Skip to main content

Memphis Goodwill Agrees to Pay $105,000 to Settle EEOC Race Bias and Retaliation Lawsuit

MEMPHIS – Memphis Goodwill Industries, Inc., a non-profit agency, will pay $105,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged in its suit (No. 2:08-cv-02621-BBD-cgc, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee) that Memphis Goodwill fired a transportation director in retaliation for reporting alleged race discrimination and because of her race, black.

In addition, the EEOC’s suit alleged that the vice president of operations chastised a group of African Americans by stating, “This is not the ghetto.” When the former transportation director complained to the vice president of operations, she received her first written reprimand from him within days and after receiving a second write-up less than 30 days later she was fired. After her termination, the EEOC said, a white male was hired as manager of transportation.

Under the terms of the two-year settlement agreement resolving the suit, signed by U.S. District Judge Bernice Bouie Donald, in addition to the monetary award, Memphis Goodwill agreed to provide employment discrimination training to management personnel at its Memphis facility and to report complaints of discrimination to the EEOC. The company will also purge the former employee's personnel file of negative disciplinary actions and provide her with a reference agreed to by the parties.

Faye A. Williams, EEOC regional attorney in Memphis, said, "It is a serious violation of federal law to discharge an employee based on race. Further, it is simply illegal to fire someone for reporting unlawful discrimination. Employees must be able to complain about practices which they believe violate the law without fear of retribution. We are pleased the parties were able to resolve the case prior to trial.”

Memphis Goodwill trains and employs workers. In the Memphis Area, Memphis Goodwill has over 200 employees.

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 ...