Skip to main content

Trinity Health Corporation Sued by EEOC for Retaliation

INDIANAPOLIS – Trinity Health Corporation violated federal law by retaliating against employees who file or refuse to drop discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency charged in a lawsuit it filed today. Trinity Health is a national Catholic health care system which is the parent of St. Joseph Regional Medical Center, a North Central Indiana health care system.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Trinity Health has a policy of refusing to pay severance and/or discontinuing severance payments to workers who file or refuse to drop discrimination charges with the EEOC. The EEOC said Trinity Health refused to provide severance payments and benefits to Becky Thompson, an employee of St. Joseph Regional Medical Center, after learning that she had filed an EEOC charge. The number of other workers affected by this practice is unknown at this time.

Taking adverse actions against an employee who complains of discrimination, files an EEOC charge or otherwise exercises her rights under Title VII or the ADEA violates the retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC asserts that the company’s actions were intentional and demonstrated a reckless indifference to the workers’ federally protected rights.

The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 3:11-CV-309 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency is seeking severance payments plus interest, compensatory and punitive damages and liquidated damages against Trinity Health, as well as other relief, including a permanent injunction to prevent the company from engaging in any future retaliation.

“Employers are simply not entitled to punish employees -- or former employees -- for complaining about discrimination,” said Laurie A. Young, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Indianapolis District Office. “If they try to do so, they are only making a bad situation worse for themselves.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s 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