Skip to main content

DUANE READE TO PAY $240,000 TO SETTLE EEOC LAWSUIT FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION

Duane Reade Inc., a well-known New York drugstore chain that operates more than 200 stores in metropolitan New York, will pay $240,000 and furnish other substantial relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to EEOC’s lawsuit, Duane Reade unlawfully created, maintained and failed to remedy a hostile work environment at one of its Bronx stores by subjecting several female employees to sex and pregnancy harassment. The store manager, Madiaw Diaw, frequently made vulgar remarks about women’s private parts, sexually propositioned female employees, made lewd comments about their pregnancies and bodies, assigned unfavorable job duties to pregnant employees and repeatedly grabbed female employees, including grabbing their buttocks.

Further, the EEOC said, the employees who complained and filed discrimination charges with the agency were retaliated against by being subjected to further harassment by their supervisors.

Harassment because of a person’s sex or due to her pregnancy and retaliation for complain¬ing about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The EEOC’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, (Civil Action No. 05-CV-00036) sought monetary relief for the employees who experienced discrimin¬atory treatment; injunctive relief requiring the company to implement policies and practices to prevent future harassment and discrimination; training on anti-discrimination laws; and the posting of notices.

“This settlement achieves the EEOC’s objectives by providing appropriate relief to the victims of sexual harassment while implementing appropriate measures to prevent this kind of violation in the future,” said Spencer H. Lewis, director of the EEOC’s New York District Office.

Monique Roberts, the EEOC’s trial attorney assigned to the case, added, “Sexual harass¬ment is a violation of federal law. Employers have a duty to maintain a work environment that is free from sexual harassment and retaliation -- it’s really that simple.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...