Skip to main content

Best Western Hotels in Tacoma and Federal Way to Pay $365,000 to Settle EEOC Suit for Harassment

SEATTLE — Hotel groups Pacific Hospitality and Seasons Hotel agreed to pay $365,000 and provide preventative measures to settle a federal harassment lawsuit by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that the general manager who worked at both the Best Western Evergreen Inn (formerly La Quinta Federal Way) and Best Western Tacoma Dome persistently harassed and denigrated women, including those who were minorities and had strong religious beliefs, in violation of federal law. According to the EEOC, female employees were subjected to the constant use of racial slurs and derogatory sex-based and racial comments, yelling and physical intimidation. One employee had a stapler thrown at her head while another was told she was nothing but a “welfare mother” and should abort her pregnancy.

The EEOC charged that the general manager also illegally fired five women after they revealed they were pregnant. For years, the employers permitted a widespread environment of severe disrespect toward female employees, allowing the general manager to act with impunity, the EEOC said.

Further, the EEOC said, the harasser belittled the various religious beliefs of employees. He suggested an employee have an abortion, for example, and when the employee said her religious beliefs do not permit abortion, the general manager told her that God was not a part of her life and should not be a factor in her decision to keep the pregnancy. He told another employee that she should have an abortion because she already had a child, and then told her that she was her own God and that she could control her own destiny. A third employee told him that she was a Christian, to which he responded, “Then you are weak-minded.” This employee said she believed the harasser made a special effort to make religious comments around her because he knew she was religious and wanted to bother her.

Harassment of employees due to sex, race, pregnancy and religion violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through conciliation, the EEOC filed the lawsuit (CV 10-05715 BHS) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma. Under the court-enforceable consent decree that resolved the lawsuit, Pacific Hospitality and Seasons Hotel will pay 11 victims a total of $365,000. For four years, the EEOC will monitor the hotels’ compliance with the decree’s other terms, including their agreement to immediately fire the general manager, re-employ two of the discrimination victims and make significant changes to policies. The hotels will also conduct training, create a human resources department and provide employees better avenues for complaint.

“The women in this case were trying to support their families—to keep the lights on and put food on the table,” said EEOC San Francisco District Office Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo. “Rather than being allowed to work, they were threatened, screamed at, subjected to sexist and racist slurs by upper management and had their religious beliefs belittled. Federal law protects employees from this type of degrading mistreatment.”

EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado added, “The harassment by the general manager in this case was shockingly hateful and affected the women who worked under him in very real and damaging ways. I am glad that the defendants finally took appropriate action and fired the harassing manager. It’s unfortunate that it took a federal lawsuit to spur this solution.”

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 ...