The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced that Outback Steakhouse has agreed to pay $19 million and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a major class-action lawsuit alleging sex discrimination against thousands of women at hundreds of its corporately owned restaurants nationwide.
According to the EEOC, Outback discriminated against female employees with respect to the terms and conditions of employment and denied women equal opportunities for advancement. In the lawsuit, the agency alleged that female employees hit a glass ceiling at Outback and couldn’t get promoted to higher-level profit-sharing management positions. It also alleged that the women were denied favorable job assignments, particularly in kitchen management — a requirement for consideration for top management jobs in the restaurants.
In addition to providing monetary relief, Outback agreed to a four-year consent decree that requires it to:
- institute an online application system for employees interested in managerial and other supervisory positions;
- employ an HR executive in a newly created position of “vice president of people”;
- for a period of at least two years, employ an outside consultant to monitor compliance with the terms of the decree and analyze data from the online application system to determine whether women are being provided equal opportunities for promotion; and
- report every six months to the EEOC on carrying out the terms of the decree.
The $19 million in monetary relief will be administered through a claims process in which an administrator will send letters to all female workers employed at corporately owned Outback restaurants from 2002 to the present who have at least three years of tenure. EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc., et al., DCCO, Case No. 06-cv-01935.
Teens Recover $620,000 on Sexual Harassment Claim
Following a five-day trial in federal court in Baltimore, two teens recovered $620,000 from their Eastern Shore employer, T.L. Morris Seafood, on their claims of assault and battery and sexual harassment. According to the testimony at trial, the president of T.L. Morris allegedly harassed the teens at work by making numerous inappropriate oral and physical advances. The two teens were hired to offload crabs from boats, clean and sort the catches, and stack inventory in cold-storage loading trucks.
The jury awarded them $120,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, to be split evenly. The court has yet to rule on the employer’s posttrial requests to set aside the jury’s findings. Cory Adams and Tyler Bennett v. Timothy Morris, et al., DC Md., Case No. 08-02494, 08-02405, Jury Verdict December 11, 2009.
Whirlpool to Pay More than $1 Million for Harassing a Black Female Worker
The district court in Nashville, Tennessee, has entered judgment in the amount of $1,073,261 against Whirlpool Corporation in a race and sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of Carlotta Freeman, an African American former employee at the company’s LaVergne, Tennessee, facility.
The suit, filed by the EEOC, alleged that the appliance manufacturing giant failed to protect Freeman from persistent harassment by a Caucasian male coworker, which ultimately resulted in her being physically assaulted by him.
Following a bench trial, the court awarded her $773,261 in back pay and front pay and an additional $300,000 in compensatory damages for nonmonetary injuries, the maximum of amount allowed under federal law.
During the four-day trial, the evidence showed that over a period of two months, Freeman reported escalating offensive comments and gestures by a male coworker before he physically assaulted her. Although four levels of Whirlpool management were allegedly aware of the escalating harassment, none took effective steps to stop it. As a result, the employee suffered devastating permanent mental injuries. EEOC v. Whirlpool Corporation, DC Tn.,Civil Action No. 3:06-0593.
what is the difference in a charge of sexual harassment claimed with EEOC, with a maximum of $300k, vs. a charge of sexual harassment with a claim of more than $1 million against EEOC. Is it back pay and front pay and/or are others?
thanks,
paul montoya
Great question, Paul.
The EEOC remedy caps/maximums refer only to the punitive/compensatory damages portion of a suit. So, dependent upon the size of the employer, this particular portion of the remedy may be limited from $50,000 to $300,000. However, as you suggested, there may still be additional remedies provided in the suit, such as job reinstatement, front pay, back pay, etc.
In the Whirlpool case, the punitive portion of the suit was still limited to the EEOC $300,000 maximum, but the other $700,000 came in the form of front/back pay.