Two New EEOC Settlements Show Value in Prevention
Posted on April 21st, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | 1 Comment »Filed under: ., Discrimination, HR Issues |
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued press releases of two significant settlements over the past week, and in the
process showed how important preventative training and policies are to employers.
EEOC v. Nordstrom, Inc.
According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, the high-end department store agreed to pay nearly $300,000 to 10 employees in two of its south Florida stores because of some pretty serious derogatory comments made by an alterations manager:
In the suit, the EEOC alleged that an alternations department manager said “she hated Hispanics and that Hispanics were lazy and ignorant.” The same manager, the EEOC alleged, made remarks such as “I don’t like blacks,” and “you’re black you stink.”
The EEOC’ claimed that the employees had complained to Nordstrom about the alleged racist remarks, but that nothing was done. A Nordstrom spokesperson said that an investigation was conducted, but that no evidence of discrimination was found at the time.
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.
The EEOC sued Skilled Healthcare, which runs nursing facilities throughout the southwest, after multiple claims were filed that the company refused to let employees speak Spanish, even while letting other bilingual employees speak Tagalog and other languages.
According to the L.A. Times, the EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that employees were warned of punishment or termination when supervisors heard them speaking Spanish, even to patients who did not speak English. One monolingual Spanish-speaking employee – the first to file a charge against Skilled Healthcare – was fired when he couldn’t pledge to speak only English. [Ed. Note - how did he get hired in the first place?]
Skilled Healthcare said that it had never instituted an English-only policy, even when the first charge was filed and the business was under old management. The company settled the lawsuit for $450,000.
Cautionary Tales
The thing that makes both of these suits worth reviewing is the companies’ statements regarding the settlements. In both cases, the company denied anything happened, and both companies claimed their internal processes showed no sign of discrimination. They both said the only reason settlements were reached was because the cost of litigation outweighed the cost of settlement.
As a result, however, each company agreed to pay well over six-figures to their employees and institute discrimination training programs. I’d venture a guess that they’re both fast-tracking legal reviews of their hiring and employment practices as well.
These last two items, anti-discrimination training and employment practices review, could have been done without EEOC intervention. They are both preventative measures that, if done years ago, could have saved these companies the cost of settlement, and more importantly, the legal fees in defending the cases before the EEOC.
There’s no telling whether these particular situations could have been avoided by doing the things both of these companies are now doing after-the-fact. But as the recessession continues and employers are looking for places to save money, it’s important to remember the true costs of not taking preventative measures now.
I work for the Federal gov and my Bureau has toally ignored any EEOC influence. I have suffered tremendous calateral damage from a 10 day suspendsion based on sterotyped assumptions and data that is consistantly inccorrect. I was covered by eeo but nothing could protect me from the nightmare. I have a court date but I have no lawyer. Does the EEOC favor management. Will the judge support and force EEOC laws. I am getting lenched.
10:17 pm on December 16th, 2009.