Skip to main content

Sac Griffith / Pepe’s Mexican Restaurant Sued for Sexual Harassment and Pregnancy Bias

INDIANAPOLIS – The owner of SAC Griffith, Inc., doing business as Pepe’s Mexican Restaurant of Griffith, Ind., sexually harassed a hostess and then terminated her due to her pregnancy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The suit, EEOC v. SAC Griffith, Inc., d/b/a Pepe’s Mexican Restaurant, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-295, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, argues that the company’s actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, including pregnancy. This is not the first time the EEOC has sued this company. In a previous lawsuit, filed in 2002, the agency alleged that the owner subjected a class of women to sexual harassment and forced them out of their jobs. That lawsuit settled in 2004 for $90,000.

The EEOC is seeking compensatory and punitive damages against the company, as well as other relief, including a permanent injunction to prevent the company from engaging in any further employment practice that discriminates on the basis of sex. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Employees should not have to tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace,” said Laurie A. Young, regional attorney of the Indianapolis District Office. “Furthermore, employees who become pregnant should not lose their jobs because of their condition. The EEOC will vigorously prosecute employers who engage in pregnancy discrimination or other forms of sex discrimination.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more