The plaintiffs are nineteen women presently or formerly employed by NPC in sales related positions. They claimed the NPC discriminated against them in various ways, including compensation, promotion and promotional opportunities, personnel evaluations and by adverse treatment of women who take maternity leave. They seek injunctive relief, back pay and front pay, and compensatory and punitive damages (US District Court Document). The class action lawsuit later grew to include 6,200 women employed by NPC. The time period of the discrimination was from 2002-2007
Amy Velez, who had twins in 2001 claimed she was repeatedly passed over for promotions by men who had inferior sales numbers. She also claims to have overheard a manager asking recruiters prospective employees were married or had children. (Wilson 2010). Another woman claims she was told by a manager that he prefers not to hire younger women saying “First comes Love, then comes marriage, then comes flex time and a baby carriage.” (Wilson 2010). In addition, the plaintiffs claim that men in the same positions earned more money than women in the save positions.
The final approval of the settlement was November 19, 2010. The settlement, which totaled $175 million, included $152.5 million in back wages, benefits, and adjusted wages, service payments to named plaintiffs who helped litigate the case, and attorneys' fees and costs, plus $22.5 million in nonmonetary relief representing Novartis's commitments to revise its employment policies to eliminate sex discrimination (McGowan 2010).
In response to the decision, according to NPC’s web page “As part of its commitment to fostering a diverse and inclusive workforce, NPC is implementing comprehensive programs designed to ensure that all members of its sales force are treated fairly.” NPC still denies these claims but admits some of its employees may have not followed company policy. NPC will also substantially revising its human resources policies, revamping its personnel management systems, and strengthening its commitment to ensuring gender equality in the workplace
These practices by NPC took place over a five year period between 2002-2007. The severity of the claims shows an escalating conflict. There were repeated offences. First there was awareness of differences; a couple female employees knew they were being passed over for promotions. This continued to annoyance; more female employees learned they were being continually passed over for promotions. Later to frustration; when the female employees learned that certain managers were not hiring younger women or women with children. Next there was anger; when sexist comments were made by management. This conflict finally escalated to hostility and war (war being the lawsuit).
NPC could have avoided this class action lawsuit by making sure all their branches were following proper anti-discrimination procedures. Inappropriate comments by management should have been taken seriously by upper management. All employees should have been required to go to diversity training. Upper management should have looked more closely at the male/female promotion ratio. If only NPC’s upper management would have been more in tune with their subordinates this costly lawsuit might have been avoided.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
The legal case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. is a sex discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Title VII specifically forbids any employer to … discriminate with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment in any way that would deprive any individual of employment opportunity due to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” (Twomey, 2013, p. 397). In this case, Oncale claimed that he was being discriminated against in his workplace because of his sex. In reading the case online, Oncale was “was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him … in the presence of the rest…
- 312 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Lilly Ledbetter was one of the very few female supervisors at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Alabama, and she worked at that plant for nineteen years, from 1979 till her retirement in 1998. Initially, when she started working for the company, her pay was equal to that of the other male supervisors. However, as time passed the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: the lowest she received was $3,727 per month, while the lowest paid male received $4,286. Thus, after realizing this Mrs. Ledbetter filed an official complaint before the EEOC in March 1998, stating that Goodyear violated the Title VII as they paid her a discriminatory low salary due to her sex. After she filed an official complaint, her case went to trial, and the jury concluded that the pay disparity was due to intentional discrimination. However, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the jury verdict, as it claimed Mrs. Ledbetter’s’ case was not filed in time, as the original discriminatory pay decision occurred before the statutory limitations of 180 days.…
- 751 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In the case of Wittenburg v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. (AEFA), Bonnie Wittenburg was an employee for AEFA in their Minneapolis office. The plaintiff was hired by the company in November of 1998 at the age of forty-six to serve as an Equity Research Analyst in AEFA's Equity Investment Department. During a reduction in force by the defendant in 2003, the plaintiff was terminated. In January of 2004, the plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received her Notice of Right to Sue on January 30, 2004. The plaintiff filed suit on February 13, 2004 alleging that she was discriminated and retaliated against by the defendant as a result of her age and gender. AEFA moved for a summary judgment.…
- 463 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
The facts in the case of Thompson V North American Stainless, LP 562 U.S._ (2011) are fairly straightforward. The petitioner in this case, Eric Thompson, was seemingly fired from his job at North American Stainless (NAS) because his fiancée, Miriam Regalado filed a sexual discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). His suit was filed under Title VII claiming that his dismissal was retaliation for his fiancée’s charge. (Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Magid, Reed, & Shedd, n.d.)…
- 567 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The Medicines Company Case Write-Up: Terence Cho, Felipe Duarte, Aleks Loiko, Robert Shaw, and James Wang…
- 868 Words
- 5 Pages
Powerful Essays -
2003: Lilly Ledbetter sued her employer, and the federal jury awarded her $3.8 million in damages, which was later reduced by $3.5 million by a judge.…
- 204 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
This case involves itself within The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA allows employees the right to form a union, to bargain collectively through a representative chosen on their own, and etc. Hence, employers have their rights but also obligations under the NLRA. The NLRA does not allow employers to discriminate or take part in any unfair…
- 608 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In her charge with EEOC she claimed "I have been discriminated against because of my sex, female and retaliated against for complaining of discrimination in violation of Title VII section 704(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended." (EEOC)…
- 736 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The legal issue in this case is about David Dunlap the plaintiff who has been faced with discrimination on the basis of race in the interview at Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) during the employment process of this company. Mr. Dunlap is an African American man whom has worked for many years as foreman through contract for the union. He has worked as a contractor with the union at Tennessee Authority as a boiler man for over twenty years including fifteen years as a foreman. He has applied for employment at TVA numerous times since 1970 and was not once offered an interview. Mr. Dunlap has established that regardless of experience and during the hiring development, the company has allowed racial favoritism. The court has to recognize if the business is legally responsible under title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 for racial bias with intent. Mr. Dunlap has claimed the case under disparate impact and disparate treatment investigation. (Walsh, 2010)…
- 1097 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
The plaintiff, who is 66 years old, brought this employment discrimination suit against her employer, J.C. Penney, after the company failed to promote her to the position of shift operations manager at the company's Moosic, Pennsylvania Customer Service Center. (See Complaint (Doc. 1)). She alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., retaliation claims under both acts, and the same claims under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. She brought these claims against both the company and the PHRA claims against her supervisor at the Moosic center, James Johnson.…
- 6840 Words
- 28 Pages
Good Essays -
This was a case brought to action by Joanne Zippittelli against her employer, J.C. Penney Company. Her defense for creating case was that she was overlooked for the position in question due to her age. Zippittelli was one of four women who applied for the position with the company. All four women had the same job title and when they were interviewed by the Personnel Manager, he determined that there were three candidates including the plaintiff qualified for the position. Johnson then ranked the applicants, making the plaintiff his third choice (Twomey, pg. 537). After a consultation with Johnson’s supervisor, he hired his first choice, Patti Cruikshank. Zippittelli had a conversation with her supervisor, Anita Benko about how she was overlooked. Benko asked Zippittelli how old she was at which time Zippittelli responded she was 63. Benko made the statement that she would “probably not” get the position. After having this conversation with her supervisor Zippittelli was convinced her age was to blame for her lack of success within the company. Zippittelli filed a complaint with the EEOC and received a right-to-sue letter. The Age discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination against any individual over the age of 40 with respect to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s age (Twomey, pg. 538).…
- 898 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
| Dear Mr. Moore, After reviewing this case, I can state that Teddy’s Supplies is definitely liable for the workplace and sexual harassment against Virginia Pollard. According to the facts, it’s indicated that Ms. Pollard (plaintiff) was placed in a ‘hostile’ environment and Mr. Steve King was her supervisor. Although it is not illegal for 1 woman to work with a group of men, it should be carefully determined by the employer if the environment is suitable for males and females to work together. In this case, it was not a good idea for 1 woman to work with male associates. • Workplace environment can by justified by 7 ways: race, gender, national origin, religious, color, age and disability. In this case, Pollard was constantly being harassed by her male colleagues. They played pranks on her by locking her drawers shut, filling the guard shack with trash, locking her out of the guard shack and therefore she was not able to perform her job duty since she was responsible for watching warehouse inventory. Also, Ms. Pollard was put into unnecessary risk of harm when a coworker backed a forklift up to the guard shack and it backfire into her ear. Ms. Pollard could have sustained injuries if the forklift had hit her because it weighted 3 tons and it could have easily injured her eardrums because it is very loud.…
- 2218 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Plaintiff-Appellant Emma S. Vaughn contests the judgment rendered in favor of defendant Texaco, Inc., dismissing with prejudice Vaughn's race and sex discrimination suit filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. Because the magistrate clearly erred in finding no racial discrimination, we reverse.…
- 3486 Words
- 14 Pages
Powerful Essays -
References: Fremgen (2012) Medical Law and Ethics. Work Place and Ethics Chapter 8. Retrieved from: The University of Phoenix…
- 1933 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
Men dominate the drug trade market because women were seen as unfit for the job. Women did not have the physical and metal attributions to work in an environment where they were exposed to violence and threats. In addition, women were seen as untrustworthy and unreliable which made it even more difficult for them move up in status. Although women were subjective to discrimination, victimization, unequal opportunity, and sexism when women saw an opportunity to even work in the drug trade market as a low status worker they took advantage of it even if the stakes of being caught were high.…
- 1185 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays