Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Two companies settle harassment, discrimination cases with EEOC

Reprints
Two companies settle harassment, discrimination cases with EEOC

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Birmingham, Ala., has reached settlements with two companies, one involving a class sexual harassment case and the other involving a disability discrimination lawsuit.

The agency said Thursday that it has reached a $215,000 settlement with Winston-Salem, N.C.-based WilcoHess L.L.C. in a case in which it charged that a district manager had engaged in sexually inappropriate and harassing conduct involving several of female employees at a company-operated Wendy's restaurant and Travel Plaza store in Tuscaloosa, Ala.

Despite some of the women complaining about the harassment to other managers, nothing was done to discipline or otherwise prevent the manager from continuing to harass his employees for several years, the EEOC said.

The company was accused of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Under terms of the settlement with the company, which operates more than 400 travel plazas and convenience stores throughout the United States, the company will pay $215,000 to any past or present employees the EEOC determines suffered damage.

The four-year consent decree settling the suit also includes a requirement that the company put several measures in place to prevent similar behavior from happening again.

“Sexual harassment is not just bad for workplace morale, it is also a serious violation of federal law. Tolerating lewd or harassing behavior is not a job requirement and employers must provide a meaningful mechanism for employees to report such misconduct,” Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director of the EEOC's Birmingham, Ala., district office, said in a statement.

%%BREAK%%

The company has denied the charges in the matter, according to the order filed in federal court in Tuscaloosa.

WilcoHess attorney Kenneth P. Carlson Jr., a partner with law firm Constangy Brooks & Smith L.L.P. in Winston-Salem, said in a statement, “This was a settlement in which there was no liability admitted, and in which the purported "class" originally alleged by the EEOC was essentially cut in half by the court after an appropriate motion by WilcoHess. The company had proper policies in place, appropriately investigated the harassment allegations after a single anonymous complaint was faxed to the company's North Carolina headquarters, and took prompt remedial action. In other words, WilcoHess did what our laws require to help ensure a harassment-free workplace. The case was resolved strictly to avoid the time and expense of continued litigation."

Separately, an Alabama construction company that was accused of refusing to provide a ramp to a worker recovering from a leg fracture, and then firing her, has reached a $125,000 settlement with the EEOC.

The agency said Thursday that Patricia Pittman, a former employee of Montgomery, Ala.-based Caddell Construction Co., had suffered a leg fracture that required surgery while working at Caddell's Eglin Air Force Base facility in Florida.

After the surgery, the company refused her request for a wheelchair ramp to enter the office and to be allowed to use her crutches and a walker, and fired her days after her accommodation request, the EEOC said.

The company was accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Under the settlement agreement, in addition to paying Ms. Pittman the $125,000, Caddell agreed to provide training to its employees on its obligations under the ADA, among other measures.

Caddell, which has denied the charges, said it terminated Ms. Pittman because her physical impairments prevented her from performing the essential functions of her job, according to the consent decree filed in federal court in Pensacola, Fla.

A company spokesman could not be reached for comment.

Read Next