Skip to main content

EEOC Wins Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Retaliation Against Pitre, Inc. Employees

Federal Court Issues ‘Extraordinary Remedy’ in Class Male-on-Male Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit Filed Against Albuquerque Car Dealership

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Pitre Inc., a car dealership in Albuquerque, N.M., was barred on January 26, 2012 by the U.S. District Court from threatening or retaliating against current and former employees who participate in the employment discrimination lawsuit filed against it by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction due to the immediate danger of “substantial and irreparable injury” to charging parties, class members, witnesses, and potential class members due to intimidation.

Chief United States District Court Judge Bruce Black, who granted the EEOC’s motion, prohibited the Pitre dealership and all of its agents from threatening or engaging in retaliatory actions against all current and former employees who participate in the lawsuit filed by the EEOC against Pitre, Inc. Under the preliminary injunction, the dealership and all of its agents, except the dealership’s attorneys, are prohibited from contacting current non-management employees or former employees regarding the facts and/or defenses in the lawsuit without an EEOC attorney present. Judge Black also affirmatively directed the dealership to instruct its employees that it is unlawful to engage in retaliatory actions against any current or former employee based upon their participation in the lawsuit.

The EEOC filed the underlying lawsuit on behalf of a class of male employees, who were allegedly subjected to egregious sexual harassment and retaliation over a ten-year period. The EEOC contends that Pitre, Inc. engaged in unlawful behavior after the filing of the lawsuit by threatening witnesses, offering witnesses money in exchange for their agreement not to participate in the lawsuit, encouraging local dealerships to engage in retaliatory acts, such as refusing to hire former Pitre employees, and intimidating current employees by creating a work environment that was permeated with retaliation.

“We are very pleased by this court order. Our laws mandate that people should be free to assert their civil rights without retribution. We hope that our witnesses, class members, potential class members, and charging parties will now be safe from any retaliation for participating in this lawsuit,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site 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 ...