Skip to main content

Home Care Agency Fired Three Employees for Sexual Harassment Complaints, Federal Agency Charges

ST. LOUIS – Help at Home, Inc., a company that provides home health care to elderly and disabled individuals in their homes, violated federal law by allowing the company’s regional director to sexually harass employees, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a discrimination lawsuit filed today. The company also unlawfully fired the victims and their supervisor for complaining, the EEOC said.

According to the EEOC’s suit, in early September 2009, Kari McConnell and Jaclyn Stone, two employees at Help at Home’s Hillsboro, Mo., office, complained to Sherry Schroetter, branch manager of the site, that Regional Director Chris Qualls sexually harassed them. The harassment is alleged to have included graphic sexual comments made to both McConnell and Stone, particularly of sexual acts that Qualls performed with another employee at the worksite. After Schroetter complained to Vice President Rick Cantrell on behalf of her subordinates, all three were terminated.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from allowing a sexually hostile environment in the workplace. It also protects employees from retaliation based on their complaints about violations of the law. The EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Help at Home, Inc.) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-01498, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“We’re well into the 21st century, and by now all employers should be well aware that women must be allowed to work in an environment free of harassment based on sex,” said Barbara A. Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District. “The employer must also support employees who come forward to try to complain about sexual harassment and not retaliate against them. The EEOC is committed to eliminating sexual harassment and retaliation for protected activities from the workplace.”
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