Skip to main content

Stanley's Marine Sued By EEOC For Sexual Harassment And Retaliation

NORFOLK , Va. – A Norfolk marine contractor violated federal law by subjecting six female employees to a sexually hostile work environment and then firing five of them for complaining, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, six female employees of Stanley’s Marine & Industrial Services LLC – Darlene Snead, Eva Winston, Cameron Gladden, Angela Ford, Elizabeth Taylor, and Krystal Adams – who worked primarily as insulators aboard the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush, were subjected to sexual harassment by two male supervisors. The suit alleges that the sexual harassment occurred between November 2007 and March 2009 and included graphic sexual comments, sexual advances and sexual touching. Six of the women who complained to Stanley’s Marine management about the harassment were discharged in retaliation for their complaints, the EEOC said. The discharges occurred between March 2008 and March 2009.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ( Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Stanley’s Marine & Industrial Services, LLC , Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00183) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay for the discrimination victims as well as compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

“Once an employee complains about harassment in the workplace, the employer is required under federal law to act reasonably to prevent further harassment,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “It is unacceptable and a violation of the law for an employer to discharge an employee who complains about sexual harassment or other types of discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC will aggressively prosecute cases where the employer ignores known harassment or retaliates against the victim for complaining.”

Stanley’s Marine provides general shipbuilding and repair services.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available 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 ...