Skip to main content

Pharmacy Giant Omnicare Will Pay $195,000 Under Consent Decree Ending EEOC Sex Harassment Case

Women at La Crosse Pharmacy Endured Physical and Verbal Abuse, Agency Charged

MADISON, Wis. – Pharmacy giant Omnicare, Inc. will pay $195,000 to a class of five female sex discrimination victims under a consent decree entered by Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker on December 21, 2010 in federal court in the Western District of Wisconsin. The damages had been sought in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC had charged that a class of women was subjected to sexual harassment at Omnicare’s Pinnacle Pharmacy in La Crosse, Wis.

According to the EEOC’s suit, a pharmacy manager engaged in repeated, egregious acts of sexual harassment toward female employees, such as unwelcome touching that included approaching female employees from behind and grinding his crotch on them, and making sexually explicit and demeaning comments to female employees. According to the EEOC, women complained about the manager’s behavior repeatedly, but no action was taken by Omnicare to put a stop to it.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to harass employees based on sex, including sexual harassment, and prohibits retaliation against someone who complains about discrimination. The EEOC filed suit ( EEOC v. Omnicare, Inc. d/b/a Pinnacle Pharmacy, Case No. 10 cv 364) on June 30 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Under the terms of the two-year consent decree settling the suit, Omnicare will pay $195,000 to the class of five women. In addition to monetary damages, the decree provides for injunctive relief enjoining Omnicare from maintaining a sexually hostile work environment or engaging in retaliation. The decree also requires the company to distribute its policy against sexual harassment along with a confidential survey assessing the company’s complaint reporting system, provide annual sexual harassment training for employees, and provide periodic reports to the EEOC.

“One would think that if any workplace would be free ofegregious sexual harassment, it would be a workplace connected to health care -- like a pharmacy,” said Regional Attorney John Hendrickson of the EEOC’s Chicago District. “But this case illustrates that when it comes to sexual harassment, our expectations are often out of order and that, in fact, no workplace is immune. That’s why we were in this case and why we insisted upon the terms of the consent decree entered by the court. We trust they will make a difference going forward.”

The case was litigated by Trial Attorney Camille Monahan of the EEOC’s Milwaukee Area Office. The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

According to company information, Covington, Ky.-based Omnicare is the nation's leading provider of pharmaceutical care for seniors. Each day, Omnicare pharmacists serve more than 1.4 million residents of skilled nursing, assisted living, and other healthcare facilities in 47 states and Canada.

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 ...