Skip to main content

Mid Valley Labor Services Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit Agency Obtains $150,000 On Behalf of Latina Vineyard Workers

SAN FRANCISCO – Mid Valley Labor Services, Inc., a statewide farm labor contractor with hundreds of employees, will pay $150,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, female employees working in grape vineyards in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties faced sexually explicit language and propositions by their male crew supervisor. The EEOC further charged that two women who objected to the harassment were fired.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed the lawsuit (Civil No. CV-10-2560 JCS) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after an investigation by EEOC Investigator Margarita Hossaini-Zadeh and first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation.

Under the provisions of the consent decree settling the suit, Mid Valley agreed to pay workers $150,000 in damages. The company will also provide yearly sexual harassment training of its employees by an outside consultant; revise its sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure; assure supervisor accountability for preventing sexual harassment and retaliation; and regularly report to the EEOC regarding harassment complaints.

“The agricultural industry, with a largely immigrant workforce, employs many women who are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment,” said EEOC Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo. “The requirements of this consent decree should serve as an example and encourage other employers to be proactive in preventing sexual harassment before they have a problem.”

EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado added, “This case was referred to us by the Mexican Consulate. The EEOC will definitely continue to partner with community resources and organizations to fight harassment and discrimination, and to assure that workers report problems without fearing retaliation.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the agency is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more