On August 26th, 1999, the United States Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against Mecklenburg County of North Carolina in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The DOJ sought injunctive relief and ...
read more >
On August 26th, 1999, the United States Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against Mecklenburg County of North Carolina in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The DOJ sought injunctive relief and demanded a trial by jury, alleging that the defendant violated Title VII by discriminating against a female formerly employed as a temporary social worker assistant in the Division of Youth and Family Services of the County's Department of Social Services, and other women employed there on the basis of sex.
Specifically, the DOJ alleged in the complaint that the discrimination took the form of sexual harassment and failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment.
Her motion having been granted, the intervenor filed her own complaint on October 26th, 1999. In the complaint, she makes similar allegations of sexual harassment subsequent retaliation for rejecting unwanted advances. The complaint also makes three claims for relief: violation of Title VII, wrongful discharge, and negligent supervision and retention of an employee).
On January 31st, 2000, a Consent Settlement Agreement was entered. It orders that the defendant continue Mecklenburg County's current policy of not engaging in any act or practice that has the purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating against any employee because of sex, and of not retaliating. The agreement also requires that the defendant revise their sexual harassment policy, and distribute it to all permanent and temporary employees. The defendant was also ordered to keep records during the life of the agreement. Additionally, the agreement awards monetary damages to the intervenor. The court maintained jurisdiction for eighteen (18) months after entry of said decree.
However, on May 17th 2000, the case was reopened, and on July 12th, 2000, the intervenor submitted an amended complaint. The amendment was a provision that states that the defendant has waived governmental immunity to the extent that it has purchased liability insurance coverage applicable to the plaintiff-intervenor's claims.
On October 4th, 200, the defendant filed a sealed memorandum in support of a motion for Summary Judgment. On December 7th, 2000, the Court (Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight) submitted an order granting the Intervenor's Motion to Seal Response and Memorandum.
On January 10th, 2001, a Stipulation of Dismissal states that all claims made by or on behalf of the intervenor shall be dismissed with prejudice. The case was consequently closed on the same day.Jennifer Hau - 11/26/2007