labor lawAdivision of labor law center

A McDonald’s franchisee in Arizona recently paid $550,000 for the sexual harassment of teenaged workers by a middle-aged male supervisor, including lewd comments and inappropriate touching.

The EEOC announced settlement of the suit against GLC Restaurants, Inc., which owns a number of fast-food restaurants in California as well as Arizona.  The EEOC maintained that the male supervisor in question was a repeat offender who subjected eight young women to a “hostile work environment” at the company’s McDonald’s in Cordes Junction, Arizona. All of the victims were females in their teens who worked part-time.

The same male manager harassed female teen employees at the GLC-owned and -operated McDonald’s in Camp Verde, Arizona. The EEOC said that when GLC received complaints of the male manager’s behavior, instead of addressing the problem, they moved him to another location. The restaurant owner failed to take any action to prevent the middle-aged manager from repeating the same harassment in the new location.

One of the victims of the case was Amanda Henry, currently a junior at Northern Arizona University. Henry said, “Teenagers who are employed need to know that they should report any inappropriate behavior to their employers, to their parents, and the EEOC, if necessary. I am happy that our complaints and our actions against GLC for the last four and a half years will finally lead to changes which should keep something like this from happening again in the future.”

One teenager from the Cordes Junction store complained to the EEOC, and the agency investigated. That teen alleged that the manager’s attentions, remarks and repeated fondling were so intolerable that she had to resign.

 “This was the first job experience for many of these young women, some of whom were only 14-years old at the time,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Michelle Marshall. “No one should have to endure sexual harassment to earn a paycheck. Employers must be extra vigilant in protecting teen workers, who are one of the must vulnerable segments of the labor force.”

The company must pay $550,000 to the eight young women. In addition, GLC must provide training to all employees on their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The company also must train all managers in preventing, recognizing and eliminating sexual harassment, as well as other forms of discrimination.

The EEOC filed suit in federal court – and won – after an extensive investigation and exhaustive efforts to settle the case out of court.

GLC’s woes are not over yet. Under additional terms of the settlement, attorney Milton W. Hathaway, Jr, the Prescott, Arizona private lawyer for four of the young women, will apply to the court for an award of attorney fees up to $400,000.00.

The EEOC case supervisor Mary Joe O’Neill said, “Employers have a responsibility to take appropriate corrective and preventive action the first time they learn of discriminatory conduct in their workplace.” The EEOC Regional Attorney added, “We encourage employers to take adequate steps to protect the rights of all employees. Promoting a positive workplace for teens by stopping harassment before it starts is in everyone’s best interest.”

Under the terms of the settlement, GLC also agreed to an injunction prohibiting the company from discriminating based on sex. In order to satisfy the court, the company will provide sexual harassment training to employees. It is also required to review and revise its policy on reporting sexual harassment and to ensure that in the future there is no retaliation against employees who complain.

EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp launched the federal agency’s national Youth@Work Initiative in 2004, to prevent such cases of discrimination. The program includes comprehensive outreach and education to inform teens about their employment rights and to help employers create positive first work experiences for young people.

Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 23, covers the discrimination in employment, which can be construed to mean those situations which involve gays and other persons based on sexual orientation. Arizona’s Executive Order 2003-22, prohibits any discrimination on the basis of any status or characteristic not directly based on performance in hiring, promotion, recruitment, wages, or tenure decisions. The Executive order states that “acts of sexual harassment or other harassment based on sexual orientation shall be a cause for discipline, up to and including termination of employment with the State.” Currently, Arizona is not one of states which cover private employment with specific sexual orientation discrimination laws.

In a recent Gallup poll, Americans strongly favored equal opportunity for gays and lesbians in the workplace. The purpose of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, also known as ENDA, which is the first federal law to be proposed, would be to protect Americans who are fired or penalized due solely to their sexual preference.

In workplace conditions which, by the EEOC’s definition, creates “a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment,” which may include a wide range of direct and indirect practices or advances. Although it is the plaintiff’s obligation to justify and provide reasonable cause, these are serious and time-consuming cases for both parties.

Suits brought against employers must be filed in a timely-fashion, generally within one year, but has different interpretations depending on a number of qualifications, including those being filed under class action procedures. Knowing your rights under the existing Arizona laws is important, but stay informed of changing actions in both state and Federal legislation.