Skip to main content

EEOC Settles Sexual Harassment Suit With Dollar General for $50,000

GREENSBORO, N.C. – Dolgencorp, LLC, doing business as Dollar General, will pay $50,000 to three former female employees and provide other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC charged in its suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC, d/b/a Dollar General, Civ. No. 1:09cv00700), filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, that from at least February 2005 through at least May 2006, Amanda Strickland, Maria Strickland and Tina Baxley were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment while employed at Dollar General stores in Greensboro and Pleasant Garden, N.C. The EEOC alleged that the women were sexually harassed by a male Dollar General store manager. The alleged sexual harassment included offensive sexual comments, requests for sex and unwelcome touching of the women’s breasts and buttocks. According to the EEOC’s complaint, the women complained about the sexual harassment to managers within the company, but the harassment continued.

In addition to the monetary relief, the terms of the consent decree resolving the case include provisions for Dollar General to post a copy of its anti-harassment policy in all of its stores in the region where the alleged harassment took place in a place where it is visible to employees, and to provide annual training to all of its store managers and assistant store managers in the region. The training will include an explanation of the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Dollar General’s anti-discrimination and harassment policy and its prohibition against retaliation. Finally, Dollar General agrees to report any future complaints of sexual harassment to the EEOC during the term of the two-year Consent Decree.

“We are pleased that this settlement provides training to managers and supervisors about Title VII’s requirements against discrimination and harassment,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “Employees should be able to work in an environment free from sexual harassment. Training managers and supervisors about sexual harassment is one way to help prevent sexual harassment claims in the workplace.”

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 ...