Skip to main content

Southeast Telecom Settles EEOC Lawsuit for Retaliation

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Southeastern Telecom Inc. will pay $95,000 and provide other relief to settle a lawsuit for unlawful retaliation filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s suit had charged that Southeastern Telecom violated federal law when it discharged a sales account executive within one week of her complaint of sex discrimination, including unequal pay. The EEOC’s complaint specifically alleged that Southeastern Telecom disabled the account executive’s work computer, removed her e-mail access, restricted her access to the work site, and finally fired her in retaliation for her complaint of sex discrimination.

Retaliating against an employee who makes a claim of discrimination, including unequal pay, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No 3:09-cv-00887) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Besides providing monetary relief, the two-year consent decree signed by Senior District Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr. on March 18, 2011, enjoins Southeastern Telecom from further retaliating against any employee or applicant for employment for opposing discrimination in the workplace. The decree provides for workplace training, a revised policy for making complaints, reporting provisions, and the posting of an anti-discrimination notice.

“Retaliating against an employee for exercising her right to point out discriminatory practice is a violation of federal law,” said Faye Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Tennessee, Arkansas, and 17 counties in Northern Mississippi. “This settlement demonstrates the Commission’s commitment to prevent retaliation in the workplace, and Southeastern Telecom’s commitment to ensure that similar problems do not occur in the future.”

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 ...