Skip to main content

EEOC Collects on $471,000 Jury Award after Winning Appeal from Waterproofing Company In Sex Harassment Case

NEW YORK – The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that Everdry Marketing and Management has paid $471,096 in damages, plus $86,581 in post-judgment interest, to 13 victims of sexual harassment. The payout satisfies a judgment obtained by EEOC against Everdry in October 2006 following a four-week trial in Rochester, N.Y. (case # 01-CV-6329). The individual payouts range from about $24,000 to $56,000, including the interest, which covers the time the women had to wait to receive their jury awards. Everdry was required to pay the substantial interest after the ultimate resolution of the case was delayed by an appeal Everdry filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging various aspects of the jury’s verdict and other district court rulings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict and award of damages.

Cleveland-based Everdry provides basement waterproofing services through various franchises. The case concerned a prolonged period of physical and verbal sexual harassment of mostly teenage telemarketers by male managers and co-workers at Everdry’s Rochester, N.Y., location. The EEOC charged that the harassment included repeated demands for sex, frequent groping, sexual jokes and constant comments about the bodies of women employees. On one occasion, a male manager requested sex from a teenager with the promise of a raise if she consented.

“Many of the victims in this case were young and especially vulnerable,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “We are gratified that the appeals court has now paved the way for these harassment victims to finally receive the relief the jury awarded.”

The jury awards consist of compensatory damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages designed to punish and deter Everdry from engaging in further sexual harassment. The payout was made by Everdry’s corporate headquarters.

“The 13 women in this case had to endure vicious sexual harassment and then live it again through their testimony in pre-trial depositions and the trial,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Robert D. Rose. “The EEOC appreciates their courage and endurance in seeing this case all the way through. For them, justice was delayed, but ultimately not denied.”

Spencer H Lewis, Jr., district director for the EEOC’s New York District Office, added, “This case demonstrates how the EEOC will not relent in its efforts to redress discrimination wherever it occurs, no matter how long it takes.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws banning workplace discrimination. Further information about the agency 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 ...