Largest Garment Manufacturer in Saipan to Pay $1.7 MILLION in Landmark Discrimination Settlement with EEOC

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

SAIPAN, CNMI –The largest employer and conglomerate of garment manufacturers in Saipan, has agreed to pay $1.7 million and to provide far reaching and significant injunctive relief to settle a series of lawsuits filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that charged the company with retaliation and discrimination based on national origin, pregnancy and age, all in violation of federal law.

The three-year, court-enforced consent decree will resolve four EEOC discrimination lawsuits against the employers and their affiliates. 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 the company, the EEOC alleged 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, the defendants unlawfully retaliated against the workers by failing to renew their contracts.

In the largest case, the EEOC charged the company 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 the 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 Filipino.

The EEOC further alleged 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 the defendants further discriminated against non-Chinese workers by refusing to provide them food, lodging and medical care.

Another case alleged 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 the company 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 the company 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. Defendants’ payroll records revealed that Chinese employees were receiving significantly more overtime hours per week than Filipino employees.

One of the charging parties, Adelyn Lubrico, who had been employed as a quality control checker since 2000, said, “I would like to thank the EEOC for all the effort, time, and help.  I used to feel so hopeless because of my termination due to my pregnancy. Now, I feel blessed because the EEOC is fair and provided justice to me.  I want people to know that you don't have to be popular to have a voice if you are a victim of discrimination.”

The fourth and final lawsuit alleged discrimination against a long-term employee due to age and national origin (Filipino) in violation of the Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The EEOC alleged one of the company’s supervisors constantly subjected an employee to age-related verbal harassment, calling the claimant “old.” In addition to age-based comments, the employee also had to endure from her supervisor discriminatory comments related to her Filipino national origin.  The EEOC further asserts the employee was ultimately fired based on age and national origin.

EEOC Regional Attorney Anna Y. Park of the agency’s Los Angeles District Office, which has jurisdiction over the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, said, “Workers should not have to fear losing their job because of their national origin, age or pregnancy, and no one should fear retaliation for coming to the EEOC for help.  In addition to the monetary relief secured for the victims in these cases, the employer has made a commitment to ensure equal opportunity for its workers going forward, which is buttressed by the remedial provisions of the consent decree.”

Besides the $1.7 million obtained by the EEOC, the three-year consent decree also requires the companies to institute broad injunctive relief and remedies such as: 

·       Hiring of an equal opportunity consultant to train all managers and employees;

·       Extensive training for all of its non managerial, managerial, and human resources employees;

·       Enjoining the companies from discriminating or retaliating against its employees;

·       Monitoring by the EEOC and reporting to the EEOC on their progress in fulfilling the terms of the consent decree;

·       Reporting all complaints of national origin, age and pregnancy discrimination to the EEOC during the term of the decree;

·       Establishing effective policies and procedures, including a complaint procedure for handling discrimination complaints; and

·       Posting of a notice of the case at their various facilities.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  The Los Angeles District's jurisdiction includes Southern and Central California, Nevada, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Wake Island, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.  Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov. 

For more information about employment discrimination laws, or how to protect your company from potential liability, please contact Berkshire Associates at 800.882.8904 or email bai@berkshireassociates.com.