University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. BOSTON MARKET CORPORATION EE-NY-0020
Docket / Court 2:03-cv-04227-LDW-WDW ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In August 2003, the EEOC's New York office filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Boston Market Corporation alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that ... read more >
In August 2003, the EEOC's New York office filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Boston Market Corporation alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that the defendant subjected an employee to discrimination due to a neurological impairments (Asperger's Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) and sex (female) by creating a hostile work environment that included verbal and physical abuse that resulted in the employee's constructive discharge. In addition, the employee had complained of the abuses and received a cut in her hours and intensified harassment, which, the EEOC contended, amounted to retaliation in violation of Title VII. Eventually the employee filed a police complaint against one harasser and, only after her employer discovered the harasser had used a false identity, he was fired.

The employee intervened successfully in the lawsuit in February 2003. Following much discovery and several settlement conferences, the parties reached an agreement in the form of a consent decree that was signed by the court in October 2005. The decree enjoined the defendant from discriminating or retaliating in the future. In addition, it required the defendant to create and implement a multitude of new anti-discrimination policies, create a toll free phone number to receive complaints, and create detailed mandatory training programs for all of its employees regarding equal employment opportunity laws. Pursuant to a separate settlement agreement, the defendant agreed to pay the complaining party $150,000.

Jason Chester - 08/23/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
State Anti-Discrimination Law
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Defendant(s) Boston Market Corporation
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2005 - 2008
Case Closing Year 2005
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:03-cv-04227-LDW-WDW (E.D.N.Y.) 10/06/2005
EE-NY-0020-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 08/26/2003
EE-NY-0020-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff-Intervenor's Complaint 10/07/2004
EE-NY-0020-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Regarding Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Compel] 11/30/2004 (E.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0020-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Regarding Defendant's Motion to Engage in Ex Parte Communications with Plaintiff's Psychologists] 12/16/2004 (2004 WL 3327264 / 2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 27338) (E.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0020-0006 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Consent Decree 08/23/2005
EE-NY-0020-0004 PDF | Detail
EEOC Litigation Settlement Report (October 2005) 10/31/2005
EE-NY-0020-0005 PDF | Detail
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -