Skip to main content

Bellco Credit Union Agrees To Pay $57,250 To Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

DENVER – Bellco Credit Union has agreed to pay $57,250 and furnish other relief to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commis­sion (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, EEOC v. Bellco Credit Union, 06-cv-01883 CMA-MEH, a then 61-year-old teller in Bellco’s Harlan Branch in Westminster, Colo., was fired in October 2003 because of her age.

In addition to the monetary settlement, Bellco, based in Greenwood Village, Colo., has agreed to post its anti-discrimination policy, provide training about anti-discrimination laws to its employees and managers and make periodic reports to the EEOC.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employment discrimination because of age. Employees and applicants 40 years of age and older are protected under the ADEA. In 2008, 24,582 age discrimination charges were received by the EEOC, representing a 28.7 percent increase over 2007.

"As the statistics show, age discrimination remains a serious issue across the country,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District, which includes Colorado. “We applaud Bellco for working cooperatively with us to bring this case to a close. The EEOC’s Denver Field Office and Bellco worked collaboratively to resolve this matter amicably to the parties’ mutual satisfaction."

Rayford Irvin, Acting Director of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, which includes responsibility for the EEOC Denver Field Office, added, “The EEOC takes age discrimination, and all discrimination, very seriously. In these economically challenging times, fair treatment by employers is more important than ever."

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

The EEOC’s Denver Field Office, located at 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 410, in Denver, enforces federal anti-discrimination laws in Colorado and Wyoming.

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 ...