Skip to main content

Phoenix Car Dealers to Pay $500,000 to Settle Suit For Race and Sex Harassment, Retaliation

PHOENIX – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Bell Road Kia and Bell Road Automall will pay five former employees a total of one half of a million dollars and furnish significant remedial relief in the form of a consent decree to settle a lawsuit brought by the federal agency alleging racial harassment, sexual harassment and retaliation.

In its lawsuit, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in federal district court, the EEOC charged that both dealerships knew about and tolerated a work environment permeated by sexual and racial harassment (EEOC v. SWMW Management, Inc., Bell Road Automall, Inc., and Big Bell 21 LLC, doing business as Bell Road Kia, CV 08-00946-PHX-GMS). According to the EEOC, the hostile work environment allegedly included the following:

* Female employees being referred to as “c--t” and “whore”;
* Female employees being propositioned for sexual favors;
* Widespread pornography on workplace computers;
* Desk managers viewing the pornography together and openly commenting about it;
* One desk manager masturbating while sitting behind a female employee;
* Frequent use of racial and ethnic slurs, such as “n----r” and “wetback”; and
* A manager telling a black employee that he was only needed when there was a black customer so he could “speak his ebonics” and close the deal.

“The incidents of sexual and racial harassment in this case were shocking,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District Office, which originated the action. “Defendants’ repeated failure to take corrective action and their resort to retaliation were equally disturbing. This settlement should remind all employers to actively root out harassment and retaliation from the workplace.”

The EEOC maintained in the case that despite the openly hostile work environment, the dealerships failed to take appropriate corrective action against the known harassers and instead retaliated against employees who challenged the discriminatory conduct. All five of the charging parties and class members were demoted, terminated, or forced out (constructively discharged) after they raised complaints about the harassment.

Class member Julie Blakley said, “We were repeatedly subjected to degrading harassment and the managers made it known to us that they did not take our complaints seriously. Our exposure to abuse was prolonged by the fact that employees did not receive adequate training on preventing sexual harassment or on the process for filing complaints.”

Brian Netzel, another discrimination victim, added, “No one should have to endure a work environment where blatant disregard for human dignity is rampant and employees who attempt to stop such activity are met with ostracism and threats. I felt that the company allowed sales managers to run rampant because they were making the dealership a lot of money.”

In addition to requiring training for all employees on sexual and racial harassment and retaliation, the three-year consent decree filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Arizona requires the dealerships to institute policies and procedures to prevent sexual and racial harassment and retaliation from recurring. The decree also includes an injunction prohibiting the dealerships from retaliating against employees for complaining about illegal harassment.

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