Skip to main content

Sims Chevrolet To Pay $85,000 To Settle EEOC Suit For Racial Discrimination And Retaliation

Cleveland Dealership Withheld Wages From Employee for Complaining About Discrimination Against Class of Black Workers, Federal Agency Charged


CLEVELAND – Andy Chevrolet, doing business as Sims Chevrolet, a Cleveland automobile dealership, will pay $85,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination and retalia­tion lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that since July 2007, Sims Chevrolet subjected a class of African Americans to different terms and conditions of employment and a hostile work environment on the basis of race. The federal agency alleged that the discriminatory conduct included racial epithets, such as repeated use of the N-word, and also involved management making sales team assignments based upon race. Additionally, the EEOC claimed that Sims retaliated against one of the individuals after he complained about the unlawful discrimination by withholding his wages.

Racial discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio after first attempt­ing to reach a settlement out of court (EEOC v. Andy Chevrolet Company dba Sims Chevrolet, 1:08-cv-02335).

The three-year consent decree settling the suit provides for a monetary settlement of $85,000 to five discrimination victims. In addition to monetary relief, the decree provides for significant remedial relief, including revising the company’s non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and complaint procedures; promoting supervisor responsibility and accountability; and requiring yearly anti-discrimination training.

EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence of the Philadelphia District Office, which oversees parts of Ohio, said, “This case of discrimination could have been avoided if the employer had followed Title VII requirements. Even so, the settlement should be a reminder to all employers of their obligations under the statute.”

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 ...