In September 2006, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit against restaurant chain Sizzler USA Restaurants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of gender (female) and national origin (Mexican) in violation ...
read more >
In September 2006, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit against restaurant chain Sizzler USA Restaurants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of gender (female) and national origin (Mexican) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the complaining party was subjected to a hostile work environment and constructive discharge. The complainant intervened in the lawsuit in January 2007.
On May 16, 2008, an entry of default was entered against the defendants, and on May 20, 2008 the court granted the EEOC's motion to compel documents from the defendant. After the EEOC filed a motion for discovery order for civil contempt on June 23, 2008, the parties reached a settlement.
The five-year consent decree was entered into on August 28, 2008. The agreement enjoined the defendants from engaging harassment or retaliation on the basis of in sex or national origin. Further, the defendants agreed to modify their employment policies to include a provision requiring employees be provided the antidiscrimination and complaint procedure in their native language, among other things. The agreement required that the revised policy be posted in the restaurant and distributed to all employees. Further, the defendants agreed to hold supervisors accountable for discriminatory behavior, ensure supervisors enforced and carried out the nondiscrimination policies, and train employees on discrimination and harassment issues. The defendants were required to pay the charging party $300,000 and file periodic reports with the EEOC District Office for five years after the entry of the consent decree. As there was no further enforcement action, presumably the case is now closed.
Daisy Manning - 05/28/2008
Rachel Barr - 01/19/2018
compress summary