Skip to main content

The Bell Company Sued by EEOC for Sex Discrimination and Retaliation

BALTIMORE -- The Bell Company / The Bell Company, LLC, violated federal law when it fired a skilled female equipment operator and materials handler for complaining about discrimination because of her sex, female, the U.W. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.

In its suit the EEOC charged The Bell Company, a privately held New York company and The Bell Company, LLC, a Delaware limited-liability company that provides construction services to the U.S Army at its Aberdeen, Md., location, fired Elaine Cusato after she complained about a hostile work environment because of her gender. The EEOC said that on a daily basis, Cusato was subjected to criticism by her supervisor, the plumbing crew foreman, about her work with vehemence, aggression and profanity that was not directed at male workers. These incidents, which were witnessed and known by her chain of command, included throwing a shovel at her, cursing at her in front of co-workers, subcontractors and site inspectors and repeatedly calling her sexually offensive names. Cusato’s complaints to human resource officials intensified the foreman’s sex-based offensive treatment towards her and culminated in her retaliatory discharge.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex and retaliation for complaining about it. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01342-BEL) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including policies, procedures and training to prevent future workplace discrimination. The EEOC also seeks to have the company compensate Cusato for her monetary losses and emotional pain and humiliation.

“Federal law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment because of sex,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “The EEOC will strongly pursue employers who fragrantly disregard federal law as women attempt to move into traditionally male-dominated occupations.”

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 ...