Skip to main content

Albertsons Agrees To Pay $8.9 Million For Job Bias Based On Race, Color, National Origin, Retaliation

EEOC Says Employees Subjected to Swastikas, Lynching Drawings, Epithets


DENVER – Albertsons, LLC, a national grocery chain, will pay $8.9 million and furnish other relief to settle three employment discrimination lawsuits filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Oppor­tunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged Albertsons with race, color, and national origin discrimination and retaliation at its Aurora, Colo., distribution center. The monetary relief will be distributed among 168 former and current employees.

All three of the EEOC’s cases stemmed from incidents at the Aurora distribution center, which is being closed for unrelated reasons. The first case, EEOC v. Albertsons LLC, Civil Action No. 06-cv-01273, was filed in 2006 and alleged a pattern or practice of workplace harassment and discrimin­ation based on race, color and national origin. According to the lawsuit, minority employees were repeatedly subjected to derogatory comments and graffiti. Blacks were termed “n-----s” and Hispanics termed “s---s,” among other offensive epithets.

The EEOC said the offensive graffiti included racial and ethnic slurs, depictions of lynchings, swastikas, and white supremacist and anti-immigrant statements. The graffiti in a commonly used men’s room was so offensive that several employees would relieve themselves outside the building or go home at lunchtime rather than use the restroom. Some of this graffiti remained for years until the restroom was remodeled in 2005.

The EEOC also charged that minority employees were given harder work assignments and were more frequently and severely disciplined than their white co-workers. According to the EEOC, managers were aware of, and even participated in, the harassment and discrimination.

The second lawsuit, EEOC v. Albertsons LLC, Civil Action No. 08-cv-00640, was filed in 2008 and alleged a pattern or practice of retaliation. The EEOC alleged that dozens of employees complained about the discriminatory treatment and harassment and were subsequently given the harder job assignments, were passed over for promotion and even fired as retaliation.

The third case, EEOC v. Albertsons LLC, Civil Action No. 08-cv-02424, was also filed in 2008 and alleged race discrimination on behalf of a single African American employee at the distribution center who was terminated.

EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said, “Employers simply cannot overlook or tolerate this kind of outrageous discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC certainly won’t. We will aggressively pursue employers who violate the laws we enforce. And we’ll insist on substantial and meaningful relief for the victims before settling these cases.”

Besides the monetary relief, Albertsons agreed to submit to four years of court-ordered monitor­ing, and to institute an extensive training program to ensure that management is aware of and will comply with equal employment opportunity laws in the future.

EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District, which includes the Denver Field Office, said, “These cases presented the EEOC with some of the most egregious examples of race, color and national origin discrimination the agency has seen in years. The graffiti was particularly shocking. Employers need to aggressively criticize such conduct, seek out the culprits and take swift action. Discrimination, harassment and retaliation are no joke. Supervisors and managers need to take complaints seriously. And they need to know that we, as an agency, take retaliation very seriously.”

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 ...