Skip to main content

AT&T TO PAY $75,000

Telecommunications Giant Fired Employee Because He Complained About Race Bias, Federal Agency Says

PITTSBURGH – AT&T (formerly Cingular Wireless), a Fortune 500 telecommunications company, will pay $75,000 to settle a federal race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced(08/03/09) today.

The EEOC charged that John T. Davidson, an African American retail sales consultant at AT&T’s Penn Place store in Monroeville, Pa., applied for several managerial positions with AT&T Mobility, formerly Cingular Wireless, but was not selected. According to the lawsuit, the company promoted non-black employees and applicants to managerial positions during that time period, but refused to promote Davidson because of his race.

The EEOC further contended that the company repeatedly disciplined Davidson unfairly, and ultimately terminated him, in retaliation for his exercising his federally protected right to file a charge with the EEOC.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to treat an employee less favorably than other employees based on race and to retaliate against someone who complains about race discrimination. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 08-1067 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court.

The two-year consent decree settling the suit, which is pending court approval, provides important equitable relief, including: mandatory anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation training for all managers and employees at its Penn Place store; supervisor accountability requirements to ensure that all retail managers and supervisory personnel administer their work areas in compliance with company policies against discrimination; and the posting of a notice about the settlement.

“We are gratified that AT&T worked with the EEOC to reach an amicable resolution of this lawsuit,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. “The consent decree includes significant equitable relief that will benefit all company employees.”

According to company information, Dallas-based AT&T is the largest communications holding company in the world by revenue, with customers in virtually every country and territory in the world. The company serves millions of enterprise and multinational business corporations on six continents.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at:
www.eeoc.gov.

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 ...