Skip to main content

WILCOX FARMS SETTLES EEOC SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION SUIT FOR $260,000, OTHER RELIEF

Federal Agency Says Latina Employee Forced to Quit to Escape Abusive Supervisor

PORTLAND, Ore. Wilcox Farms, which operates dairy and egg production facilities in Oregon and Washington, will pay $260,000 and provide remedial relief to settle a federal sexual harassment and retaliation suit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.

The EEOC's lawsuit charged that a male supervisor repeatedly grabbed, sought to forcibly undress and propositioned Wilcox Farms employee Diana Dominguez at its Aurora, Ore., facility. According to the federal agency's investigation, the harassment continued over many months despite Dominguez's complaints to management, to the point where she began to fear for her physical safety. The EEOC found that Wilcox retaliated against Dominguez for reporting the harassment by isolating her from co-workers, forcing her to continue to work with the harasser and pressuring her to resign. Dominguez ultimately was forced to quit out of fear for her safety.

Sexual harassment and retaliation violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. After an investigation conducted by EEOC investigator Annalie Greer and after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement, the EEOC filed suit on October 9, 2008 (EEOC v. Wilcox Farms, Inc., Wilcox Dairy Farms, LLC and Wilcox Farm Services, LLC, No. 08-CV-1141-MO) in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Represented by the Oregon Law Center and Legal Aid Services of Oregon, Dominguez intervened in the EEOC lawsuit to add claims under state law.

Under the terms of the consent decree settling the suit, Wilcox Farms denied any wrongdoing but will pay Dominguez $260,000. The company also agreed to adopt and to distribute to all employees a sexual harassment policy written in both English and Spanish; make its complaint procedures more convenient for employees to report harassment and retaliation; conduct sexual harassment training in English and Spanish for all managers, supervisors and employees; and to provide various reports to the EEOC over a three-year period.

Dominguez said, This job was important to me, but I had to leave it to feel safe. I am thankful to the EEOC, Oregon Law Center and Legal Aid Services for protecting my right to be safe at work. And I am glad that the company will make changes so that what happened to me doesn't happen to other workers.

EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, "This case involved a supervisor's serious abuse of power over a female employee. Employers must take every report of harassment seriously. They shouldn't dismiss such behavior as the cost of doing business or ignore problems in hopes that they will go away. The law requires them to quickly and effectively respond to such complaints. Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal no one should be required to work in a hostile environment.

District Director Michael Baldonado of the EEOC's San Francisco District Office added, Agriculture is a key industry for Oregon, and the EEOC has received many charges of blatant discrimination in this sector. We also have found many workers in this industry often may not be familiar with their rights and may face obstacles such as language access. We commend the bravery of Ms. Dominguez to come forward, and hope that this settlement will encourage all workers to step forward and contact the EEOC to learn more about their rights.

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 ...