Skip to main content

EEOC Sues Insurance Firm Sterling and Sterling for Retaliation

Long Island Company Fired Employee After Receiving EEOC Charge, Federal Agency Alleges

NEW YORK – Sterling and Sterling, a Woodbury, N.Y., insurance broker, violated federal anti-discrimination law when it suspended and fired a sales telemarketer for filing an EEOC questionnaire and charge, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, in September 2009, while she was on maternity leave, Rochelle Legette filled out an EEOC questionnaire alleging race and sex discrimination, which was sent to Sterling and Sterling. When she returned to work on February 1, 2010, Sterling and Sterling immediately began scrutinizing her work--she was counseled for poor performance only three days later. Citing the fact that she had made allegations to the EEOC, Sterling and Sterling suspended her on February 19, and fired her two weeks later.

This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Civil Action No. CV-11-4786) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court.

“Federal law protects persons who file EEOC charges, and the Supreme Court has said that an EEOC questionnaire is the same as a charge,” said Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney of the EEOC New York District Office. “Employers cannot retaliate against employees simply because they come to the EEOC.”

Michael J. O’Brien, Senior Trial Attorney in the New York District Office, added that “Although Ms. Legette received good evaluations before she filed her charge, Sterling and Sterling fired her a month after her return to work.”

The EEOC’s New York District Office has jurisdiction over Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and portions of New Jersey.

The EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws in employment. Further information about the EEOC is available 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