Skip to main content

Health Management Group to Pay $260,000 to Settle EEOC Wage Discrimination Suit

CLEVELAND — Health Management Group, Inc. (HMG) of Akron, Ohio will pay $260,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s suit charged that Krishna McCollins and Donna Davidson, both directors of franchise development, were paid less than a male who performed substantially equal work for HMG. Such sex-based wage discrimination violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit, EEOC v. HMG, et al., Civil Action No. 5:09CV01762, was filed by the EEOC in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Akron, after the agency first attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. In addition to monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit provides for training for all of HMG’s employees, managers, and supervisors on employee rights and employers’ obligations under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII and requires HMG to post an anti-discrimination notice to all employees.

The decree also requires that HMG revamp its non-discrimination policies; implement discrimination complaint procedures; maintain records regarding complaints of discrimination received by HMG representatives; promote manager and supervisor accountability with regard to HMG’s anti-discrimination policies; and provide annual reports to the EEOC during the decree’s 30-month term. “The EEOC will not tolerate discriminatory pay practices,” said Debra Lawrence, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Philadelphia District.

“We are proud to announce this settlement, which comes in the wake of Equal Pay Day, an annual event which promotes public awareness of the continuing gender wage gap.” Equal Pay Day, which occurs on April 17, marks the end of the extra period of time that woman must work on the average in order to earn what a man did the year before. Source: 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 ...