On June 27, 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against United Airlines on behalf of a black female employee. The EEOC alleged that United Airlines had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ...
read more >
On June 27, 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against United Airlines on behalf of a black female employee. The EEOC alleged that United Airlines had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) by subjecting the employee to sexual and racial harassment and retaliating against her for complaining about the discrimination. The EEOC sought its costs, monetary and injunctive relief for the employee, including policy reform, back pay, compensation for emotional harm, and punitive damages.
The Court (Judge Suzanne B. Conlon) granted the employee's motion to intervene in the case on July 23, 2002. The employee's complaint proceeded under Title VII and elaborated on the harassment and retaliation to which she had been subjected. The employee sought substantially the same relief as the EEOC but also specifically sought reinstatement.
The parties reached a settlement, which the Court (Judge Harry D. Leinenweber) entered as a consent decree on April 13, 2004. The 2-year decree provided for monetary relief ($225,000 and 200,000 frequent flyer miles) and contained various injunctive provisions. United Airlines agreed to provide employment references according to normal procedure (which did not mention negative details), to post an EEOC notice, to maintain records of complaints of racial and sexual harassment and their resolution, to make reports to the EEOC every six months, and to provide all supervisors and managers with annual Title VII training. The parties bore their own costs. The decree was subject to extra conditions related to United Airlines' bankruptcy case, but it appears that the bankruptcy did not affect the decree. No further court activity appears on the docket and the case is now closed.
Kenneth Gray - 07/29/2013
compress summary