Skip to main content

Overland Park Restaurant Sued By EEOC For Sexual Harassment Of Teen Worker

KANSAS CITY, Kan. – Cactus Grill, Inc., violated federal law when it allowed a manager to sexually harass an 18-year-old server at its restaurant in Leawood, Kan., the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today in federal court.

According to the EEOC’s suit, an assistant manager at the restaurant asked the server for sex, touched her, and made unwelcome sexual advances toward her. The harassment was so intolerable that the server was forced to quit her job, amounting to an unlawful constructive discharge, the EEOC said.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based upon gender, including sexual harassment. The EEOC filed this suit, Case No. ****, in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. In addition to Cactus Grill, Inc., the suit names other related corporations as defendants.

“Sexual harassment in the workplace is always wrong, but harassment of teenage workers, who are often in their first ‘real’ job, is even more egregious,” said James Neely, director of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office. “Employers must provide safe, harassment-free workplaces for all of their employees, including teenagers.”

Barbara A. Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, added, “Training is key to preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is especially crucial for employers with teenage employees. All employees must be trained that sexual harassment is unlawful and will not be tolerated. But all employees, and especially teenagers, must also be trained to recognize sexual harassment and to know what to do if it happens to them.”

The EEOC St. Louis District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and southern Illinois, with Area Offices in Kansas City and Oklahoma City.

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 ...