Skip to main content

Creative Networks Settles EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit for $110,000

PHOENIX – Creative Networks, LLC, a company which provides services to the disabled, has agreed to pay $110,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC charged that two coordinators at the company were unlawfully retaliated against on the same day for complaining about national origin and race discrimination and participating in an investigation about it.

According to the EEOC(s suit, Case No. 05-CV-03032-PHX-SMM, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, on May 16, 2003, Rhonda Encinas-Castro went to the EEOC to file a charge of discrimination based on national origin and race. About 14 days later, the EEOC said, Encinas-Castro was fired by the company’s executive director for filing the charge. Further, the agency charged, the executive director threatened to fire Kathryn Allen, who had never been disciplined for anything before, because she had been named as a witness in Encinas-Castro’s discrimination charge.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects from retaliation both employees who complain about discrimination and those who serve as witnesses to it.

As part of the agreement, besides the $110,000 in monetary relief, Creative Networks must adopt an anti-retaliation policy and provide anti-retaliation training to its employees. Creative Networks is also prohibited from engaging in any further retaliation.

Mary Jo O(Neill, regional attorney for the Phoenix District Office, said, “We will continue to vigorously protect employees who complain about discrimination or serve as witnesses to it because they are the lifeblood to effective enforcement. These civil rights statutes only mean something when people are free to tell the truth about discrimination in the workplace. We have seen an alarming increase in retaliation charges, and we are very concerned that employees know that they can report discrimination without repercussions.”

Rayford O. Irvin, acting district director of the Phoenix District Office, added, “As the United States Supreme Court recently reiterated in the Burlington Northern case, the primary purpose of the retaliation statutes is to maintain ‘unfettered access’ to complaint processes. We will ensure that all employees are protected from retaliation whether they are the filer of a charge or have assisted other employees in their complaints.”

Creative Networks, an Arizona corporation with more than 1,000 employees, provides medical, psychological, and educational services to individuals with mental and physical disabilities.

Retaliation charges with the EEOC have risen from 18,198 in Fiscal Year 1997, comprising 22.6 percent of all charges, to 33,613 in FY 2009, accounting for 36 percent of all charges.

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 ...