The Los Angeles and Honolulu offices of the EEOC brought this suit against L & T International Corporation, L & T Group of Companies, Ltd., Tan Holdings Corporation, Tan Holdings Overseas Incorporated, Concorde Garment Manufacturing Corporation, Micro Pacific, Inc. and Seasonal Incorporated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands in September 2006. The complaint alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More specifically, in the complaint, the EEOC alleged the defendants discriminated against Filipino and Bangladeshi employees by terminating their employment or refusing to renew their employment contracts in retaliation for filing discrimination charges against the defendants. Judge Alex R. Munson was assigned to this case.
While originally scheduled for March 2008, the trial date was rescheduled for August 2008. Afterward, the pre-trial and trial dates were continually extended until the parties finally agreed to settle.
On March 19, 2009, the court ordered an approval of the parties’ consent decree. The parties agreed that the defendants would pay $210,910 in monetary relief, and that the terms of the settlement would be reached at a later date.
On July 28, 2009, the court approved the parties’ second consent decree. This decree had a duration of three years and included monetary and injunctive relief. The decree reiterated the parties’ agreed upon monetary relief amount from March 19, 2009. As to the injunctive relief, the decree had nine parts:
1) The defendants were prohibited from engaging in employment discrimination and retaliation.
2) The defendants were required to review, implement, and revise their policies to align with Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
3) The defendants were required to distribute this policy to all employees, forty-five days after the consent decree was ordered.
4) The defendants were required to distribute the notice of the consent decree and settlement to all employees, thirty days after the consent decree was ordered.
5) The defendants were required to retain an Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant. This consultant would be responsible for monitoring the defendants in the areas of retaliation and employment discrimination. The EEOC had to approve of the consultant retained.
6) This decree required the defendants to provide anti-employment discrimination training to all employees.
7) The defendants were required to maintain and make available to the EEOC materials relevant to employment discrimination. The materials required included any employment discrimination complaints made, documentation of the employees that attended the anti-discrimination training, documents generated during monitoring and counseling of employees suspected of discriminating against other employees, documentation of employees that suspected they were retaliated against, and documentation of any employee that became pregnant during the time they were employed by the defendants.
8) Every six months within the duration of this decree, the defendants had to provide reports to the EEOC. These reports had to contain information on the employees that attended training, copies of all discrimination and retaliation complaints, results of each investigation of discrimination and retaliation, and acknowledgement that all employees received anti-discrimination/retaliation policies.
9) The EEOC had the ability to inspect the defendants’ premises to ensure compliance with Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
The case is presumably closed, as there are no further activity on the case docket and the duration of the consent decree has lapsed.
Kevin Wilemon - 05/29/2008
Sean Whetstone - 05/24/2018
compress summary
