THE U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has asked the federal court to find Imperial Pacific International LLC in contempt for failing to comply with a previously entered consent decree and for not paying claimants in a sexual harassment case.
On Sept. 24, 2019, EEOC sued IPI for sexual harassment and unfair employment practices on behalf of Shirlene Loh, a VIP hostess, and other similarly aggrieved female employees.
EEOC named as defendants IPI, Best Sunshine International and IPI Holdings Limited and unnamed individuals who in some manner are responsible for the acts alleged in the complaint.
EEOC alleged that IPI was engaged in unlawful discrimination when it subjected the claimants to unwelcome physical and verbal sexual harassment by male patrons that was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to adversely affect the terms and conditions of their employment.”
IPI denied all the allegations and asked the court to rule in its favor and dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
In April 2021, IPI agreed to settle the claims and resolve the lawsuit.
IPI and EEOC entered into a consent decree, which required IPI and other unnamed defendants to:
1) Provide monetary relief to the employees who experienced sexual harassment and sex discrimination;
2) Forbid sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation in the future;
3) Review, revise and redistribute their policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation;
4) Hire an external EEO monitor and designate an in-house EEO coordinator; and
5) Provide training to management and employees regarding harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex and retaliation.
The consent decree was approved by Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the District Court for the NMI on April 27, 2021.
The consent decree was also signed by IPI chief executive officer Ray Yumul, attorney Stephen Nutting, who represented IPI in the lawsuit, and EEOC attorney Anna Y. Park.
According to the consent decree, IPI secured a settlement amounting to 16 parcels of its Flame Tree Terrace apartments in As Mahetog as collateral.
But according to EEOC attorney Eric Yau, instead of complying fully with the various obligations of the decree, “defendants have, to date, only made the first three monthly monetary payments, totaling $60,000, and have been delinquent in making the August and September payments.”
In addition, Yau said, “defendants’ counsel only circulated a draft mortgage of the Flame Tree Terrace to the EEOC recently when the fully recorded secured instrument with respect to the Flame Tree Terrace, which is to be used as a collateral, should have been provided to the EEOC within 20 days of the decree.”
Yau said he contacted IPI’s attorney on numerous occasions, both in writing and telephonically, to resolve the continued non-compliance without the court’s intervention, but to no avail.
Yau is now asking the court to find IPI in contempt for failing to perform the various provisions of the court-approved consent decree.
The EEOC attorney also wants the court to order IPI to wire the remaining $45,000, plus applicable penalty and interest, to the claimants within 15 days.
Yau said the court should hold IPI responsible for any attorney’s fees or other fees that the EEOC incurred in bringing this motion; and any other monetary and/or non-monetary sanction as determined appropriate by the court.
