A Minnesota-based music print company was sued by the EEOC after the agency received complaints alleging that the company failed to correct harassment in the workplace despite multiple complaints that the company management received from its employees.
A sexual harassment lawsuit has been filed by the EEOC after the agency learned that Hal Leonard Publishing subjected its female workers to unwanted squeezing and grabbing. Employees were also subjected to sex-based comments and gestures at the company’s facility in Minnesota.
Allegedly, despite multiple complaints filed by the company’s employees, its management failed to do any corresponding action to stop the misconduct.
The EEOC immediately responded to the employees complaints by conducting an investigation. Therefore, the EEOC found a reasonable cause to believe that Hal Leonard violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To settle the complaints, Hal Leonard agrees to pay $150,000 to a class of victims and will ask for apology to the former employees that filed the sexual harassment lawsuit. The company is also required to conduct a yearly anti-discrimination training, and provide a documentation of all harassment in the workplace complaints in the workplace for three consecutive years. Also, said company is further required to provide documentation of a provision regarding accountability in performance evaluation of managers, supervisors and senior employees.
The EEOC warned Hal Leonard, as well as other companies, to strictly implement its sexual harassment policy because if they will not comply with the federal rules, they will definitely put their own company at risk since harassment in the workplace is a very serious matter.
However, despite the sanctions imposed by the EEOC against Hal Leonard, the agency expressed its appreciation to the latter for entering into an agreement with them which will settle the case without the need to go through the long process of litigation.
Sexual harassment in the workplace has been seen as not only an insult against modesty, but more importantly, it is interpreted as a humiliating conduct affecting the well protected rights of employees.