Skip to main content

Pacific Seafood to Pay $85,000 to Settle EEOC Lawsuit for Retaliation

EEOC Alleged Employee Was Illegally Fired for Raising Issue of Race Discrimination

PORTLAND, Ore. – A Portland-based seafood processor and distributor with hundreds of employees in Clackamas, Ore., will pay $85,000 and take corrective measures to settle a lawsuit for retaliation filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s suit asserts that in June 2007, Pacific Seafood Company Inc. and Pacific Seafood Group, Inc. illegally fired Jesus Perez, a warehouse worker, after he spoke to management about racial discrimination. When Perez told his supervisor that he feared he had received a smaller raise than his non-Hispanic co-worker because of his race, he was told that if he was going to accuse the company of discrimination, they “should part ways.” Perez’s final paycheck was issued that day, the EEOC said.

“I was shocked when they fired me,” Perez said. “After working there for several years with a good record, I thought they would at least hear me out when I raised my complaint -- not fire me on the spot. It has been a long road, but I’m proud that I stood up for my rights. Hopefully my actions and this lawsuit will help make Pacific Seafood a safer place for other employees.”

Retaliation against an employee -- for opposing discrimination, assisting others in filing charges, or participating in an EEOC investigations or subsequent lawsuit as a witness -- violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed this suit (EEOC v. Pacific Seafood Co., Inc. CV-08-1143-ST in U.S. Federal Court for the District of Oregon) after an investigation conducted by EEOC Investigator Omar Verduzco and first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

According to the terms of the settlement, Pacific Seafood agreed to pay Perez $85,000. The company will also redraft its policies on discrimination and retaliation, train all employees about the laws that prohibit workplace discrimination and retaliation and voluntarily report to the EEOC on its handling of discrimination complaints for the next five years.

EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “Employers have a duty to promptly and effectively respond to complaints of workplace discrimination. When employers fail to take such complaints seriously, or, as in this case, retaliate against an employee who had a reasonable belief of discrimination, the EEOC will take action.”

EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado added, “As part of the settlement, Pacific Seafood must train its management and human resources representatives in anti-discrimination policies and create an environment where employees can report unlawful discrimination without fear of retaliation.”

Baldonado also noted that retaliation cases represent one of the fastest-growing types of charges filed with the EEOC. In Fiscal Year 2010, retaliation charge filings across the country increased more than 6 percent over the last five years to a record number of 36,258, now accounting for the most common type of discrimination charge.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and retaliation. 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.

Mortgage Fraud

Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announced today the indictment of 13 individuals and a mortgage origination company for perpetrating over $100 million in mortgage fraud over a four-year period in the New York City metropolitan area. In addition, 12 individuals have already waived indictment and pleaded guilty to felonies relating to their participation in the mortgage fraud scheme. The indictment charges 13 individuals and the mortgage company, AFG FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., with enterprise corruption, grand larceny, scheme to defraud and conspiracy involving 19 fraudulent mortgage transactions. The defendants include the principals and a number of employees of the mortgage company, as well as bank employees, appraisers, and three attorneys. Two other attorneys are among the defendants who already pleaded guilty. The crimes charged in the indictment occurred between June 2004 and April 2009 with the bulk of the fraudulent closings occurring from mid-2005 through the end of...

DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT OF SIX SUBCONTRACTING COMPANIES AND THEIR OWNERS IN MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR FRAUD

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictments of six subcontracting companies and their owners for colluding with LEHR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (LEHR) in a multimillion dollar scheme that defrauded numerous construction clients over the past decade. See, related story. The announcement comes one day after DA Vance announced LEHR and four executives were indicted on crimes including Enterprise Corruption, the New York State Racketeering law. GODSELL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and its owner ARTHUR GODSELL are charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree. JT ROSELLE LIGHTING, INC. and its owner JAMES ROSELLE, LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORPORATION and its owners GEORGE FOTIADIS and KEVIN FOTIADIS, PJ MECHANICAL and its owner JAMES PAPPAS, SUPERIOR ACOUSTICS, INC. and its owner KENNETH MCGUIGAN, and SWEENEY & HARKIN CARPENTRY and its owner MICHAEL HAYES are charged with Grand Larceny in the Third Degree.[1] "The defendants in this case cheated clie...