EEOC, garment firm settles alleged discrimination case

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced yesterday that it has reached a settlement agreement with L&T Corp. on the 20 discrimination charges filed against the company.

Attorney Colin Thompson, who represented L&T Corp. in the EEOC case, said L&T settled the case without admitting fault. “In order to avoid costly litigation and to put the conflict behind them, L&T has committed to giving equal employment opportunity [to all its workers],” he said.

He also stressed that the matter was resolved with L&T fully cooperating with the EEOC investigation—which EEOC itself commended in a news statement.

“We are very gratified that L&T worked cooperatively with the EEOC to reaching this agreement. This demonstrates that the public interest is best served when employers choose to work together with the EEOC to resolve allegations of employment discrimination,” said Timothy A. Riera, EEOC’s Honolulu local office director.

The settlements, reached before the EEOC had to file a lawsuit, provides for $197,000 to be split among a class of Bangladeshi, Filipino and Chinese employees.

In addition to the monetary compensation, L&T has agreed to ensure that employees will not receive different treatment based on their national origin for terms such as job assignments, overtime work, and benefits including wages, vacation sick leave, holiday pay and housing.

This type of differential treatment is a violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin, as well as race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation.

L&T has also agreed to conduct extensive training about this law with all of its managers, supervisors and other employees.

The settlements stemmed from national discrimination charges filed by 23 different parties in early 2002, Thompson said.

According to EEOC, the complainants alleged to the EEOC that L&T provided differing assignments and benefits depending on the employee’s national origin.

Further, employees charged, L&T provided more favorable benefits to employees from certain countries throughout all employee classifications.