EEOC Secures Verdict For Family Suffering From Retaliation

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced in a press release last week that the Commission had obtained a federal jury verdict in the amount of $51,700 in back pay, compensatory and punitive damages.  The EEOC prosecuted the suit on behalf of four family members who were fired for resisting sexual harassment at a restaurant in Tucker, Georgia.

The EEOC suit alleged that Lauren Goldston, a waitress at Sangria’s Mexican Café, engaged in protected activity when she opposed and complained about unwelcome sexual advances, remarks, and inappropriate touching by a male cook at the restaurant.  Goldston’s mother, aunt, and uncle also worked at Sangria’s. They all reported the sexual harassment to Sangria’s’ owner on several occasions, the EEOC said, but nothing was done by the company to remedy the hostile work environment. Instead of ending the harassment, Sangria’s terminated all of the Goldstons in retaliation for reporting the misconduct.

An Atlanta jury found that the Goldstons were entitled to back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.  The Goldstons were able to mitigate their backpay damages by finding work shortly after they were terminated, which is why their award was relatively small.  Despite the limited damages, however, the EEOC was encouraged by its success in this case and hoped it sent a message to other small employers.  Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC in Atlanta, explained:

Suing a small employer is a difficult proposition. However, the EEOC pursued this case to prevent similar acts of retaliation from recurring. In this case, the jury did a fabulous job. Their verdict was fair, thoughtful and well-reasoned as they attempted to balance compensating the Goldstons on one hand while ensuring the economic viability of the restaurant going forward.

Lisa J. Banks is a partner at Katz, Marshall & Banks, a law firm which specializes in representing victims of sexual harassment and retaliation.  Ms. Banks, a former attorney with the EEOC’s appellate division, commended the EEOC’s decision to pursue the case against Sangria’s.  “What happens all too often is that employees who are terminated unfairly, but who incur relatively small economic losses, are not able to attract quality counsel to represent them because the potential reward is relatively small,” explained Ms. Banks.  “So it is important that the EEOC take action on behalf of these deserving workers.”