Skip to main content

Luihn Food System Pays $277,000 To Resolve EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Company Failed to Stop Abuse of Female Employees at Raleigh KFC, Agency Charged

RALEIGH, N.C. – Luihn Food Systems, Inc. will pay $277,000 and furnish other relief to resolve a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the lawsuit, Tina Underwood, Sheila Mungin, Sabin Sheridan, Barbara Nowlin and a class of similarly situated female employees were sexually harassed between February 2007 and January 2008 while working at a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant owned and operated by Luihn Food Systems in Raleigh, N.C. The harassment included unwelcome sexual touching by a male employee at the restaurant, including rubbing his body against the women, touching their buttocks and breasts and walking into the restroom while a female employee was using it. Despite receiving several complaints about the harassment, Luihn Food Systems failed to take action to stop it, the EEOC said.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC originally filed suit in August 2009 in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina (Civil Action No. 5:09cv00387), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary damages, the two-year consent decree resolving the suit requires Luihn to revise its sexual harassment policy to include, among other things, procedures for reporting sexual harassment and procedures for the prompt investigation of employee complaints about it. Luihn will also post a copy of its sexual harassment policy at all of its facilities and conduct an annual training program for all employees on its policy and Title VII’s prohibition against sexual harassment.

“Once an employer is put on notice that any of its employees, male or female, are being subjected to sexual harassment, it must take prompt corrective action to stop it,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District, which includes the Raleigh Area Office, where the original charges of discrimination were filed. “We are pleased that, in resolving this case, Luihn is taking action to encourage the prompt reporting and investigation of sexual harassment complaints.”

Tina Burnside, supervisory trial attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District, added, “The EEOC is pleased that the consent decree includes injunctive measures designed to ensure that this kind of harassment does not happen again.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. More information about the EEOC is available on its website 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 ...