Skip to main content

EEOC Wins Jury Verdict for Retaliation Victims at Atlanta-Area Restaurant

Waitress and Three Family Members Fired for Reporting Misconduct, Federal Agency Charged

ATLANTA – A federal jury has awarded $51,700 in back pay, compensatory and punitive damages to four family members who were fired for resisting sexual harassment at a Tucker, Ga., restaurant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Lauren Goldston, a waitress for Sangria’s Mexican CafĂ©, engaged in protected activity when she opposed and complained about unwelcome sexual advances, remarks, and inappropriate touching by a male cook at the restaurant. Lauren Goldston’s mother, Sara, aunt, Francesca, and uncle, Max, also worked at Sangria’s. They all reported the sexual harassment to Sangria’s’ owner on several occasions, the EEOC said, but nothing was done by the company to remedy the hostile work environment. Instead of ending the harassment, the EEOC charged, Sangria’s terminated all of the Goldstons in retaliation for reporting the misconduct.

The Atlanta jury of eight returned a unanimous verdict finding that the claimants were entitled to back pay in the amount of $4,000, as the Goldstons largely mitigated their back pay damages by finding other employment after they were fired. The jury also awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $22,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $15,700.

“This verdict is significant because it indicates to employers that, regardless of their size, they must afford their employees the statutorily protected right to oppose unlawful discrimination without the fear of retaliation,” said Bernice Williams Kimbrough, district director for the Atlanta District Office.

Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC in Atlanta, added, “Suing a small employer is a difficult proposition. However, the EEOC pursued this case to prevent similar acts of retaliation from recurring. In this case, the jury did a fabulous job. Their verdict was fair, thoughtful and well reasoned as they attempted to balance compensating the Goldstons on one hand while ensuring the economic viability of the restaurant going forward.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing 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 ...