Skip to main content

Resource Residential Pays $335,000 To Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

ATLANTA – Resource Real Estate Management, Inc., doing business as Resource Residential, will pay $335,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC charged that Resource Residential, a property management corporation that manages over 12,000 units at multi-family properties in at least 15 states, including four properties in the Savannah, Ga., area, unlawfully subjected three management-level employees, ages 53, 60 and 64, to discrimination by firing them because of their ages and subsequently hiring 14 employees under the age of 40 to support its effort to create a younger image.

Such alleged conduct violates Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit in September 2010 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the suit, in addition to the monetary relief of $335,000, includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting, and anti-discrimination postings. In the suit and consent decree, Resource Residential denied any liability or wrongdoing.

“We are glad to see this matter settled without protracted litigation,” said Bernice Williams-Kimbrough, director of the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “Employers should expect that whenever an employee's civil rights are violated, the EEOC will protect those rights.”

“Not only is age discrimination plainly illegal, it’s unjustifiable and bad for business,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “This resolution is another step toward eradicating the practice of wasting talent simply because of age.”

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 ...