On September 29, 2006, the Los Angeles District Office of the EEOC brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam. The plaintiff sued Leo Palace Resort under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff, representing female employees of Leo Palace Resort, asked the court ...
read more >
On September 29, 2006, the Los Angeles District Office of the EEOC brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam. The plaintiff sued Leo Palace Resort under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff, representing female employees of Leo Palace Resort, asked the court for permanent injunctive relief, a requirement of policy changes at defendant's company, and monetary damages. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices by subjecting female employees to sexual harassment and by retaliating against employees for complaining of discrimination. Specifically, three female employees alleged that they experienced frequent sexual harassment from a coworker in the form of physical touching, requests for sex, and inappropriate gestures. When the employees complained the defendant employer retaliated by reducing their hours, taking disciplinary action, and failing to keep their complaints confidential. Two employees were constructively discharged as a result.
The complainants intervened in the EEOC's suit and the defendant moved to dismiss their claims and moved for summary judgment. The summary judgment motion was denied and the motion to dismiss was denied as premature. The parties engaged in discovery for the next year, and agreed to have a hearing date without oral argument.
On September 10, 2007, the defendants again filed for partial summary judgment, arguing that this was only a question of negligence on behalf of the company in response to complaints of its employee, and not a sexual harassment suit.
On March 13, 2008, before the court had heard the motion for partial summary judgment, the parties parties jointly submitted a consent decree.
On March 21, 2008 Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood approved the consent decree. The agreement required the defendant to pay the complainants a total of $243,000. It also required the defendant to create an anti-discrimination policy; institute a complaint procedure; hire an outside consultant to ensure compliance with the decree; post and distribute a notice of equal opportunity employment rights; and conduct annual training for all employees. On May 8, 2008 the case was dismissed with prejudice. Kevin Wilemon - 05/27/2008
Gabriela Hybel - 11/07/2016