Skip to main content

Yuma Oak Tree Inn to Pay $75,000 to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Federal Agency Charged Manager Unlawfully Forced Employees to Engage in Prayer Ceremonies Regardless of Their Religious Beliefs

PHOENIX -- Lodging Enterprises LLC of Arizona, which does business as Oak Tree Inn in Yuma, will pay $75,000 and furnish other relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s suit charged that Oak Tree Inn threatened employees with reprisals of reducing their hours or otherwise forced them to engage in a particular religious prayer ceremony in spite of their personal different religious views. The defendant, through its general manager, Carlos Paredes, derided certain religious beliefs of some of the employees, the EEOC said. He also attempted to impose his personal religious beliefs on employees. The unlawful discrimination created a hostile work environment and denied employees reasonable accommodation for their religious beliefs.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. Lodging Enterprises LLC of Arizona, dba Oak Tree Inn, Case No. 1:09-cv-2060-PHX-NVW in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix, after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the suit provides that Oak Tree will pay the settlement amount to a class of 12 employees who suffered as a result of the hostile work environment. The decree entered by the court further requires appropriate training of all employees by Oak Tree on religious discrimination. Both General Manager Carlos Paredes and Regional Manager Chris Goodman will be required to undergo individualized training about religious discrimination and the proper manner in which complaints of discrimination must be handled. They will also have serious warnings placed in their personnel files discussing the possibility of discharge if there is a recurrence of the unlawful activity which was alleged in the complaint. Oak Tree will also be enjoined from retaliating against employees or otherwise further violating Title VII.

EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill said, “Employees have a right to their own religious beliefs or no religious beliefs. Employees should never be subjected unwillingly to a supervisor’s religious views. In this day and age, employees certainly should be free from coerced prayer sessions, and the other forms of religious harassment which occurred at Oak Tree.”

Acting District Director Rayford O. Irvin of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office added, “We will continue to vigorously pursue our mission of fighting employment discrimination on all fronts.”

Theresa Hurtado, a former employee who filed one of the three original charges of discrimination, said, “I really want to show my gratitude for the hard work that the EEOC staff put into this case. Justice prevailed! I am proof that all citizens of this country need not be afraid to defend all their rights and fight for what they believe in.”

The EEOC’s Phoenix District Office has jurisdiction for Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and part of New Mexico (including Albuquerque).

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 ...