Skip to main content

EEOC Sues Staffing Agency for Sex Harassment, Retaliation, and Assigning Workers Based on Sex

CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a class lawsuit yesterday alleging that Source One Staffing, Inc. (“Source One”) assigned female employees to a known hostile work environment and retaliated against two female employees who reported that their supervisor was making sexual advances toward them. The EEOC also claims that Source One categorized jobs as “men’s work” or “women’s work” and assigned employees accordingly.

John Rowe, the EEOC’s district director in Chicago, said the agency’s investigation uncovered direct evidence of sex stereotyping in Source One’s job assignment practices. “Title VII prohibits employment agencies from failing or refusing to refer employees for temporary job assignments because of their sex,” said Rowe. “This includes a duty not to comply with discriminatory requests from its clients for workers of only one sex.”

The EEOC filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement with Source One through its statutory conciliation process. The case, EEOC v. Source One Staffing, Inc., No. 11-cv-06754, was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and has been assigned to Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour and Trial Attorney Grayson S. Walker will litigate the case on behalf of the EEOC.

John Hendrickson, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago, said, “Employment agencies must exercise caution when sending workers on temporary job assignments. When a temporary worker is harassed, Title VII requires both the staffing agency and its client to take corrective actions. A staffing agency cannot continue to send women into a known hostile work environment or place blind trust in its client to remedy the situation. Our investigation suggests that Source One ignored reports of sex harassment and then retaliated against two women whose complaints were too loud to ignore.”

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available 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 ...