Knouse Foods and Harrasment and Retaliation

PRESS RELEASE
9-22-09

KNOUSE FOODS SUED BY EEOC FOR SEXUAL AND NATIONAL ORIGIN HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION

Female Hispanic Farmworkers Were Forced to Endure Severe Harassment and Retaliation, Federal Agency Charges

HARRISBURG, Pa. – A major farm growers’ cooperative with processing plants in three states violated federal law by subjecting a class of female employees to pervasive harassment based on sex and national origin and firing one employee in retaliation for complaining about it, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.
The EEOC charges in its suit against Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc. that a class of female farmworkers was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment by male coworkers at its processing plant in Gardners, Pa. The perpetrators allegedly engaged in unrelenting sexual harassment, including: making sexual advances to female employees; asking them to expose their breasts; asking them on dates; and making vulgar sexual comments. The male coworkers also engaged in threatening behavior, such as using the forklift to chase women or blocking them with their bodies or a broom while they walked down the hall.
The EEOC also charges that the women were subjected to unlawful harassment because of their Mexican national origin. Employees yelled and cursed at the class members, threw things at them and pushed them, and called them derogatory terms such as “dumb Mexican” or “stupid Mexican.”
The EEOC said that the class members repeatedly complained about the sexual and national origin harassment to supervisors and managers, but Knouse Foods failed to take prompt and effective action to stop the harassment. Instead, the agency said, the harassment intensified or continued.
Further, the EEOC says that Knouse Foods retaliated against employees who opposed the harassment, including disciplining three of them for conduct that other employees routinely engaged in and were not disciplined for, and terminating one Mexican female employee as retaliation.
“This is another tragic example of an employer failing to stop cruel, humiliating, and illegal victimization of vulnerable employees,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Worse yet, here the employer even punished the victims for speaking out against their mistreatment. The EEOC is focused on protecting the rights of farmworkers and migrant workers to be free from employment discrimination and retaliation. That is why we’re filing this lawsuit.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to harass employees based on sex, national origin or any other protected basis. Title VII also prohibits an employer from retaliating against someone who complains about employment discrimination. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 09-cv-1811) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The EEOC seeks injunctive relief to end the discriminatory practices, plus back pay and compensatory and punitive damages to compensate the victims for their monetary losses and emotional pain and suffering.
“Unfortunately, farmworker women are often especially vulnerable to unlawful sexual harassment,” said District Director Marie M. Tomasso of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “The EEOC is committed to addressing the pervasive problem of sexual harassment of farmworker women and other low-income workers.”
Debra Lawrence, acting regional attorney for the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, added, “It is shocking that Knouse Foods tolerated such offensive and threatening behavior at its work site. The EEOC will continue its comprehensive efforts to enforce its mission of eradicating sexual and national origin harassment in the workplace – whether the workplace is a farm or an office and whether the victim is an hourly worker or an executive.”
According to its web site, http://www.knousefoodservice.com, Knouse Foods operates seven processing plants in three states, covering nearly 2.4 million square feet on close to 300,000 acres. Knouse Foods packs apple juice and applesauce in a variety of sizes and employs 150 individuals at its Gardners site.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site atwww.eeoc.gov.

Notice of Address

EEOC Rules and Regulations clearly state:

(c) A complaint must contain a signed statement from the person 
claiming to be aggrieved or that person's attorney. This statement must 
be sufficiently precise to identify the aggrieved individual and the 
agency and to describe generally the action(s) or practice(s) that form 
the basis of the complaint. The complaint must also contain a telephone 
number and address where the complainant or the representative can be 
contacted.

MindInquiring Member

posted September 15, 2009 07:33 PM     What about this one BIG, I would like to have your opinion. Kelly Reed, Appellant, v. Tony E. Gallegos, Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Agency. Initially, three unsuccessful attempts were made to deliver the FAD to appellant's home address. Under these cir-cumstances, it was proper for the agency to mail the FAD to appellant's place of employment, and for the previous decision to treat her place of employment as her constructive address. Consequently, appellant is deemed to have received the decision on November 2, 1993. Cf. Fadil v. NASA, EEOC Request No. 05920162 (April 9, 1992) (The Commission sent a copy of an appeal decision by certified mail to the complainant at her place of employment, which was her address of record. The complainant's representative signed for the decision on September 30, 1991, and the complainant stated that she received the decision on October 2, 1991. The Commission determined that the complainant's 'work address was the only address she provided the Commission as her address of record. Conse-quently, [the complainant] is deemed to have received the decision on September 30, 1991 '). Accordingly, we find that appellant's appeal of December 3, 1993 was untimely, and her request for reconsideration is denied. quote: Originally posted by BIGPAPPA: Lawrence S. Lomax v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070039 (October 2, 2007), quote: Originally posted by fairness6: BIGPAPPA, That is an excellent decision that you posted, and it should be helpful to a lot of people. I also note that it is a rather recent decision dated 2007. It would be interesting to know whether there have been other decisions since then by EEOC where the complainants have received retroactive promotions and or comp damages, because the agencies missed EEOC deadlines. I also noted that the agency requested reconsideration which was denied, which may mean that that case was a landmark decision by the EEOC. The way I see it the more cases one can find like that one, the more icing on the cake. "This is what happens when agencies fail to hand over ROI!! Sanctions Upheld for Untimely Investigation. The Commission found that an AJ did not abuse her discretion when she issued a decision in favor of complainant as sanctions for the agency's failure to timely process and investigate the complaint in accordance with the Commission’s regulations. After expiration of the 180-day period from the date that he filed her formal complaint, complainant sought a hearing before an AJ, and the AJ ordered the agency to produce its records. The agency did not initiate an investigation until after complainant's hearing request and submitted the report of investigation a full month after the AJ Order. The AJ ordered complainant’s retroactive promotion and payment of $1,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages. On appeal, the agency argued that the sanctions were punitive, that the AJ abused her authority by imposing sanctions against the agency, and that the sanctions imposed were too severe a penalty for the agency’s mere failure to seek an extension of time from complainant. Citing the Commission's inherent power to protect its administrative processes from abuse and to ensure that agencies and complainants follow its regulations, the Commission affirmed the AJ's sanctions and her finding that the agency discriminated against complainant. Lawrence S. Lomax v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070039 (October 2, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080115 (December 26, 2007)." [This message was edited by fairness6 on August 28, 2009 at 02:40 PM.] Posts: 101 | Registered: May 21, 2009

Intro to learning the EEOC process

The EEOC process is a literal and simple process.  To understand the EEOC process you must utilize the EEOC MD110.  The EEOC website has been upgraded recently so people may have a hard time seeing the MD110.  Therefore this will be provided and broken down for the readers. The goal of this blog is to allow readers to come forward, discuss and sometimes debate issues dealing with the EEOC.

Title 29--Labor CHAPTER XIV--EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PART 1614--FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
		1614.101	General policy.
		1614.102	Agency program.
		1614.103	Complaints of discrimination covered by this part.
		1614.104	Agency processing.
		1614.105	Pre-complaint processing.
		1614.106	Individual complaints.
		1614.107	Dismissals of complaints.
		1614.108	Investigation of complaints.
		1614.109	Hearings.
		1614.110	Final action by agencies.
		1614.201	Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
		1614.202	Equal Pay Act.
		1614.203	Rehabilitation Act.
		1614.204	Class complaints.
		1614.301	Relationship to negotiated grievance procedure.
		1614.302	Mixed case complaints.
		1614.303	Petitions to the EEOC from MSPB decisions on mixed case appeals and complaints.
		1614.304	Contents of petition.
		1614.305	Consideration procedures.
		1614.306	Referral of case to Special Panel.
		1614.307	Organization of Special Panel.
		1614.308	Practices and procedures of the Special Panel.
		1614.309	Enforcement of Special Panel decision.
		1614.310	Right to file a civil action.
		1614.401	Appeals to the Commission.
		1614.402	Time for appeals to the Commission.
		1614.403	How to appeal.
		1614.404	Appellate procedure.
		1614.405	Decisions on appeals.
		1614.407	Civil action: Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Rehabilitation Act.
		1614.408	Civil action: Equal Pay Act.
		1614.409	Effect of filing a civil action.
		1614.501	Remedies and relief.
		1614.502	Compliance with final Commission decisions.
		1614.503	Enforcement of final Commission decisions.
		1614.504	Compliance with settlement agreements and final action.
		1614.505	Interim relief.
		1614.601	EEO group statistics.
		1614.602	Reports to the Commission.
		1614.603	Voluntary settlement attempts.
		1614.604	Filing and computation of time.
		1614.605	Representation and official time.
		1614.606	Joint processing and consolidation of complaints.
		1614.607	Delegation of authority.
		1614.701	Purpose and scope.
		1614.702	Definitions.
		1614.703	Manner and format of data.
		1614.704	Information to be posted--all Federal agencies.
		1614.705	Comparative data--all Federal agencies.
		1614.706	Other data.
		1614.707	Data to be posted by EEOC.