Skip to main content

Crime Scene Cleaners Sued For Sex Bias

OAKLAND, Calif. — Oakland-based Crime Scene Cleaners, a trauma scene cleaning company specializing in homicide, suicide and accidental death scene cleanup operations, violated federal law by refusing to hire a qualified female applicant because of her gender, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The federal agency asserts that Kristi Nunez responded to an advertisement by Crime Scene and applied for a position as a crime scene cleaner in November 2006. Although clearly qualified for the position, Nunez was asked a series of questions during her job interview that indicated she was not viewed as an appropriate candidate for the job because she is female, said the EEOC. Nunez was not hired, and the company hired a man for the position instead. The EEOC’s lawsuit also charges the company with failure to keep records as required by law, so that equal opportunity hiring records can be checked.

“At the interview, I was hoping to talk about my educational background in chemistry and my experience with crime scenes from volunteering with the Richmond police department, but all the interviewer wanted to talk about was if I was married, if I had a jealous husband, and if I could work with all men,” said Nunez. “I expected questions about my qualifications for the job, not about my personal life.”

Discrimination based on gender violates Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. After first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through conciliation, the EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Crime Scene Cleaners, Inc.) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of Nunez, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of anti-discrimination notices at the work site, and other steps to prevent future discrimination.

EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “Stereotyping jobs as ‘women’s work’ or ‘men’s work’ is illegal and simply wrong in a modern workplace. Employers must look at an applicant’s qualifications, not gender.”

EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado added, “Failing to keep records will not deter the EEOC from investigating discrimination. As in this case, we will enforce the federal EEO laws that require employers to keep records concerning hiring decisions, and hold responsible the employers who fail to do so.”

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 ...