Skip to main content

EEOC Sues Trinity Medical Center for Sexual Harassment, Retaliation

ROCK ISLAND, Ill. - Trinity Medical Center in Rock Island, Ill., violated federal law when it permitted the sexual harassment of an employee and then fired her for complaining about it, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to EEOC, the administrative investigation it conducted prior to the lawsuit revealed that Deborah Chisholm had been subjected to hostile, abusive and lewd comments and had complained repeatedly to management. Instead of addressing the problem, the EEOC said, the company terminated her in retaliation.

Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit is captioned EEOC v. Trinity Medical Center, C.D. Illinois No. 4:12-cv-4085 and has been assigned to District Judge Sara Darrow. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction prohibiting harassment and discrimin­ation in the future.

"Trinity brought its current troubles upon itself," said John Rowe, the EEOC's district director in Chicago, who managed the investigation. "First, it permitted the sexual harassment, then it compounded that problem by firing the victim who, rightfully, was complaining."

John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, said, "Employers ought to learn from this case. Any employment discrimination problem -- sexual harassment or anything else -- can always be made worse and more injurious to the conduct of the employer's business. Retaliation is guaranteed to do that. It never makes sense, it is never good for business, and it is always illegal."

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 ...