Skip to main content

IHOP Restaurant Company And Owner Held In Contempt For Refusing To Post Court-Ordered Notice Of Sexual Harassment Verdict

MILWAUKEE – A federal judge has issued a contempt-of-court order against a restaurant management company for refusing to post a court-ordered notice that was required by the court in a sexual harassment case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman on May 31 issued a decision and order that determined Salauddin Janmohammed, owner of 17 International House of Pancakes (IHOP) restaurants, and management company Flipmeastack, Inc. were in contempt of court for refusing to follow a prior order that directed the company to post a notice for all its employees telling them the results of the EEOC’s sexual harassment lawsuit.

The EEOC had charged in its original lawsuit, EEOC v. Management Hospitality of Racine, Inc., Flipmeastack, Inc., and Salauddin Janmohammed, Case No. 2:06-cv-00715-LA (E.D. Wis.), that the company subjected two teenaged servers to sexual harassment by their manager at an IHOP formerly operated by Flipmeastack in Racine, Wis., in 2005. The case resulted in a $105,000 jury verdict against the defendants in November 2009.

The original order to post the results of the lawsuit was entered almost a year ago, on Aug. 31, 2010. The new contempt findings are the result of a hearing held on May 20 and May 26, 2011. Flipmeastack was found in contempt for continuing to provide management services to 17 IHOP restaurants owned by Janmohammed without posting the notices as required. Janmohammed had refused to allow the posting, and was found in contempt for aiding and abetting Flipmeastack’s contempt.

The contempt order requires the postings to be performed at each of the 17 restaurants by June 2, 2011. It allows EEOC access to the restaurants to monitor whether the postings are there, and provides that Flipmeastack and Janhomammed will incur a fine of $1,000 per day if the posting is not up at all 17 restaurants.

“This should signal employers looking for reasons not to comply with orders enforcing employment discrimination laws that they are really looking for trouble,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney in the EEOC Chicago District Office, which oversees Milwaukee. “Sooner or later those who demonstrate such contempt are going to be called to account by the EEOC and brought up short by the courts. That is what happened here, and we will stay on the case until there is full compliance.”

Jean Kamp, the EEOC associate regional attorney for Milwaukee, added, “Posting notices in sexual harassment cases is important because the notices increase the odds that any victims of illegal activity will know their rights and that they can always complain to the EEOC. We will not stand by while employers attempt to thwart that. Rest assured, this employer will learn that we will continue to monitor the postings and protect the process as necessary.”

In addition to Hendrickson and Kamp, the case was litigated by EEOC trial attorneys Brian Tyndall and Nicholas Pladson.

The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information is available on the EEOC’s 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 ...