University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. HARMAN-CHIU INC. KFC/TACO BELL EE-CA-0098
Docket / Court 5:05-cv-03615-JF ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In September 2005, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Harman-Chiu, Inc., d/b/a KFC/Taco Bell, and Harman-Management Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title ... read more >
In September 2005, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Harman-Chiu, Inc., d/b/a KFC/Taco Bell, and Harman-Management Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants subjected the charging parties and other similarly situated female employees to a sexually hostile work environment and retaliated against them by reducing their hours and terminating them. Three charging parties intervened in the suit in February 2006. After some scheduling orders, the parties participated in mediation in May 2006 and settled in September 2006 through a consent decree.

The three-year decree, containing non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the defendants to: revise and distribute their EEO policies, develop complaint procedures, post notices of the decree, provide annual sexual harassment training for all employees, report to the EEOC at specified intervals, and pay $349,800. The defendants also agreed to provide the charging parties with neutral references, expunge their personnel files from all references to the charges of discrimination, and to provide them with an apology letter.

Michele Marxkors - 07/11/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Apology
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Neutral/Positive Reference
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
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
State Anti-Discrimination Law
Defendant(s) Harman-Chiu, Inc.
Harman-Management Corporation
Jorge Garcia
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 2006 - 2009
Case Closing Year 2006
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)
5:05-cv-03615-JF (N.D. Cal.) 10/25/2006
EE-CA-0098-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint in Intervention 02/17/2005
EE-CA-0098-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Complaint 09/08/2005
EE-CA-0098-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
First Amended Complaint 02/18/2006
EE-CA-0098-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree 09/26/2006
EE-CA-0098-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
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 -