Skip to main content

Dunkin' Donuts Franchise to Pay $290,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

ALBANY, N.Y. – College View Donuts, LLC, doing business as Dunkin' Donuts, will pay $290,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on 5/31/11. In its suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Civil Action No. 1:09-01320 TJM/RFT), the EEOC charged that the manager of a Dunkin’ Donuts store in Wynantskill, N.Y., sexually harassed female employees, some of whom were only 16 and 17 years old.

According to the EEOC, the manager engaged in unwanted touching and hugging and made lewd sexual comments to the female employees. The EEOC argued that College View Donuts allowed the manager's illegal conduct to continue even after two employees had complained about it a year before. The manager was finally fired after the employees reported his conduct to the police and he was arrested. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to paying $290,000 to the former employees, the company will be bound by a six-year consent decree enjoining it from engaging in further discrimination or retaliation. The decree calls for the appointment of an equal employment opportunity coordinator and training for all employees and managers on sexual harassment prevention. The company will issue a letter of apology to the women; revise its anti-discrimination policies and complaint procedures; post a notice to employees about the resolution of the lawsuit; and never re-hire the manager responsible for the harassment.

“Sexual harassment is never acceptable, but it is especially troubling when the victims are teenagers,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Adela Santos.

EEOC New York District Office Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman added, “Companies must understand and fulfill their obligation to protect employees from sexual harassment in the workplace. We are very glad that this employer is taking steps to train its work force and remedy the problems that allowed this situation to happen.”

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 ...