Skip to main content

Jury Rules for EEOC in Sexual Harassment Case Against the Finish Line

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A U.S. District Court Jury has found that a 38-year-old general manager at The Finish Line, Inc.'s Cool Springs Galleria store in Franklin, Tenn., subjected three female subordinates, who were 16 and 17 at the time, to severe sexual harassment, the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. The Finish Line is an Indianapolis-based company that sells athletic footwear, apparel and accessories.

The jury awarded the victims $30,000 in compensatory damages in a trial presided over by Chief District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr. In addition to compensatory damages, the parties also stipulated to an amount of back pay. Within 20 days, the EEOC will also file a motion with the court for injunctive relief against the defendant.

The lawsuit charged Finish Line with subjecting at least three female employees to unlawful sexual harassment. The agency also alleged that Finish Line forced the female employees to quit as a result of the sexually abusive working environment, and retaliated against one female employee by reducing her hours because she resisted the sexual harassment.

This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment based on sex and retaliation against those who protest it. The EEOC filed its lawsuit, Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00920, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, after first attempting to settle the matter through its conciliation process.

"This jury verdict reinforces the EEOC's continued commitment to securing fair and equal treatment for women of all ages in the workplace," said Faye A. Williams, EEOC regional attorney in Memphis District, which includes Tennessee, Arkansas and North Mississippi. "It also sends a clear message to employers that there is a price to pay for sexual harassment in the workplace."

Kenneth Anderson, EEOC lead trial attorney, said, "It is unfortunate that any woman has to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace, especially teenagers. Equally reprehensible is the fact that the harassment was at the hands of their much older male supervisor. We commend these three young women for the tremendous courage they displayed in confronting egregious sexual harassment by their supervisor."
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