Skip to main content

SUNBELT RENTALS TO PAY DAMAGES TO MUSLIM WORKER HARASSED DUE TO ISLAMIC RELIGION

BALTIMORE – A Charlotte, N.C.-based equipment rental company will pay $64,641 to settle a religious harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) just days before the case was scheduled for a jury trial, the agency announced today. The EEOC had sued Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., the nationwide commercial rental company, on behalf of a Muslim worker who was allegedly discriminated against because of his Islamic faith at a company facility in Gaithersburg, Md.

In its suit (EEOC v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Civil Action No. PJM 04-cv-2978) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the EEOC charged that Clinton Ingram was subjected to derogatory comments and slurs based on his religion, Islam. The comments, according to the EEOC, included suggestions that Ingram might be a terrorist because he is Muslim. The suit alleged that various other hostile incidents were also directed at Ingram because of his religion, such as subjecting him to an anti-Muslim cartoon. The lawsuit settled just a few days before it was scheduled to go to trial.

In addition to paying over $64,000 in compensatory damages to Ingram, Sunbelt must also take other actions set forth in the consent decree resolving the case, including providing anti-discrimination training to its Gaithersburg staff and posting a notice about the settlement. Further, the company is enjoined from engaging in religious harassment and must report complaints of religious harassment at its Gaithersburg facility to the EEOC for monitoring.

“Religious discrimination is an escalating problem in the American workplace,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “Under federal law, employers are required to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment. The EEOC will continue to actively prosecute cases where an employee is subjected to discriminatory treatment based on religion.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. 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 ...