Skip to main content

Fremont Toyota Pays $400,000 to Settle EEOC’s Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit

SAN FRANCISCO — Fremont, Calif., car dealership Fremont Toyota agreed to pay $400,000 and implement training for the dealership’s management staff to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that Fremont Toyota’s general manager singled out four Afghan American salesmen during a staff meeting, calling them “terrorists” and threatening them with violence. After the men reported the harassment, they faced retaliation by the car dealership, such as additional verbal harass­ment and extra job scrutiny. Finally, the salesmen felt they had no option but to resign. An Afghan-American manager was also fired from his job after he spoke up for the four salesmen.

"The irony of this matter is that, after being labeled ‘terrorists’ at our old job, most of us found work with the U.S. military serving in Afghanistan protecting U.S. soldiers from the terrorists," said Mohammad Sawary, one of the former employees.

Harassment based on national origin and retaliation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After an investigation by EEOC Investigators Scott Doughtie and Adriana Gomez, and after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through conciliation, the EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Fremont Automobile Dealership LLC, dba Fremont Toyota, Civil No. 11-4131 CRB) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Under the terms of the decree resolving the lawsuit, Fremont Toyota agreed to train all managers, post a notice regarding the lawsuit and to report to the EEOC for a three-year period, in addition to paying $400,000 to the five former employees.

EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, "We hope this case clearly signals that the civil rights laws of this country protect everyone from illegal discrimination, regardless of their national origin.”

EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado noted that the Bay Area is the home of the largest Afghan population outside of Afghanistan.

Baldonado said, “We hope this settlement makes more people in the Afghan community aware of their rights and how the EEOC can protect them as we continue our outreach to underserved communities.”

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 ...