Skip to main content

ATK to Pay $100,000 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination Case

MINNEAPOLIS - Alliant Techsystems, Inc. (ATK), a Minnesota-based company that is one of the nation's largest aerospace and defense manufacturers, will pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC's suit, Tyeastia Green applied for a job at its Eden Prairie, Minn., location, where she would provide technical or IT support for ATK executives. Although a recruiter for ATK initially told her that she had gotten the job, ATK rejected her and hired a white male instead. The EEOC contended that the reasons given by ATK for its decision were a pretext for race discrimination.

Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the suit requires that ATK pay $100,000 to Green and engage in extensive equitable relief. Among other things, ATK is enjoined from further discriminating in hiring based on race and from retaliating against persons who oppose practices made unlawful under Title VII. It will review its workplace policies to assure that they comply with Title VII and the record- keeping laws, and, particularly, review a policy that pertains to maintenance of interview notes. It will train its entire staff on the laws against discrimination. The decree will last three years and apply to ATK's headquarters in Minnesota and in Virginia.

"We found it was clear that ATK rejected Green because of the color of her skin, and not because of her skills, and that's illegal as well as unjust," said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC's Chicago district. "We congratulate the company for agreeing to the terms of this decree, particularly the non-monetary relief, which will protect and benefit its employees."

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 ...