Skip to main content

Patton Archery Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Owner Fostered Sexually Hostile Work Environment, Federal Agency Charged

DETROIT -- Patton Archery Manufacturing, Inc., a former manufacturer of archery components in Vulcan, Mich., has agreed to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for $21,000 and other relief, the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, Case No. 2:09:CV-205 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, charged that the owner of Patton Archery subjected three female bow sanders, Brenda Maynard, Julie Roberts and Leslie Querio, to a sexually hostile work environment. The misconduct ranged from telling and disseminating detailed sexual jokes to bold and unwanted physical touching, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Under the terms of the three-year consent decree, signed by U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell, Patton Archery will pay the three women $21,000 and will be prohibited from engaging in any further employment practice that discriminates against an employee on the basis of sex. Patton Archery will also be prohibited from retaliating against any employees for filing a charge of discrimination or participating in the investigation of any charge of discrimination.

“Although the company closed after the EEOC filed its lawsuit, we continued to pursue this case because these three women were harmed and were entitled to relief,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Trek Carethers. “Companies cannot escape liability for their wrongdoing by closing their doors. We’re very pleased that we were able to amicably resolve this case with the company.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation’s laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website 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 ...