L&T
Group of Companies, Ltd., the largest employer and conglomerate of
garment manufacturers in Saipan, has agreed to pay $1.7 million and to
provide far reaching and significant injunctive relief to settle a
series of lawsuits filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) that charged the company with retaliation and
discrimination based on national origin, pregnancy and age, all in
violation of federal law.
The three-year, court-enforced consent
decree will resolve four EEOC discrimination lawsuits against the
employers and their affiliates: Tan Holdings Corporation; Tan Holdings
Overseas, Inc.; Concorde Garment Manufacturing Corp.; Micro Pacific,
Inc.; Seasonal Inc.; and L&T International Corp. The EEOC filed the
cases in U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. The
consent decrees, signed by U.S. Federal Court Judge Alex R Munson on
July 28, 2009, resolve the lawsuits filed by the EEOC in the Federal
District Court.
"This major settlement shows that the EEOC will
vigorously protect the rights of all workers, within every reach of our
jurisdiction, to be free of discrimination," said EEOC Acting Chairman
Stuart J. Ishimaru. "The resolutions of these egregious cases bring a
measure of justice to the many workers who were retaliated against and
otherwise victimized by discriminatory employment practices because of
their national origin, age, or pregnancy."
In the first case
against L&T, Civil Case No. 06-0031, the EEOC alleged that the
employer retaliated against 14 Filipino and Bangladeshi workers when it
terminated them because they filed charges of discrimination with the
EEOC. The allegations in the case also included that Bangladeshi
security guards were being treated differently than Nepalese with
respect to assignment of overtime hours, work location, and housing.
Further, the EEOC said the defendants discriminated on the basis of
national origin by providing different amounts of benefits to Nepalese,
Chinese, Filipino and Bangladeshi employees, and failed to conduct any
investigation regarding the claimants' allegations. Within two or three
months after the charge was filed with the EEOC, the defendants
unlawfully retaliated against the workers by failing to renew their
contracts.
In the largest case, Civil Case No. 07-0029, the EEOC
charged that L&T discriminated against a class of non-Chinese
workers, many of them Filipino, due to their national origin. The EEOC
alleged that employees were forced to work and eat in segregated
facilities, denied adequate housing and, after they complained, were
all replaced by Chinese workers in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. The charging parties in this case were all are non-resident
workers hired by the defendants as sewers, but they actually did the
work of "packers," who packed the clothing made by the Concorde
manufacturing facility. Nearly all of the workers were hired in
February and March 2004 under one-year contracts. However, after only a
few months, in mid-May 2004, all the charging parties were called into
a meeting with human resources officials and were told that they were
being laid off because of low sales. Nearly all the terminated workers
were Filipino.
The EEOC further alleged that these same charging
parties were also segregated from Chinese employees during the work day
and at lunch. The defendant acknowledged this segregation, saying that
it "promoted a harmonious working environment," even though it was a
clear violation of federal law. The Filipino workers were forbidden to
use the company cafeteria to eat their lunches, and instead had to
bring their lunches to work and eat them outside. Moreover, the EEOC
alleged that the defendants further discriminated against non-Chinese
workers by refusing to provide them food, lodging and medical care.
Another
case, Civil Case No. 08-0038, alleged that the employer discriminated
against pregnant women by terminating and replacing them with
non-pregnant workers. The EEOC was prepared to present evidence, had
the case proceeded to trial, showing that L&T International
Corporation engaged in a pattern of terminating and/or refusing to
renew employment contracts of its female employees once they became
pregnant. The EEOC was also prepared to present the employer's own
document, which revealed that an employee's status for her renewal
contract was "non-renewal" because she was "8 months pregnant."
Moreover, the EEOC was also prepared to show that L&T discriminated
against its Filipino employees in assignment of overtime by continuing
to give substantial overtime to its Chinese employees while allowing
its Filipino employees little to no overtime. Defendants' payroll
records revealed that Chinese employees were receiving significantly
more overtime hours per week than Filipino employees.
One of the
charging parties, Adelyn Lubrico, who had been employed as a quality
control checker since 2000, said, "I would like to thank the EEOC for
all the effort, time, and help. I used to feel so hopeless because of
my termination due to my pregnancy. Now, I feel blessed because the
EEOC is fair and provided justice to me. I want people to know that you
don't have to be popular to have a voice if you are a victim of
discrimination."
The fourth and final lawsuit, Civil Case No.
08-0037, alleged discrimination against a long-term employee due to age
and national origin (Filipino) in violation of the Title VII and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The EEOC alleged that an L&T
supervisor constantly subjected an employee to age-related verbal
harassment, calling the claimant "old." In addition to age-based
comments, the employee also had to endure from her supervisor
discriminatory comments related to her Filipino national origin. The
EEOC further asserts the employee was ultimately fired based on age and
national origin.
EEOC Regional Attorney Anna Y. Park of the
agency's Los Angeles District Office, which has jurisdiction over the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, said, "Workers should not
have to fear losing their job because of their national origin, age or
pregnancy, and no one should fear retaliation for coming to the EEOC
for help. In addition to the monetary relief secured for the victims in
these cases, the employer has made a commitment to ensure equal
opportunity for its workers going forward, which is buttressed by the
remedial provisions of the consent decree."
Besides the $1.7
million obtained by the EEOC, the three-year consent decree also
requires the companies to institute broad injunctive relief and
remedies such as:
* Hiring of an equal opportunity consultant to train all managers and employees;
* Extensive training for all of its non managerial, managerial, and human resources employees;
* Enjoining the companies from discriminating or retaliating against its employees;
* Monitoring by the EEOC and reporting to the EEOC on their progress in fulfilling the terms of the consent decree;
* Reporting all complaints of national origin, age and pregnancy discrimination to the EEOC during the term of the decree;
* Establishing effective policies and procedures, including a complaint
procedure for handling discrimination complaints; and
* Posting of a notice of the case at their various facilities.
Other
recent EEOC settlements involving Title VII violations in and around
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands include:
* A
$205,000 settlement with Rome Research Corporation resolving an EEOC
lawsuit that alleged that a female employee at a government facility on
Tinian operated by Rome Research was subjected to sexual assaults by
her supervisor and was retaliated against after she became pregnant
from the repeated sexual assaults.
* A $120,000 settlement with
Rifu Apparel requiring the company to pay seven female garment workers
because the company refused to renew their employment contracts due to
their pregnancy. Besides the monetary relief, the four-year decree
required policy revisions, training of supervisors, and monitoring by
the EEOC.
* An $80,000 settlement with 99 Cents/Townhouse
Stores and Yuns Corporation requiring the company to pay six former
female workers for charges of sexual harassment and pregnancy
discrimination. The companies agreed to a three-year consent decree and
the hiring of an equal opportunity consultant to review and revise its
EEO policy, review complaints, and provide management and employee
training.
* A $243,000, settlement with Leo Palace Resorts in
Guam to settle a case alleging that the employer ignored the sexual
harassment complaints of four female employees and retaliated against
them by terminating them. The terms of the settlement require a
three-year consent decree, monitoring by the EEOC, hiring of an EEO
Consultant to provide training, policy review and/or revisions and
review of employee complaints.
Login to read more.
|