On August 26, 1998, an African-American employee of the QVC, Inc. ("QVC"), a telemarketing television network, along with five other former show hosts, filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against QVC in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York.
The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for both monetary damages and injunctive relief, alleging discrimination based on both race and sex. First, plaintiffs maintain that those plaintiffs who are members of racial minorities were hired based on the discriminatory practice of "tokenism." Second, plaintiffs allege that the defendant practices discriminatory disparate treatment of racial minority hosts by relegating them to the "graveyard" shifts with no genuine hope of advancement. Third, plaintiffs assert that QVC maintains a hostile work environment with respect to racial minority and female employees. Fourth, plaintiffs maintain that their terminations were the result of discrimination. Lastly, plaintiffs allege that QVC retaliated against them for participating in protected activities under Title VII. Velez v. QVC, Inc. 227 F.Supp.2d 384 (E.D. Penn. 2002).
After two amended complaints, filed January 4, 1999 and April 20, 1999 respectively, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case and/or transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 13, 2000, the court (Judge Marilyn D. Go) granted the second piece of the motion, transferring the case and closing the New York version.
On December 26, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint, followed by a motion for class certification of March 13, 2001. On August 6, 2001, the court (Judge Eduardo C. Robreno) issued an order denying the plaintiffs motion for class certification without prejudice. On November 29, 2001, the defendant filed several motions for summary judgment, nearly all of which were granted in full on September 27, 2002. On December 2, 2002, the defendant issued a motion to dismiss the remainder of the plaintiff cases, which was denied on June 27, 2003. After a sixth amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on July 7, 2003, and a full year of litigation, defendant filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law on June 8, 2004. This motion was granted on June 14, 2004, leading to a civil judgment that ruled in favor of the defendant in nearly every issue.
According to the PACER docket, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant for all claims based upon hostile work environment, all claims based upon discrimination in work assignment on the basis of race, all claims based upon retaliation, and all claims based upon discrimination in compensation on the basis of gender. As to all claims based upon violation of the equal pay act, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, awarding the amount of $67,537. Also, a mistrial was declared as to all claims that the termination of one of the plaintiffs was based upon race.
On April 27, 2006, the court (Judge Robreno) issued an order of a final settlement, dismissing the remainder of the unresolved claims. The details of this settlement are unavailable.Nathaniel Koslof - 04/26/2008