Skip to main content

Roy Farms Sued by EEOC for Male-on-Male Sexual Harassment

SEATTLE - Eastern Washington grower Roy Farms violated federal law by allowing a supervisor to sexually harass male laborers, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The federal agency alleged that, for nearly two years, the male general manager constantly barraged male workers with inappropriate comments that were both sexual and threatening. He touched them in a sexual manner and asked them to look at him while he urinated in public. According to the EEOC, farm worker Martin Barrera first raised objections to the harasser himself, and then reported the matter to a former supervisor as well as the owner of the farm. When nothing was done to stop the harassment, and he believed his physical safety was in danger, Barrera felt he had no option but to quit, the EEOC said.

"I have worked in the farm industry for many years, and I had never before faced such extreme abuse," said Barrera. "I want this lawsuit to ensure that other farm workers don't have to experience the same mistreatment."

Harassment of employees based on their race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy or religion violates Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. After first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through conciliation, the EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Roy Farms, Inc., CV-12-03117-TOR.) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of Barrera and other male victims, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of notices at the work site, and other injunctive relief.

Michael Baldonado, director of the EEOC's San Francisco District, which includes Washington State, said, "Roy Farms had a duty to keep its employees safe, and to respond to their complaints. It failed on both accounts."

EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo added, "These were hardworking men who simply wanted to be able to come to work and earn their living. Because of this manager's sexual intimidation and the company's refusal to take corrective action, Mr. Barrera was forced to choose between his personal safety and dignity and his job. No one should have to make that kind of choice, and the EEOC will defend workers' rights to a workplace free from harassment."

Roy Farms is based in Moxee, Wash., and produces apples, cherries, blueberries and hops.

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 ...