Skip to main content

SunTrust Bank Sued by EEOC in Class Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

TAMPA, Fla. – SunTrust Banks, Inc., one of the nation’s largest providers of financial services, violated federal law when a branch manager sexually harassed three female employees at its Sarasota, Fla., Gulf Gate Branch Office location, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s class suit, SunTrust’s branch manager inappropriately touched female employees and made lewd and unwelcomed comments to them about their anatomy, sex life and dating habits. The EEOC alleges that on one occasion, the branch manager suggested that a female financial services representative put on a bathing suit to attract new customers.

The EEOC complaint alleges that the women were offended and intimidated by the harassment. Several women complained to SunTrust management, including SunTrust’s human resources department. SunTrust failed to take appropriate action to properly remedy the situation.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 8:12 cv-1325 33MAP) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, after attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

Atlanta-based SunTrust employs approximately 28,000 people nationwide and operates more than 1,665 branches.

“Under Title VII, employers are responsible for protecting their workers against sexual harassment,” said Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Miami District Office. “When these employees attempted to complain to the proper corporate managers about the ongoing unlawful behavior of their branch manager, their complaints were ignored. This is wrong and illegal.”

The EEOC’s Miami District director, Malcolm Medley, added, “The EEOC is committed to ensuring a workplace free of harassment and discrimination. No employee should have to endure sexual harassment in the workplace.”

The Miami District Office’s jurisdiction includes Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands.
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