Skip to main content

Arizona Truck Stop to Pay $70,000 to Settle EEOC Suit Charging Sex Harassment by Customers

EEOC Says Love’s Travel Stops and Country Stores Tolerated Hostile Workplace

PHOENIX – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Love’s Travel Stops and Country Stores, Inc. will pay $70,000 as part of a settlement of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC had charged that Love’s subjected two young female cashiers to repeated and serious sex-based abuse by customers.

According to the EEOC, the victims of the case, two cashiers working at Love’s Buckeye, Ariz., truck stop, aged 18 and 20 at the start of their employment, were sexually harassed frequently. The cashiers detailed extensive sexual harassment caused by truck drivers, some of whom were regular customers of Love’s. The EEOC alleged that Love’s customers sexually harassed the cashiers by engaging in conduct that included unwanted sexual touching and pressing; crude and obscene remarks; sexual demands and innuendos; handing one victim an obscene card; and demands for personal information. Some of this abusive behavior was committed in front of other customers, the EEOC said.

The EEOC maintained that Love’s knew about and tolerated this sexually hostile work environment caused by its customers. Further, the EEOC charged, despite Love’s knowledge about the harassment, the company not only failed to take reasonable steps to stop the harassment, but at least one manager laughed about it, and another manager said the harassment was to be expected because it is a truck stop. Managers also told the victims to “deal with it” and in particular to tolerate the misconduct of one repeat offending customer because “he’s always like that.”

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (EEOC v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., Civil Action No.CV-07-1843-ROS), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process.

In addition to the settlement requiring Love’s to pay $70,000 to the former cashiers, Love’s also must investigate complaints of sexual harassment, provide training for managers and supervisors on conducting sexual harassment investigations, and post a warning that harassment of Love’s employees will not be tolerated.

“Employers are liable for the harassment of their workers by non-employees on their property, when they knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take corrective action,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District Office, which originated the legal action. “This settlement agreement sends a message to Love’s and other companies that they must promptly address the harassment of employees by their customers.”

EEOC Acting Phoenix District Director Rayford O. Irvin added, “We encourage all employees, including young ones, to come forward and file complaints if they believe they are the victims of sexual harassment by either employees or customers.”

According to its website, Love’s has over 200 locations nationwide in more than 30 states and grows by about 15 stores per year. Love’s website also states that Love’s is number 15 on Forbes’ list of the largest privately held companies in the United States. In 2005, when the alleged harassment occurred, Love’s Buckeye location was the highest-volume store in Love’s Western Division.

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 ...