Skip to main content

Bankruptcy Trustee Settles Retaliation Suit On Behalf Of Debtor EaglePicher Technologies, LLC

ST. LOUIS -- EaglePicher Technologies, LLC, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2005, has settled a retaliation and termination lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for over $35,000 through its bankruptcy trustee, the agency announced today.

The suit, filed by the EEOC on behalf of EaglePicher Technologies employee Brenda McCollum, was based on the company’s 2004 termination of her. The EEOC alleged the firing was in retaliation for McCollum’s complaints of sex discrimination and her participation in a 2003 discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.

McCollum and seven other female employees at EaglePicher’s Joplin, Mo.-based facility shared a $200,000 settlement obtained by the EEOC in 2003. According to the EEOC, McCollum continued working at the company after the 2003 suit, but she was subjected to retaliatory treatment by management and ultimately was terminated. McCollum returned to work in 2005 after a union arbitrator determined that her termination violated the union’s contract and ordered her reinstatement with backpay. The EEOC alleged that McCollum’s termination also violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that she was entitled to additional backpay and compensatory damages. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin, as well as retaliation for complaining about such discrimination.

The suit was resolved as part of a case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio (EaglePicher Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-12601). The bankruptcy court approved the settlement on Nov. 20, and, after brief waiting period for appeals, the settlement was made final this week. Because of the bankruptcy, McCollum is expected to receive just over $12,000. EaglePicher Technologies is an affiliate of EaglePicher Holdings, Inc.

“Time and again, the EEOC sees cases where retaliation by employers is as bad, or even worse, than the original discrimination,” said Regional Attorney Barbara A. Seely of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office. “Employers must understand that the law prohibits not only discrimination, but also retaliation against employees who complain about discrimination, who file discrimination charges with the EEOC, or who participate in discrimination lawsuits. Even if the initial discrimination allegation is found to lack merit, employers are still liable for retaliation.”

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 ...