Skip to main content

HOME DEPOT SETTLES EEOC RETALIATION LAWSUIT FOR $84,750

DENVER - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Atlanta-based Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., will pay $84,750 and furnish other relief to settle a retaliation lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC's lawsuit (Case No. 06-cv-01950-LTB-CBS in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado) charged that Home Depot fired an employee from its Evergreen, Colo., store in retaliation for her filing a sex discrimination charge with the EEOC in 2004. Home Depot settled that original lawsuit in that year.

In addition to the monetary settlement, the company has agreed to post its anti-discrimination policy and provide training about federal anti-discrimination laws to all supervisors and employees. The company will also make periodic reports to the EEOC.

Over a third of the charges of discrimination the EEOC received during 2008 alleged retaliation.

Retaliation is a serious issue. We commend Home Depot, however, for working cooperatively with us to resolve this case," said Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC's Phoenix District. "The parties were able to work collaboratively to bring this matter to an amicable resolution that satisfied the interests of all the parties concerned."

Nancy Sienko, director of the EEOC's Denver Field Office, said, the EEOC takes very seriously retaliation against employees who come forward to complain about unlawful conduct and who participate in the Commission's processes. Such misconduct undermines the EEOC's enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws.

According to its web site, www.homedepot.com: "Founded in 1978, The Home Depot is the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer and the second largest retailer in the United States. At the end of the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, the company operated a total of 2,274 stores, including 1,971 stores in the United States, 176 stores in Canada, and 74 stores in Mexico."

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

The EEOC's Denver Field Office, located at 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 410, in Denver, enforces the anti-discrimination laws in Colorado, and Wyoming.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more