Skip to main content

Captain's Galley Settles EEOC Male-on-Male Sexual Harassment Suit

Restaurant to Pay $86,000 to Former Male Employees Who Were Subjected to Abuse by Male Co-Worker

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Huntersville Seafood, Inc., doing business as Captain’s Galley restaurant, will pay $86,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced late yesterday.

The settlement marks the resolution of the EEOC’s lawsuit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Peter Economos v. Huntersville Seafood Inc., d/b/a Captain’s Galley; in the Western District of North Carolina, Civil Action 3:10-cv-00624), which charged that Peter Economos and other male employees were sexually harassed by a male coworker at Captain’s Galley, a seafood restaurant in Huntersville, N.C. Specifically, the EEOC said that Economos and other male employees were touched on the buttocks, nipples, and testicles and were subjected to almost daily sexual gestures and comments between 2007 and 2008. Despite complaints Economos and the other employees made to the restaurant’s owner, the harassment continued and after Economos complained about the harassment, he was ultimately discharged, the EEOC charged. (See, related story)

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When an employer terminates or disciplines an employee because the employee complains about workplace discrimination, the employer further violates Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.

In addition to paying $86,000 in monetary damages to Economos and three other former male employees, the three-year consent decree settling the case provides, among other things, for sexual harassment training for managers and employees; requires Captain’s Galley to adopt a policy preventing sexual harassment; and requires that the restaurant report information about its employment practices and any sexual harassment complaints periodically to the EEOC.

“This settlement is a great result for Mr. Economos and the other victims of the harassment,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “This case serves as a reminder to employers that sexual harassment can occur between employees of the same sex and must be addressed if it occurs,” Barnes continued.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. 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 ...