On September 21, 2006, the Chicago office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois following a complaint by a former employee of Integrity Financial Services ("Integrity"). The plaintiff sued Integrity under 42 USC §2000 (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and 42 USC §1981a (Title I of the Civil Right Act of 1991). The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from engaging in any employment practice that discriminated on the basis of race; requiring the defendant to institute and carry out equal employment opportunities for its employees; ordering the defendant to reinstate the individual employee. The plaintiff further sought back pay, non- and pecuniary losses, and punitive damages.

The complaint was based on an allegation that Integrity intentionally discriminated against a black female employee on the basis of her race by terminating her employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

After many status conferences, the case was settled when the District Court Judge Mark Filip entered a consent decree on May 29, 2007. The two-year consent decree included non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses. It required Integrity to post notice of the decree, maintain and make available to the EEOC records of complaints made about race discrimination, submit written reports to the EEOC every six months, and conduct annual training sessions for all employees. The decree also included a dispute resolution clause requiring each party to notify the other party of alleged non-compliance and a chance to remedy. Integrity agreed to pay a total of $9,000, all of which was awarded to the charging party.

On August 7, 2007, the EEOC made a motion to reopen the case and a motion for order to show cause why Integrity should not be held in contempt of the consent decree as the defendant did not pay $9,000. The defendants alleged an inability to pay. Both motions were stricken without prejudice. On May 20, 2008, the case was re-assigned to Judge John W. Darrah. On June 5, 2008, the plaintiff filed a renewed motion to show cause why defendant should not be held in contempt. This was withdrawn on June 9, 2008 because the defendant was no longer in business and the owner of the defendant was deceased.

The case is closed.

Daisy Manning - 05/14/2008
Joanna Kuzdra - 03/23/2018


compress summary