Golf International to Pay $25,000 to Settle EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit

PHOENIX – A Fountain Hills, Ariz.- based golf course and restaurant has agreed to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that charged the company with retaliation in violation of federal law, the agency announced today. The EEOC’s suit charged that Golf International violated civil rights law when it fired Jeffrey White one day after he submitted an internal complaint reporting that several female employees felt they had been sexually harassed by the head chef. After White filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, the company offered to hire White back if he dropped his EEOC charge. Golf International later rehired White, but terminated him again several weeks later, the EEOC said. Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The 48-month consent decree settling the suit, entered by Judge David G. Campbell, requires Golf International to pay $25,000 to White, provide ongoing training to its employees regarding unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation, and to review and revise, as necessary, its policies related to workplace discrimination. The decree also requires Golf International to post notices in the workplace explaining federal civil rights laws generally and employees’ specific rights to be free of harassment and retaliation on the job. “Employment discrimination cannot be stopped or corrected if employees do not feel free to report it,” EEOC Phoenix Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill said. “The law’s protections against retaliation are absolutely critical to enforcement of employees’ civil rights. We are pleased that Golf International worked cooperatively with us to resolve this case and that they will train their current and future employees that discrimination and retaliation are unlawful and will not be tolerated. We are hopeful that this agreement will help promote a discrimination-free workplace going forward.” EEOC Phoenix District Director Rayford O. Irvin said, “We are committed to fighting discrimination in all its forms, and we continue to see an increase in the number of employees complaining of retaliation. Employers must know that the law protects employees who report discriminatory treatment to their employers or the EEOC.” The EEOC’s Phoenix District has jurisdiction over Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and part of New Mexico. The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

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 ...

New York Paralegal Blog

Search This Blog