Skip to main content

Big Lots Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $155,000

FORT SMITH, Ark. -- Big Lots Stores, Inc., which operates the Big Lots store at 4900 Rogers Ave. in Fort Smith, will pay $155,000 to four claimants and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the male store manager of the Fort Smith store subjected a class of female employees to sexual harassment, including sexually offensive comments and requests for sexual favors. The lawsuit further charged that after a female employee reported the sexual harassment, Big Lots failed to take the appropriate remedial measures necessary to protect its employees from continued sexual harassment, as the law requires.

Sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division (EEOC v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2:11-CV-02184-PKH) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Besides the monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit includes:


Provisions for redistribution of Big Lots' harassment-free environment policy;

Mandatory anti-discrimination training;

Notice of the settlement to all Big Lots employees in its Fort Smith store; and

Requirements that the company report future complaints of sexual harassment to the EEOC for one year.

"Employers must realize that merely having and disseminating an anti-harassment policy is insufficient to satisfy Title VII requirements -- the policy must be enforced," said Regional Attorney Faye Williams of the EEOC's Memphis District Office, which serves Tennessee, Arkansas and Northern Mississippi. "When the policy is not enforced, employers risk liability."

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 ...