On September 28, 2006, the Miami and Boca Raton offices of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under Title VII against United Healthcare of Florida, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The EEOC alleged that the defendants had violated the rights of the complainant, who worked as an account executive for the defendants, by subjecting him to sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of his sex, and by retaliating against him when he complained of such harassment.

On November 7, 2006, the complainant filed a motion to intervene, and the court granted that motion on December 18, 2006. The plaintiff-intervenor's complaint alleged that the conduct in question also violated the state's civil rights laws.

On December 8, 2006, the case was referred to mediation, but the parties could not reach a settlement. They notified the court on Jul 18, 2007 that they were at an impasse. On July 19, 2007, the both the plaintiff and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied both of those motions on August 31, 2007.

On September 13, 2007, the parties notified the court that they had settled the case, and they entered a consent decree with the court two weeks later. On September 28, 2007, the court approved the consent decree and closed the case. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants agreed to pay the complainant $660,000.00 in lost wages and $500,000.00 in unspecified non-wage damages. They also agree to pay his attorneys $640,000.00 in fees. The defendants agreed to expunge the complainant's employment record of any reference to this lawsuit, provide him with a neutral letter of reference (which was attached to the decree as an exhibit), and to consider in good faith the complainant's application to sell the defendants' products. The defendants agreed to develop an anti-discrimination policy, which they would post in their place of business and distribute to all employees, including new hires. The anti-discrimination policy would include a complaint resolution process, under which all employees making a complaint of discrimination would be able to express their concerns to someone other than the person who subjected them to the alleged unlawful behavior. The defendants agreed to have all of their managers and supervisory personnel trained annually by an outside agency on the equal employment opportunity laws and on the company's anti-discrimination policy. The defendants agreed to report to the EEOC regarding the training of supervisory personnel within 10 days of each training session. The defendants were also to have their revised anti-discrimination policy approved by the EEOC before distributing or posting it. The defendants were to furnish the EEOC bi-annual reports regarding their compliance with all terms of the consent decree during the three year life of the decree. For three years following the entry of the consent decree, the defendants were to maintain records of all complaints made by employees regarding employment discrimination, and those records were to be made available to the EEOC upon request. The EEOC was to be allowed to privately interview employees upon request to determine whether complaints were being handled in an appropriate manner.

The terms of the agreement were to run for 3 years. The docket sheet does not show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2010.

Kristen Sagar - 05/11/2008


compress summary