Introduction: EEOC v. Blockbuster Inc.

Blockbuster Inc., based in Dallas, has opted to pay nearly two million dollars to settle a lawsuit for what appears to be quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment and racial discrimination. The suit was launched by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for acts that allegedly took place between 2004 and 2005 at a Maryland distribution center. The seven female employees involved in the case accused several male supervisors of requesting sexual favors, making insulting and threatening comments, and engaging in unwelcome sexually charged questioning and offensive racial remarks. The women’s negative responses to such behavior ultimately resulted in their hours being cut, and in certain instances, they were terminated or forced to resign. The women’s case was presented to the EEOC, and after unsuccessfully attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement, the commission filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Sexual Harassment Claims

The conduct that the accused Blockbuster supervisors partook in and tolerated constitutes a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sexual harassment claims come in two forms: quid pro quo and hostile work environment. Quid pro quo refers to instances where an employer or co-worker insists that an employee perform sexual favors in exchange for job-related benefits or simply to secure employment. A hostile work environment is created when inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace persists to the point where it becomes sufficiently severe and pervasive so as to alter the terms of employee’s employment. In addition to preventing and guarding against sexual harassment, employers must allow employees to report and rectify any resulting harm, and employees may not be chastised or retaliated against for filing complaints or refusing to engage in any inappropriate behaviors.

Blockbuster is likely responsible for both types of the aforementioned sexual harassment. If the supervisory staff requested sex from female employees in exchange for preferential treatment, they will have engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment, which essentially means “this for that” in Latin. The threats that were launched against the women likely would fall into this category as well. Further, according to the EEOC, the men’s conduct was indeed pervasive, and apparently severe, therefore allowing the women to allege hostile work environment sexual harassment also. It is unclear whether the female victims were fired or forced to resign after rebuking the advances of their supervisors and reporting their unlawful conduct. However, regardless of the direct cause which led to such actions, the material alterations in the women’s employment conditions are important facts that may serve as proof of either the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment or of retaliation.

Racial Discrimination Claims

Four of the female victims are Hispanic, and if the Blockbuster supervisors indeed engaged in offensive racial slurs and other discriminatory behavior, the individual men, and/or Blockbuster, Inc may be liable for racial discrimination. Title VII also proscribes businesses, employing fifteen or more employees, from discriminating against their employees on the basis of race-related characteristics and affiliations. Similarly to sexual harassment, there are two flavors of racial discrimination: disparate-treatment and disparate-impact discrimination. The former occurs when a person is singled out on account of a protected class, including race and national origin. The latter, disparate-impact discrimination, is more subtle and occurs when a neutral practice has a substantial and harmful impact on a protected group. Additionally, the practice must not be significantly related to the job, and if there is another, less restrictive alternative, it must be adopted by the employer. In this case, it appears that the four female employees were subjected to disparate-treatment discrimination since they were singled out and called derogatory names.

Conclusion

Representatives of the EEOC hope that this case will serve as a warning to those employers who utilize staffing agency personnel since they owe the same responsibility as do permanent employers, to protect their temporary employees from harassment and discrimination. It is important for others to follow in the footsteps of these seven women and to notify the EEOC, or a qualified sexual harassment lawyer in Orange County, of any misconduct that occurs in the workplace. A sexual harassment lawyer in Orange County, such as Diefer Law Group, will be able to examine a case and suggest possible solutions or refer individuals to the proper authority or commission who can.