Skip to main content

HAYDON BROTHERS CONTRACTING SUED BY EEOC FOR MALE-ON-MALE SEXUAL HARASSMENT

A Springfield, Ky., construction company violated federal law by subjecting a male employee to sexual harassment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC's suit (Civil Action No. #:09-cv-427-S in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division), Hayden Brothers Contracting, Inc. allowed a male employee to be sexually harassed by his supervisor. The supervisor subjected the victim to constant, extremely obscene comments, sexual innuendos and propositions and implied physical threats, and abuse, the EEOC said. The harassment was so pervasive that the victim began to be afraid that he might be sexually assaulted by his male supervisor. The victim repeatedly complained about the treatment. At one point he was told, “This is a construction site; this kind of thing goes on all the time.”

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

“This employer utterly failed in its obligation to protect this employee from sexual harassment, as required by law, causing needless harm to him,” said EEOC Indianapolis District Office Regional Attorney Laurie Young. “The EEOC is here to protect workers from such abuse in the workplace.”

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 ...