging in race, sex and national origin discrimination and from retaliating against anyone who opposes discrimination.
The company also has been ordered to maintain all relevant records, post a notice about its anti-discrimination policies, and to institute policies, practices, and procedures that ensure a discrimination-free working environment. One such procedure will be to evaluate supervisors, managers and human resource personnel on their performance in responding to complaints of discrimination.
http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-5-00.html
In 2000, this was the largest monetary settlement, $700,000, for race discrimination in the State of Arizona. My guess is that the record still stands.
Here's the story:
PHOENIX - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that several African American former employees of Direct Marketing Services' Peoria, Ariz., facility will receive a total of $700,000 as part of the terms of a consent decree settling charges of racial harassment and other race-based discrimination issues filed against the company. The decree, the largest monetary settlement of a race discrimination case in the history of the agency's Phoenix office, was also approved today by federal district court Judge Stephen M. McNamee.
EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro said that each of the eleven individuals who suffered the discrimination will receive a letter of apology from the company. "This might help bring closure to the humiliation they suffered," she said, "but, from the perspective of the EEOC, it merely highlights the unfortunate fact that the American workplace is far from turning the corner on race bias. The EEOC will continue to root out racial harassment and other forms of illegal discrimination through vigorous enforcement of the laws prohibiting such practices."
The consent decree settles a lawsuit filed by the EEOC after an investigation concluded that the former employees of the telemarketing firm were racially harassed, paid unequal wages, and denied promotions at the company. Efforts by the EEOC to conciliate the charges prior to filing suit were unsuccessful.
Under the decree, which will be enforced over the next two years, Direct Marketing Services will provide mandatory training on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to all employees at its facilities. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The decree further enjoins the company from engaging in race, sex and national origin discrimination and from retaliating against anyone who opposes discrimination.
The company also has been ordered to maintain all relevant records, post a notice about its anti-discrimination policies, and to institute policies, practices, and procedures that ensure a discrimination-free working environment. One such procedure will be to evaluate supervisors, managers and human resource personnel on their performance in responding to complaints of discrimination.
http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-5-00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)