EEOC files suit vs IPI for sexual harassment, sex discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed yesterday in federal court a sexual harassment and sex discrimination lawsuit against Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC and Imperial Pacific International Holdings Limited for allegedly subjecting some female VIP service hosts to unwelcome physical and verbal sexual harassment by IPI casino’s male patrons known as high rollers.

Saipan Tribune was waiting comments from IPI as of press time yesterday.

EEOC, through counsel regional attorney Anna Y. Park, alleged that the hostile work environment became intolerable and caused many of the claimants to be constructively discharged.

Park also alleged that defendants subjected claimants to unlawful retaliation by threatening to terminate those who engaged in protected activities, reduced their breaks, imposing additional work duties, and/or terminating/constructively discharging them.

Park said the defendants engaged in sex discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment by imposing different duties and assignments that women were forced to perform which men were not forced to perform as VIP service hosts.

EEOC asked the court to issue a permanent injunction enjoining IPI and their officers from engaging in sexual harassment, retaliation, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.

EEOC asked the court to order defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs to ensure that they would not engage in further unlawful employment practices.

EEOC requested the court to order defendants to make the class of aggrieved individuals whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, including appropriate backdpay and front pay with prejudgment interest of any lost pay and benefits, in amounts to be determined at trial.

EEOC also demanded payment to the class of aggrieved individuals for damages and for court costs.

According to Park in the EEOC lawsuit, in 2015, the executive director of Imperial Pacific, Yuki Yu Xia, interviewed and hired claimants and others to work as VIP service hosts and managers for IPI’s Best Sunshine casino on Saipan.

Park said as the executive director of Imperial Pacific, Xia was a member of Imperial Pacific’s board of directors and executive committee.

Park said Xia developed marketing strategies for VIP guests at the casino on Saipan, marketing analysis, investment strategy, product marketing, and annual sales planning.

Park said Xia regularly traveled to Saipan at least 14 times between 2015 and 2016 to supervise and direct the work of Best Sunshine’s VIP service hosts and other managers like Best Sunshine’s vice president for investor relations and vice president of VIP operations on Saipan.

Park said more than 30 days prior to the filing of this lawsuit, the female employee filed a charge of discrimination with EEOC alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by IPI, including the allegations that other female employees were subject to harassment and discrimination.

Park said EEOC then investigated the charge of discrimination.

Park said that on Sept 6, 2018, EEOC issued to defendants a letter of determination finding reasonable cause to believe that defendants had violated Title VII by subjecting charging party and a class of similarly situated individuals to sex discrimination (female), sexual harassment, sex-based harassment (female), assignment on the basis of sex (female), constructive discharge, and retaliation for engaging in a protected activity.

Park said EEOC engaged in communications with defendants to provide defendants the opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices described in the letter of determination.

Park said EEOC was unable to secure through informal methods of conciliation from defendants an agreement acceptable to EEOC.

Park said since at least 2015, Imperial Pacific and Best Sunshine engaged in unlawful employment practices by subjecting the charging party and a class of female employees to unwelcome sexual conduct by male patrons, sex discrimination (female), constructive discharge, and retaliation.

Park said the male patrons were high rollers and known to defendants.

She said the male patrons were specifically targeted to generate business for the defendants and given special attention by the VIP service hosts.

Park said a charging party worked for defendants as a VIP service host and that from December 2015 to August 2016, defendants’ male patrons subjected her to regular and repeated sexual harassment.

The harassment included repeated touching and comments of a sexual nature, and grabbing her arm by a male patron with the intention of taking her to his hotel room for sex.

Park said the charging party was forced to quit in August 2016 when she found the sexual harassment by male patrons to be intolerable.

Park said the sexual harassment that other similarly situated aggrieved female employees were subjected to, included being required to swim in bikinis with male patrons while being subjected to repeated touching and comments of a sexual nature.

They were allegedly asked to demonstrate a French kiss by male patrons, forcefully kissed on the lips by a male patron, pushed by a male patron onto a sofa with the intention of being forced to have sex with that male patron, and offered a house in return for having sex with a male patron.

Park said the sexual harassment by male patrons were unwelcome.

Park said Xia facilitated the hostile work environment by ordering claimants to change into bikinis and swim with male patrons, eat and drink alcohol with male patrons, and escort male patrons to their villas with specific instruction that claimants were to make male patrons “happy.”

Park said Xia even told male patrons in front of the claimants that they could inappropriately touch claimants.