Skip to main content

JW Marriott Sued by EEOC for Sexual Harassment

Las Vegas Resort Staff Were Constantly Touched and Demeaned by Their Supervisor, Federal Agency Charges

LAS VEGAS — JW Marriott Las Vegas Resort, Spa & Golf violated federal law by failing to prevent and correct the ongoing sexual harassment of female resort staff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed last month.

Since about 2003, at least two female restaurant servers at the resort in Las Vegas were subjected to aggressive sexual harassment by a male co-worker who later became their supervisor, according to the EEOC. The EEOC contends that the harasser repeatedly engaged in verbal and physical harassment including rubbing his body against the women, groping them, and consistently making vulgar remarks. The EEOC asserts that the harassment continued until the harasser was discharged in December 2007, but that JW Marriott failed to sufficiently prevent and correct the harassment despite official complaints dating back to 2006, a direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada (EEOC v. JW Marriott Las Vegas Resort, Spa & Golf, Case No. 2:10-cv-02265), after efforts to reach a pre-litigation settlement failed. The EEOC’s suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of any and all victims found during the course of litigation as well as injunctive relief to prevent future sexual harassment.

“These women worked in fear on a daily basis,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Unchecked sexual harassment can escalate and erode the work environment; this behavior should not be tolerated.”

Lucy Orta, local director for the EEOC’s Las Vegas Office, added, “As a preventive measure, employers should train and encourage staff to report illegal harassment, and advise them that there would be no retaliation for doing so. Upon any sign of harassment, employers must act quickly and effectively address such flagrant violations of the law.”

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 ...