Skip to main content

EEOC Sues AT&T for Race, Sex and Retaliation Discrimination

JONESBORO, Ark. – AT&T d/b/a Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (AT&T) violated federal law by discharging Antonnett Johnson because of her sex (female), race (black), and in retaliation for her complaints of discriminatory treatment by co-workers and customers, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

The EEOC’s lawsuit (Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00196, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division), asserts that AT&T subjected Antonnett Johnson, a technician who repaired and installed telephones in Jonesboro, Arkansas, to unequal terms and conditions of employment because of her sex and race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC alleges that the company reprimanded Johnson on several occasions and discharged her, but it did not terminate a white male co-worker who committed the same offenses. In addition, the EEOC alleges that the company violated Title VII because it retaliated against Ms. Johnson when she complained that customers and co-workers subjected her to discriminatory comments and treatment based on her sex and race.

The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The agency’s lawsuit seeks monetary relief in the form of back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement, and an injunction against future discrimination, among other items.

Katharine W. Kores, the EEOC’s District Director in Memphis, said, "It is a serious violation of Title VII to discharge an employee based on sex and race. Further, retaliation is an issue of special concern to the EEOC. It is simply illegal to fire some one for reporting unlawful discrimination. Employees must be able to complain about practices which they believe violate the law without fear of retribution.”

AT&T, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a large holding company providing connected devices and a host of other emerging products. Southwestern Bell Company is diversified telecommunication companies, incorporated in Tennessee.

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