Skip to main content

Paramount Multiservices Companies Settle Sexual Harassment Lawsuit with EEOC

Telemarketing Companies’ HR Managers Forced Women to Endure Offensive Sexual Comments, Federal Agency Charged

DALLAS – A group of related Dallas telemarketing companies will pay $37,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that two managers at Paramount Multiservices sexually harassed two female employees and forced one of them to quit.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit (Civil Action No. 3-08CV1349-N in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas), Paramount Multiservices' human resources manager and his assistant manager commented to female employees about their breasts and asked them questions about their sex lives. The women said that these comments were offensive and unwelcome, the EEOC said, but it continued.

Sexual harassment, as a form of sex discrimination, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit against Paramount Multiservices, L.L.C., Paramount Teleservices, L.L.C. and Paramount Multiservices, Inc. after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

The consent decree settling the suit was signed by U.S. District Court Judge David C. Godbey on December 9, 2009. In the decree, besides the monetary settlement, the companies agreed to train all employees on equal employment opportunity policies and procedures, including sexual harassment, retaliation and gender discrimination. The companies will also post anti-discrimination notice and enforce a written policy against gender discrimination.

“A continuously hostile environment that is permeated with sexual comments makes it very difficult for any woman to want to go to work every day,” said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney William C. Backhaus.

Robert Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas Office, added, “One does not expect this level of disrespect for women at the workplace from, of all people, human resources managers. An offensive case like this is a sad example of how a sexually predatory manager can use his or her unique position to sexually harass employees, and thus box them into a situation in which they feel they have no recourse.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available 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 ...