The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of a lawsuit it filed in September 2007 against New York City restaurant Tavern on the Green.
The lawsuit alleged severe and pervasive sexual, racial, and national origin harassment of female, black, and Hispanic employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The alleged harassment included a manager’s regular use of the “n-word” to refer to the black employees, “sp*c” or “ignorant immigrants” to refer to the Hispanic employees, a restaurant manager's demand that a black hostess "touch and suck his penis," and inappropriate grabbing of buttocks and breasts. The lawsuit also alleged that the restaurant retaliated against the employees for objecting to the harassment.
The lawsuit alleged severe and pervasive sexual, racial, and national origin harassment of female, black, and Hispanic employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The alleged harassment included a manager’s regular use of the “n-word” to refer to the black employees, “sp*c” or “ignorant immigrants” to refer to the Hispanic employees, a restaurant manager's demand that a black hostess "touch and suck his penis," and inappropriate grabbing of buttocks and breasts. The lawsuit also alleged that the restaurant retaliated against the employees for objecting to the harassment.
Tavern on the Green, a Central Park landmark, agreed to pay $2.2 million to be allocated among the victims of the harassment and/or retaliation. The restaurant also agreed to establish a telephone hotline for employees to report possible discrimination, distribute a revised policy against discrimination and retaliation, and provide training to all employees to help prevent discrimination and retaliation.
EEOC v. Tavern On The Green, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 07- CV-8256), should remind employers to be proactive in addressing claims of workplace discrimination and harassment.
Employers should also be careful not to retaliate against an employee who complains of discrimination or harassment. Retaliation occurs when an employer, employment agency, or labor organization takes a materially adverse action against an employee who has engaged in protected activity by opposing unlawful practices (e.g., complaining of alleged discrimination) or participating in proceedings (e.g., filing a charge of discrimination, serving as a witness in an EEOC investigation) related to employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability or requesting a reasonable accommodation based on religion or disability. An action is "materially adverse" if it would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity. Potential retaliatory acts include termination, refusal to promote, threats, and unjustified negative evaluations, but need not be directly related to employment or occur at the workplace. Petty slights and annoyances, however, do not constitute retaliation.
While employers should take necessary precautions, employees should not assume they have a "free pass." Employees who engage in protected activity must continue to perform their jobs and follow legitimate workplace rules.
EEOC v. Tavern On The Green, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 07- CV-8256), should remind employers to be proactive in addressing claims of workplace discrimination and harassment.
Employers should also be careful not to retaliate against an employee who complains of discrimination or harassment. Retaliation occurs when an employer, employment agency, or labor organization takes a materially adverse action against an employee who has engaged in protected activity by opposing unlawful practices (e.g., complaining of alleged discrimination) or participating in proceedings (e.g., filing a charge of discrimination, serving as a witness in an EEOC investigation) related to employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability or requesting a reasonable accommodation based on religion or disability. An action is "materially adverse" if it would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity. Potential retaliatory acts include termination, refusal to promote, threats, and unjustified negative evaluations, but need not be directly related to employment or occur at the workplace. Petty slights and annoyances, however, do not constitute retaliation.
While employers should take necessary precautions, employees should not assume they have a "free pass." Employees who engage in protected activity must continue to perform their jobs and follow legitimate workplace rules.
