Skip to main content

Forrest City Grocery Company To Pay $125,000 To Settle EEOC Sex Discrimination Suit

FORREST CITY, Ark. -- Forrest City Grocery Company, a distributor of tobacco and grocery items to retail and convenience stores in six states, has agreed to pay $125,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC alleged that Forrest City Grocery, doing business as Dixie Tobacco & Candy Company in Shaw, Miss., now closed, denied sales positions to an employee because she is a woman.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the company told Amanda McMillan the job of a salesman was too dangerous for a woman, and that she would not be a good mother if she were on the road meeting customers. The lawsuit charges that Forrest City Grocery paid McMillan less than men doing the same work.

Sex discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Mississippi (EEOC v. Forrest City Grocery Company, Civil Action No.2:10-cv-00166), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Besides the monetary damages, the company also agreed to be monitored by the EEOC, to disseminate employment policies to employees, and provide ongoing training for management on sex discrimination.

“Women make valuable contributions to the work force, yet they are too often denied opportunities at work based on gender stereotypes and old-fashioned ideas about a woman’s proper place,” said Birmingham District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas. “Employers must ensure they, and their managers, are in compliance with the law for the benefit of themselves and their employees.”

C. Emanuel Smith, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office, commented, “The EEOC is committed to ensuring that employers do not discriminate against women because of their sex. This lawsuit again demonstrates the EEOC’s ongoing commitment to eliminating sex bias in the workplace. Forrest City’s agreement to train managers on preventing discrimination is a big step in the right direction.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. The EEOC’s Birmingham District includes Alabama, Mississippi (except 17 northern counties) and the Florida Panhandle. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website 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 ...