Skip to main content

Hal Leonard to Pay $150,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Charge

Class of Female Employees at Music Publisher Endured Physical and Verbal Abuse, Federal Agency Charged

MINNEAPOLIS – Hal Leonard Publishing Company, a music print publishing company founded in Winona, Minn., has agreed to pay $150,000 to a class of female employees to settle a sexual harassment charge brought against the company by a former employee, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

An investigation by the EEOC’s Minneapolis Area Office revealed that women were subjected to unwelcome grabbing and squeezing as well as sex-based comments and actions at Hal Leonard’s facility in Winona, a city of 50,000 in southeast Minnesota. The harassment was perpetrated by co-workers and, despite multiple complaints to Hal Leonard management, the misconduct did not cease. Following an investigation of the discrimination charge, the EEOC determined that there was reasonable cause to believe the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“An employer who has a sexual harassment policy on paper but fails to enforce it is placing itself at great risk, said Julie Schmid, acting director of the EEOC’s Minneapolis Area Office. “Employers need to take sexual harassment allegations seriously. We are pleased that Hal Leonard worked cooperatively with us to resolve this charge without having to go through protracted litigation.”

In addition to paying a total of $150,000 to a class of victims, Hal Leonard will (1) provide an apology to the former employee who filed the original discrimination charge; (2) conduct annual anti-discrimination training for three years which the EEOC may observe; (3) provide the EEOC with documentation of an accountability provision in performance evaluations of managers, supervisors and lead employees; and (4) provide the EEOC with documentation of all sexual harassment complaints for three years.

The EEOC’s Minneapolis Area Office is part of the Chicago District Office, which has jurisdiction over Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North and South Dakota. The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the commission can be found 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 ...