Q&A WITH NATHAN WHATLEY
Q: Last month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit against Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA Inc., a Virginia based coffee company that produces Chock full o’Nuts, Hills Bros. and Kauai
Coffee, among other brands.
The complaint alleges Massimo
Zanetti violated federal civil rights law when it failed to stop sexual harassment of a female employee and then fired her because she complained about the harassment. What was the basis of the claims against the company?
A: According to the EEOC, a female employee named
LaToya Young worked for
Massimo Zanetti for about two months in early 2015.
Young was responsible for monitoring four coffee roasters until March 24, 2015. The suit claims that during the bulk of that time, an unnamed male co-worker repeatedly solicited sexual favors from Young, and told her he often imagined them having sex. The co-worker also allegedly made sexual gestures toward Young, grabbing his groin, blowing kisses and licking his lips in front of her. According to the suit, Young was subjected to at least two incidents of harassment each workday at the beginning of her employment. According to the EEOC, Young reported the harassment to her supervisor on at least three occasions, but the alleged harassment continued despite her complaints. Shortly after Young’s third complaint about the sexual harassment, she was fired for producing four batches of coffee that were out of specifications and for allegedly failing to report the out-of-spec batches to her supervisor. The suit contends that Young’s performance wasn’t the reason for her discharge, but rather she was fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment.
Q: How has Massimo Zanetti responded to the EEOC’s allegations?
A: So far the company has declined to comment on the lawsuit. However, according to the EEOC, the company denied any wrongdoing during the administrative investigation of Young’s claims and maintained that Young was terminated for legitimate business reasons. However, the EEOC alleges that the company’s reason is untrue, and that Young had in fact reported the four batches of coffee that were out of specification, and had even been told that she did not need to report such mistakes if there were four or fewer batches out of spec. The EEOC goes on to allege that the proximity of Young’s termination to her last harassment complaint (about three weeks) demonstrates that the termination was retaliatory.
Q: What type of relief is the EEOC seeking in this case? A: According to the complaint and statements issued by the EEOC, the Commission is seeking “full relief, including back pay, reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief” for Young. The EEOC also is apparently hoping that this lawsuit will serve as a cautionary tale for other employers. The regional attorney for the EEOC’s District Office in Charlotte, Lynette A. Barnes, issued the following statement: “Employers must remember they are obligated to take prompt remedial action when they learn about sexual harassment in the workplace. This case is also a reminder that a company must not retaliate after receiving a sexual harassment complaint.”
PAULA BURKES, BUSINESS WRITER