The three-year, court-enforced consent decree will resolve four EEOC discrimination lawsuits against the employers and their affiliates: Tan Holdings Corporation; Tan Holdings Overseas, Inc.; Concorde Garment Manufacturing Corp.; Micro Pacific, Inc.; Seasonal Inc.; and L&T International Corp.
The EEOC filed the cases in U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
The consent decrees, signed by U.S. Federal Court Judge Alex R Munson on July 28, 2009, resolve the lawsuits filed by the EEOC in the Federal District Court.
“This major settlement shows that the EEOC will vigorously protect the rights of all workers, within every reach of our jurisdiction, to be free of discrimination,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.
“The resolutions of these egregious cases bring a measure of justice to the many workers who were retaliated against and otherwise victimized by discriminatory employment practices because of their national origin, age, or pregnancy.”
In the first case against L&T, Civil Case No. 06-0031, the EEOC alleged that the employer retaliated against 14 Filipino and Bangladeshi workers when it terminated them because they filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC.
The allegations in the case also included that Bangladeshi security guards were being treated differently than Nepalese with respect to assignment of overtime hours, work location, and housing.
Further, the EEOC said the defendants discriminated on the basis of national origin by providing different amounts of benefits to Nepalese, Chinese, Filipino and Bangladeshi employees, and failed to conduct any investigation regarding the claimants’ allegations.
Within two or three months after the charge was filed with the EEOC, defendants unlawfully retaliated against the workers by failing to renew their contracts.
In the largest case, Civil Case No. 07-0029, the EEOC charged that L&T discriminated against a class of non-Chinese workers, many of them Filipino, due to their national origin.
The EEOC alleged that employees were forced to work and eat in segregated facilities, denied adequate housing and, after they complained, were all replaced by Chinese workers in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The charging parties in this case were all are non-resident workers hired by the defendants as sewers, but they actually did the work of “packers,” who packed the clothing made by Concorde manufacturing facility.
Nearly all of the workers were hired in February and March, 2004, under one-year contracts.
However, after only a few months, in mid-May, 2004, all the charging parties were called into a meeting with human resources officials and were told that they were being laid off because of low sales.
Nearly all the terminated workers were Filipinos.
The EEOC further alleged that these same charging parties were also segregated from Chinese employees during the work day and at lunch.
The defendant acknowledged this segregation, saying that it “promoted a harmonious working environment,” even though it was a clear violation of federal law.
The Filipino workers were forbidden to use the company cafeteria to eat their lunches, and instead had to bring their lunches to work and eat them outside.
Moreover, the EEOC alleged that defendants further discriminated against non-Chinese workers by refusing to provide them food, lodging and medical care.
Another case, Civil Case No. 08-0038, alleged that the employer discriminated
against pregnant women by terminating and replacing them with non-pregnant workers.
The EEOC was prepared to present evidence, had the case proceeded to trial, showing that L&T International Corporation engaged in a pattern of terminating and/or refusing to renew employment contracts of its female employees once they became pregnant.
The EEOC was also prepared to present the employer’s own document, which revealed that an employee’s status for her renewal contract was “non-renewal” because she was “8 months pregnant.”
Moreover, the EEOC was also prepared to show that L&T discriminated against its Filipino employees in assignment of overtime by continuing to give substantial overtime to its Chinese employees while allowing its Filipino employees little to no overtime. ce of the case at their various facilities.
