Skip to main content

Allegiance Industries Pays $25,000 to Settle EEOC Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Female Supervisor Was Fired by District Manager Who Wanted a Man in Her Position, Federal Agency Charged

ATLANTA – Allegiance Industries, Inc., a cleaning service company with work sites throughout the Atlanta area, will pay $25,000 to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The agency had alleged that Allegiance Industries, Inc. discriminated against Brenda Lowery, a female cleaning team supervisor, by firing her in July 2009 because the district manager wanted a male supervisor at the cleaning site where she worked. Immediately after Lowery was fired, Allegiance Industries placed a male supervisor at the work site that she supervised.

Gender discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit on April 27, 2010 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Firing someone simply because of her gender is unjust and unlawful, plain and simple,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Robert K. Dawkins. “The EEOC will continue its fight against such workplace discrimination that still causes so much distress to so many Americans.”

The consent decree settling the suit, in addition to monetary relief for Lowery, includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting and postings.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s 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 ...