| Issues and Answers | ||
| Outplacement services help ease the sting of a layoff | |||
|
| |||
|
| Test Your Human Resources Knowledge | ||
|
| Labor Law Journal Submissions | ||
|
| Human Resources Links | ||
|
| Labor Arbitrators' Awards and Biographies | ||
U.S. Master™ Wage-Hour Guide, 2009 Edition 
Presents a first approach to the broad and complex controls under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and other statutes regulating employee wages and hours.
Chicago-based aerospace giant has agreed to pay $380,000 and administer injunctive measures to settle two lawsuits brought under Title VII by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), according to the on February 1, 2010.
Most recent litigation. In the first lawsuit (EEOC v The Boeing Co, No 05cv03034 PHX FJM), filed in 2005, the federal agency brought sex discrimination and retaliation claims against Boeing on behalf of two female engineers at the company’s Mesa, Arizona facility. Antonia Castron complained of sex-based harassment, including sexist remarks, creating a hostile environment, in August 2002. After making the complaints, she found herself transferred to a new unit that did not suit her skill set, the EEOC alleged. Less than two months after the transfer, Boeing laid her off, purportedly because she could not perform as well as other engineers in her new unit.
“Instead of stopping the harassment or reprimanding the men who tormented me, they moved me to a unit that designed structures,” said Castron. “I was skilled at electrical engineering. That’s like asking a heart surgeon to do brain surgery. Then they evaluated me for layoff based on my ability to perform structural work. They set me up for lay-off.”
Boeing managers harbored discriminatory and retaliatory motives when it transferred and terminated Castron, the EEOC asserted in its lawsuit.
Manufacturing engineer Renee Wrede twice complained of sex-based harassment, and twice Boeing’s internal investigators substantiated her complaints. Nonetheless, the company permitted her harassers to influence her layoff evaluations and reduce her scores, the EEOC claimed. As a result, Wrede also received a layoff notice in October 2002. Boeing manipulated evaluation scores used in its October 2002 reduction in force to justify the terminations of Wrede and Castron, according to the EEOC.
Earlier litigation. In an earlier lawsuit (EEOC v The Boeing Co, No CV-03-1210-PHX-PGR), the federal agency sought relief on behalf of Kelley Miles, a female mechanic at the Mesa facility, who works on the Apache helicopter that Boeing manufactures for the US Army. Boeing allowed Miles’ coworkers to harass her on an ongoing basis due to her gender and allowed one or more managers to contribute to that harassment without taking appropriate steps to address the behavior, the EEOC alleged.
Much of the harassment directed at Miles was designed to make it more difficult for her to perform her job, the EEOC said. Male coworkers took Miles’ tools and either broke them, hid them, or changed the adjustments before returning them. Other harassment was sexual in nature. Miles reported this conduct to Boeing’s Human Resources Department, but the company did nothing to address it, according to the EEOC. As a result, the harassment continued.
Boeing also retaliated against Miles for complaining about gender-based harassment, the EEOC asserted. After Miles reported her coworkers’ conduct to Boeing’s Human Resources Department, a manager warned several of Miles’ coworkers to be careful of what they said to her because the manager had them on a list, the federal agency claimed.
Settlement. The consent decrees reached between the parties provide for $380,000 in monetary relief for Castron, Wrede and Miles and an injunction prohibiting future discrimination and retaliation. Further, the EEOC obtained curative relief, such as training, to prevent Boeing from engaging in any further discrimination and retaliation.
“The right of an employee to oppose discrimination in the workplace is fundamental,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional Attorney for the Phoenix district office. “Employees should be able to report discrimination without fearing that their employers will make the situation worse by retaliating against them.”
“Covert attempts to mask discriminatory and retaliatory motives, such as Boeing employed, will fool no one,” added Rayford Irvin, Acting District Director of the Phoenix district office.
For more information on this and other topics, consult CCH Employment Practices Guide or CCH Labor Relations.
Visit our News Library to read more news stories.
©2010, CCH. All Rights Reserved.
