Skip to main content

ADMINISTAFF AND CABLE TV PROVIDER CONN-X SUED BY EEOC

BALTIMORE – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on 11/02/2009 a lawsuit against staffing giant Administaff, Inc. and Conn-X, LLC, which provides cable service in the Baltimore metropolitan area, for engaging in religious discrimination against employees.

In its suit, the EEOC charges that joint employers Conn-X, LLC, a Florida corporation with an office in Edgewood, Md., and Administaff, Inc., a Texas corporation, subjected Scott Jacobson and Joey Jacobson to physical and verbal harassment because of their religion, Judaism. The EEOC asserts that beginning in September 2005 and continuing throughout their employment, both Jacobsons, who are brothers, were called “dirty Jew,” “dumb Jew,” and other anti-Semitic slurs by managers and coworkers.

The harassment continued for a couple of years, the EEOC said, and included the defacing of Scott Jacobson’s work vehicle with a swastika symbol and physical harassment in which he was forced into a trash bin for the amusement of managers who observed them on a work surveillance camera and called it “throw the Jew in the dumpster.” Administaff severed its co-employment status with Conn-X shortly after Scott Jacobson filed his discrimination charge with the EEOC.

Religious harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division (Case No. 1:09-cv-02881-BEL) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

“The harassment here was cruel and callous,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The use of the swastika is an especially egregious and provocative act, and the anti-Semitic epithets and physical violence alleged here are also outrageous. The EEOC will act, and act forcefully, to rectify this kind of workplace abuse.”

The EEOC seeks monetary and injunctive relief for both Jacobsons and enjoins the officers and employees of both companies from engaging in further employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Further, the suit seeks to require the employers to establish policies and practices that provide equal employment opportunities for Jewish employees.

“Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. “We brought this lawsuit to remind employers of their legal responsibility to prevent and promptly correct this type of conduct.”

Religious discrimination charge filings with the EEOC nationwide totaled 3,273 in Fiscal Year 2008, up 11.4 percent from the prior year and the highest level in the past decade.

According to its web site, (www.administaff.com) “Administaff, Inc. is the nation's leading professional employer organization (PEO), serving as a full-service human resources department for small and medium-sized businesses throughout the United States. Administaff delivers its personnel management services by entering into a co-employment relationship with a client company and the client company’s existing employees, including the business owner. Under this arrangement, Administaff assumes or shares many of the responsibilities of being an employer.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available at its web site (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 ...