Skip to main content

WirelessComm to Pay $97,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

SAN JOSE, Calif. - WirelessComm, a distributor for the Metro PCS cell phone service provider, will pay $97,000 and provide other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, a male store manager subjected then-19-year-old Deisy Mora to abuse throughout her employment, including offensive sexual comments and unsolicited texts and photos. Mora's complaints were not addressed and she eventually quit her job when she could no longer endure the harassment.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as state laws. The EEOC filed this suit (EEOC & Mora v. WirelessComm et al Case No. C 11-04796 EJD) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after an investigation conducted by EEOC investigator Rosa Salazar and first attempting to reach voluntary settlement out of court. Mora also intervened in the EEOC's lawsuit as an individual plaintiff represented by private attorneys Jonathan Gettleman and Eric Nelson of Santa Cruz, Calif.

Under the consent decree resolving this lawsuit, WirelessComm has also agreed to hire an equal employment opportunity consultant and a human resources consultant to revise its EEO policies; train the owner and staff regarding anti-discrimination laws; monitor the workplace; respond to any allegations of harassment arising during the pendency of the decree; and report harassment complaints to the EEOC. The court will retain jurisdiction of the decree for three years.

"It is critical for employers to ensure that their managers do not step outside the law," said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo. "Employers should be particularly vigilant in protecting teenagers from discrimination given their vulnerability in the work force."
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