Skip to main content

Salem Electric Company Sued By EEOC For Race Discrimination

Company Fired Black Employee Because of His Race, EEOC Charges

WINSTON-SALEM , N.C. – A Winston-Salem, N.C. –based, family-owned and operated electric company discriminated against a black electrician when it fired him because of his race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, around Dec. 17, 2007, Salem Electric Company terminated Rodney Tonkins’ employment as a journeyman electrician, alleging that he was responsible for a crew of employees who damaged light fixtures on a light installation project. The EEOC contends in the suit that as a journeyman electrician, Tonkins did not supervise work crews and therefore was not responsible for the damaged light fixtures. Instead, according to the EEOC’s complaint, the company’s superintendent and foreman, both white, were in charge of the project and the crew workers. Neither of those individuals, nor the non-black employees who actually caused the damage to the light fixtures, was terminated.

Discrimination on the basis of race violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Winston-Salem Division (EEOC v. Salem Electric Company, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00119), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process. In its suit, the EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Tonkins. The EEOC also seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Salem Electric from engaging in further racial discrimination.

“This case is a reminder to employers that fair and equal treatment of its employees must be applied in all phases of employment, including addressing performance concerns,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Lynette A. Barnes of the agency’s Charlotte District Office. “The EEOC will continue to vigorously protect the rights of workers who are targeted for adverse treatment based on race or other illegal factors.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more