Skip to main content

Terminix and ServiceMaster Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $140,000

PHOENIX – Major exterminating company Terminix and its parent company, ServiceMaster, will pay $140,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that two female employees at a Terminix facility in Salt Lake City were repeatedly sexually harassed by a supervisor.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that other supervisors were aware of the misconduct but failed to address it. The allegations included claims that the victims’ supervisor suggested to the female employees that they not wear tops to work, wear nothing but Vaseline to work and should be strippers so they could give him a lap dance. The harasser’s supervisor was also aware of the sexual harassment, the EEOC said, but failed to report or correct it.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Employers have a responsibility to take appropriate action when they learn of sexual harassment in the workplace, to both remedy the harassment that already has occurred and to prevent future harassment,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary O’Neill. “No employee should ever be subjected to this kind of abuse. Every employee should know that they do not have to put up with any type of discrimination – period – in order to work. I am pleased that this employer stepped up and settled this case early in the litigation process.”

In addition to monetary relief, the 36-month consent decree settling the suit requires Terminix and ServiceMaster to review, revise, post and disseminate their anti-discrimination policies and procedures; and provide training on sexual harassment and retaliation to all employees and managers at the Terminix branch locations in Utah. The decree further requires Terminix to post a notice in the workplace explaining Title VII, employee rights and employer obligations under the statute, and to promptly and appropriately respond to all complaints of sex discrimination and/or retaliation.

EEOC Trial Attorney Richard Sexton, who handled the case, said, “Employers should be on notice that merely having anti-harassment policies is not sufficient to avoid Title VII liability. Employers must be committed to a workplace free of sexual harassment, which may be demonstrated by appropriate training, policies, and enforcement of those policies.”

EEOC District Director Rayford Irvin added, “When employers subject people to sexual harassment, they are violating federal law. The EEOC will continue to aggressively pursue employers who fail to prevent or promptly correct sexual harassment at their workplaces.”

According to company information, Terminix International Company is a leading provider of termite and pest control services in the United States, serving both residential and commercial customers. Terminix has a worldwide network of locations, including 864 service centers throughout the United States and in 14 countries around the world. Terminix is a wholly owned subsidiary of ServiceMaster, which is based in Memphis, Tenn., and a part of the ServiceMaster Quality Service Network.

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 ...