Skip to main content

RUBY TUESDAY WILL PAY $255,000 TO SETTLE EEOC SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT INVOLVING TEENS

PHILADELPHIA -- Ruby Tuesday, Inc. will pay $255,000 and furnish important equitable relief to settle a federal sexual harassment lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on 11/02/2009.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against Ruby Tuesday, Inc., a general manager subjected Michelle Gydosh, of Stroudsburg, Pa., and other female employees to sexual harassment at its Stroudsburg restaurant. The manager’s unwelcome harassment included making crude sexual propositions to women, frequently making sexually explicit and graphic remarks to them about their appearance, and making lewd comments in their presence about other women. The EEOC said that some of these women affected by this unlawful harassment were teenagers.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement before it filed suit (Civil Action 08-1592) in U.S. District Court for the Middle of Pennsylvania.

“Sexual harassment is always unacceptable, but when some of the victims are vulnerable teenagers, it is especially unconscionable,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

In addition to the monetary payments to Gydosh and the four other women who were sexually harassed, the three-year consent decree resolving the suit provides equitable relief including annual training of all managers and supervisors at the Stroudsburg site, imposing supervisory accountability requirements mandating all managers and supervisors to administer their work areas in compliance with the company’s policy against sexual harassment, requiring the redistribution of its policy against harassment to all employees at its Stroudsburg location, and the posting of a notice regarding the settlement. Ruby Tuesday denied liability in the consent decree.

“The consent decree resolves egregious harassment,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence. “It also addresses the broader issues of how to prevent a recurrence of such harassment. The EEOC believes all Ruby Tuesday employees in Stroudsburg will benefit from the supervisory accountability provisions and training provided for in the decree.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission 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 ...