While sex sells, now more than ever, sex discrimination also lives on too well according to the EEOC. It received a $ 500,000 jury verdict in a case under Title VII about sex discrimination in promotion policies in which less qualified men were consistently promoted over a very well qualified woman. * Our firm recently filed a gender discrimination complaint under state law for sex discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination (MCAD) against an out-of state firm with over 400 employees. Our client, a Sales Supervisor, faced a pattern of biased treatment from her male Vice President of Sales. He treated the men on his sales team one way and devalued the women in such a way as to undermine their work and discriminated on the basis of sex, creating a hostile work environment. This cas was unusual – while there was no sex harassment there was psychological harassment, we contended, on the basis of gender. We cited harassment cases which while similiar where not exactly the same and used the company’s employee handbook policies which broadly forbade any kind of harassment. The company and its V.P. violated M. G. L. Ch. 151B, § 1 that forbids discrimination on the basis of sex in taking a negative employment actions. Such action means to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, unless based upon a valid occupational qualification. (Section 1 also forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sexual orientation). We obtained a favorable settlement shortly after filing a complaint with the MCAD.
*An Atlanta jury has awarded $500,000 against a Westerville, Ohio-based warehouse and distribution company for failing to promote a female to a supervisory position, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a while back. According to an EEOC’s suit filed in U.S. District Court for the N. District of Georgia, Exel, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to promote a Ms. Travis to an inventory supervisor position. At trial, the EEOC established that the company routinely promoted males after Travis verbally requested consideration for open positions, while it denied her the inventory supervisor position recently vacated by her supervisor. The EEOC said she was indisputably recognized as the most knowledgeable in inventory control.
Feel free to call us if we can help you evaluate and prosecute or defend an employment discrimination case. With our years of experience, we have seen most arguments on both sides and made many of them ourselves.
DISCLAIMER: All content that appears on this blog or on the bizatty.com website does not constitute legal advice. Thus the materials in this advisory should not be relied upon in making decisions about your personal situation. Every person’s situation is unique and the appropriate legal advice depends upon the facts of your situation. You should seek competent, professional legal counsel from a lawyer, such as Attorney Morse, to learn about your specific case and your available options. This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.