On December 31, 2008, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that Merrill Lynch, the international financial services firm, settled a discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of an Iranian Muslim former worker who claimed he was terminated because of his religion and national origin. Merrill Lynch agreed to pay $1.55 million to settle the suit.
In the initial lawsuit, the EEOC claimed that Merrill Lynch refused to promote and then terminated Majid Borumand from his position as a qualitative analyst in August 2005 because of his Iranian national origin and because he is a Muslim. The EEOC argued that Merrill Lynch instead retained and promoted a less-qualified individual.
According to the consent decree settling the litigation, in addition to the monetary relief for Borumand, Merrill Lynch agreed to (1) provide training to its employees regarding religious and national origin discrimination, (2) refrain from discriminating against employees because of their national origin or religion or retaliating against employees who oppose perceived discrimination, and (3) allow ongoing monitoring by the EEOC to ensure compliance. EEOC v. Merrill Lynch, SDNY Case No. 07-CV-6017.
Chicago Dentist Shells Out $462,500 to Settle EEOC Suit
On January 13, 2009, a Chicago dental practice agreed to pay $462,500 to settle a class-action sexual and religious harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In the suit, the EEOC alleged that James L. Orrington, D.M.D., Ltd., discriminated against 18 employees by subjecting them to sexual harassment, including sexual propositions, comments, and touching, forcing them to engage in Scientology practices, and requiring them to learn about Scientology as a condition of employment. The suit also alleged that employees who complained about the sexual and/or religious harassment were retaliated against as a result.
In addition to requiring Orrington to pay monetary relief, the three-year consent decree resolving the case bars him from engaging in sexual or religious discrimination and prohibits the practice from basing any terms or conditions of employment on compliance with religious teachings or practices of Scientology or attending Scientology seminars.
The consent decree also requires that Orrington (1) contract with an outside representative to receive and investigate complaints of sexual and religious discrimination, (2) adopt and distribute a policy against religious and sexual harassment, religious discrimination, and retaliation, (3) provide training to employees, (4) submit to the EEOC periodic reports about any sexual or religious harassment, religious discrimination, or retaliation complaints, and (5) post a notice at his office regarding the outcome of the lawsuit. EEOC, et al. v. James L. Orrington, D.M.D., Ltd., D.C. IL Case No. 07-C-5317.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict in EEOC Religious Bias Case
On December 31, 2008, the Eighth Circuit upheld a jury finding that AT&T, the telecommunications giant, unlawfully discriminated against two customer service technicians who were fired after attending a Jehovah’s Witness convention. The lower court’s $756,000 damages award was upheld by the appellate court.
On October 9, 2007, a federal jury in Jonesboro, Arkansas, found in favor of the EEOC in its lawsuit against AT&T. The commission had alleged that AT&T violated Title VII when it denied two employees a reasonable accommodation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, as the law requires, and unlawfully terminated them because of those beliefs.
The evidence at the four-day trial revealed that the two former employees had submitted written requests to their manager in January 2005 for one day of leave to attend a Jehovah’s Witness convention that was scheduled for Friday, July 15, through Sunday, July 17. Both men testified that they had sincerely held religious beliefs that required them to attend the convention each year. They had attended the convention every year throughout their employment with AT&T and attended the convention on July 15. Soon after, they were discharged for “misconduct, job abandonment, insubordination, and failure to follow a work directive.”