Under Title VII law, a plaintiff must first submit a claim either to the  EEOC or to her state’s version of the EEOC. (In South Carolina, that’s the State Human Affairs Commission.) After the EEOC or SHAC investigates the claim, the agency will either take the case itself and prosecute it against the defendant employer, or (much more common) will issue what’s called a “right to sue letter” which gives the employee the go-ahead to file a lawsuit. This process is known as “exhausting one’s administrative remedies.” When it works as it usually does, employees can often (with reason) feel that they’re being made to jump through hoops in order to get to the courthouse.

Every so often, however, EEOC will actually take a case and prosecute it themselves. This is not a bad thing for employees who’ve been discriminated against or harassed! The EEOC has superior resources and intimate skill and knowledge of both the relevant laws and regulations, and the court opinions interpreting those laws and regulations. While the employee does give up some measure of control over the litigation, what she (or he) can get back in return could well outweigh that loss of control.

Here’s an example from recent news: the EEOC published a press release earlier this month heralding the entry of final judgment against a Northlake, Illinois trucking company called Custom Companies for sexual harassment and retaliatory conduct under Title VII. The damages awarded? A cool $1.1 million.

The judge in the case noted the “reprehensible” conduct of the top managers and officers of the company, including the CEO. The judge also took the additional step of entering what’s called “injunctive relief”  - basically, an order from the court to stop certain practices. In this case, the practices included the use of “adult entertainment.” Begs the question: what possible business reason could the company have for those “practices”? From the press release:

Today’s final judgment follows a Nov. 17, 2006, jury verdict in the
case in favor of the EEOC in which $2.36 million in the aggregate was
awarded to the three former Custom Companies employees upon whose
behalf the EEOC had sought relief. EEOC Trial Attorney Richard Mrizek,
who led the government litigation team with Trial Attorney Deborah
Hamilton, said that the judge was required to lower the amounts
originally awarded by the jury because of dollar amount limitations
imposed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. That act amended Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under which the EEOC’s lawsuit was
brought.

EEOC had charged that the three female sales representatives were
subjected to unwelcome groping, lewd sexual language, sexual
propositions, and pornography, and that one was sued by Custom
Companies in Illinois state court because she complained to the EEOC.
In addition, EEOC maintained that female sales representatives were
expected to entertain Custom Companies customers and potential clients
at the “Thee Doll House” and its successor “Crazy Horse Too,”so-called
“gentlemen’s” or “strip” clubs on Kingsbury Street in Chicago, now
known as “VIP’s: A Gentlemen’s Club.” EEOC’s evidence at trial
indicated that the chief executive of Custom Companies also had an
ownership interest in and was the chief executive of “Thee Doll House”
and “Crazy Horse Too.”

Emphasis added.

powered by performancing firefox