Skip to main content

SFS INTEC TO PAY $245,000 TO SETTLE EEOC NATIONAL ORIGIN BIAS SUIT

CLEVELAND – A Medina, Ohio manufacturer of fasteners and fastening will pay $245,000 and furnish other relief to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Case No. 1:08-cv-02271), two Hispanic machinists at SFS Intec were denied training opportunities that were regularly made available to non-Hispanic employees. The EEOC’s investigation revealed that the two machinists were subjected to condescending and offensive comments with respect to their national origin, Puerto Rican. The Hispanic machinists were also the only two employees who lost their jobs when SFS Intec implemented a reduction in force at its Medina facility in July, 2007.

In addition to monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit provides that SFS Intec will provide training to all supervisors and managers employed at its Medina plant regarding Title VII’s requirements and policies regarding compliance with the statute. SFS Intec will also post a notice informing employees of its commitment to compliance with the statute.

“We are very pleased that this employer is taking proactive measures to ensure a discrimination-free workplace in the future by addressing the problems that led to the lawsuit,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence.

According to company’s web site, SFS Intec, headquartered in Wyomissing, Pa., has manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania and Ohio and maintains service centers in California, Georgia, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Texas. SFS Intec has 400 employees.

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 ...