Skip to main content

THOMAS DODGE SUBARU SETTLES EEOC SEX HARASSMENT SUIT

NEW YORK – Long Island-based car dealer Thomas Dodge Subaru, now doing business as Thomas Subaru, will pay $132,250 to settle a sex harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

In the lawsuit (EEOC v. Thomas Dodge Corp. of New York d/b/a Thomas Dodge Subaru, and Thomas Motor Sports, Inc., No. 07-CV-988, E.D.N.Y.), the EEOC had charged that Thomas Dodge Subaru subjected female employees to offensive touching, degrading and sexually explicit comments, and pornographic images. The EEOC also charged that two female employees were forced to resign because of the severity of the harassment and another woman was retaliated against by being fired after complaining about the harassment.

In addition to the egregious physical and verbal abuse, the EEOC said the company failed to take appropriate action to address and stop the harassment, even when employees repeatedly complained and management was aware of the unlawful conduct.

Under the three-year consent decree submitted to Federal District Court Judge Joseph F. Bianco, in addition to the $132,250 to be paid, the company must conduct anti-discrimination training, adopt complaint procedures, post a notice about the EEOC and the lawsuit, provide a memorandum setting forth the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to all employees, and submit to monitoring and reporting to the EEOC.

“No employer should allow such degrading and shameful conditions for women in the workplace,” said Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., district director of the EEOC’s New York District Office. “To avoid such conditions, an employer should have multiple ways for an employee to complain about harassment and when it becomes aware of it, the employer must take immediate steps to stop and prevent the harassment.”

Konrad Batog, the EEOC’s trial attorney assigned to the case, added, “Through this consent decree, the company has implemented an anti-harassment policy that provides employees multiple avenues of making complaints and we will monitor any complaints to make sure that they are effectively resolved.”

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.

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 ...