Skip to main content

Access Services, Inc. Breached Mediation Agreement, EEOC Charges

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – A Charlotte, N.C.-based operator of janitorial services violated federal law when it failed to abide by the terms of a voluntary mediation settlement agreement it entered into with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the EEOC charged in a lawsuit filed today.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, on October 20, 2009, Access Services, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement with the EEOC and Luis Rodriguez, a former employee, to settle a charge of employment discrimination filed by Rodriguez. As part of that agreement, the company agreed to pay $6,000 in a monetary relief to Rodriguez. The company has failed to make full payment, despite the fact the EEOC modified the payment terms twice at the company’s request.

After first attempting to resolve the matter informally, the EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Access Services, Inc., 3:11-cv-00334), in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division. The agency seeks payment of the outstanding balance and appropriate injunctive relief.

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution or ADR that is offered by the EEOC as an alternative to the agency’s traditional investigative process. The mediation process allows the individual who filed a charge - called a “charging party" - and the company against whom the charge was filed, to meet and try to work out their differences with the assistance of a neutral mediator. The process is informal and voluntary, and both parties must agree to participate. The goal is to complete the mediation with a voluntary, negotiated resolution of the subject charge.

“When a company signs a settlement agreement with the EEOC and a charging party - whether the agreement occurs during mediation, investigation, or conciliation - the EEOC expects the company to honor such an agreement,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “Companies that voluntarily agree to settle a charge and then renege, will find that the EEOC taking all appropriate steps - including suit - to ensure that they comply with settlement agreements.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC and its mediation program 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 ...