Posted on 06/07/2007 8:21:09 AM PDT by Lijahsbubbe
A female worker's immigration status doesn't bar her from a filing a sexual harassment lawsuit, a federal judge in Minneapolis has ruled.
Maria Torres, a cook at the Perkins Restaurant and Bakery in St. Paul's Midway neighborhood, accused her boss of making sexually suggestive remarks, touching her and showing up unannounced at her house. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Torres filed a harassment and retaliation lawsuit, alleging Perkins started investigating her immigration status only after she complained.
Attorneys for Perkins tried to have the case dismissed, arguing her suspected status as an undocumented worker barred her and the EEOC from suing.
U.S. District Judge John Tunheim refused to throw out the suit, finding that "a ruling that undocumented workers could not pursue civil rights claims on their own behalf would likely chill these important actions."
The EEOC praised Tunheim's decision as upholding important protections for workers, but an attorney for Perkins said it places companies in a precarious spot.
"This is a very important decision," said Deborah Powers, an EEOC attorney based in Milwaukee. "It reaffirms a position we've held for years. Immigration status is not relevant to the case as a whole and does not preclude anyone from bringing an action under Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act)."
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Neither the U.S.
Supreme Court nor the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on the issue of immigration status and Title VII protections. According to the lawsuit, Torres was subject to sexual comments and inappropriate touching that culminated with her boss, Mario Centeno, showing up at her home for her child's baptism. Torres felt humiliated by the comments and suffered stress, headaches and loss of appetite, according to the suit.
When Torres, who is married, rebuffed Centeno's advances, he treated her more severely than the other cooks, saying to her, "If you won't take it the good way, then it will be the bad way," according to the suit.
Centeno also threatened to report Torres as an undocumented worker if she complained, according to court documents. Torres' immigration status is unknown, Powers said.
Torres told senior managers at Perkins about the harassment April 2, 2004. She also told managers she had delayed reporting the harassment because Centeno had threatened to turn her in to immigration authorities.
Managers reprimanded Centeno. They also told Torres that her immigration papers were inadequate and fired her April 9, 2004 - within a week of her reporting the harassment, the EEOC alleges.
"It was only after she complained about sexual harassment that Perkins starting making allegations about her documentation. That sure looks like retaliation, and we expect that the trial in the case will bear that out," Jean Kamp, an attorney for the EEOC based in Chicago, said in a written statement.
Perkins attorney Tad Selzer said the restaurant promptly investigated the harassment allegations but also felt compelled to look into Torres' immigration status when she told managers she waited to complain because she feared deportation.
However, the EEOC alleges in court papers that Perkins hired Torres "believing her to be undocumented and not legally permitted to work in the United States."
Selzer denied that Torres was ever fired, saying managers agreed to put her back on the work schedule when she got her documentation straightened out.
"We're in an era where employers are getting raided and employers are fined for knowingly employing undocumented workers," he said.
The case could be set for trial.
Perkins should also be prosecuted for hiring an illegal worker.
“accused her boss of making sexually suggestive remarks, touching her and showing up unannounced at her house.”
Other than the touching, how is what she is alleging here different than what she perpetrated by being here illegally? If she was so uncomfortable with him showing up at her house uninvited, she should be able to understand how her illegal status makes Americans uncomfortable.
her boss, Mario Centeno, showing up at her home for her child’s baptism.
I can’t imagine how he could “show up” for this anchor-baby occasion without her having told him about it in the first place
Yes, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim is a corrupt Clinton scumbag, appointed in 1995.
Once he hired her he took on the responsibilities of an employer, and this sounds like something that was considered "sexual harrasment" even before the anti-Thomas lobby twisted the definition around.
-Eric
I can’t imagine how he could “show up” for this anchor-baby occasion without her having told him about it in the first placeWell, if she needed to request the day off, that would be one way he could have found out...
-Eric
That would be the most just ruling.
Next suit: a bank robber complaining about how he was treated while robbing the bank.
Hmm. Anchor baby baptismal parties. There’s a new niche. Balloons, napkins, tableclothes, with anchors..
Perhaps she invited other co-workers, and he heard about it through the grapevine? It's not so hard to imagine . . .
I don’t think she has much credibility. She’s already a lawbreaker. As for a suit, I think it shown be thrown out, along with her.
I doubt her flavor of crime has any bearing at all on this.
Be careful, home invaders might file a suit against you for locking your doors.
I don’t see why it shouldn’t.
“I don’t think she has much credibility.”
Speaking as a woman, when women say they are being sexually harassed, I tend to believe them.
“She’s already a lawbreaker. As for a suit, I think it shown be thrown out, along with her.”
Scenario: Your grandkid is caught by a shopkeeper shoplifting. The shopkeeper takes the opportunity to cop a feel.
Lijah’s Bubbe says: You had it coming.
Thanks, your sense of justice is clearly overdeveloped!
Because the crime of sexual harassment is completely different in nature than, and unrelated to, the crime of being in this country illegally. Would the victim of a murder not be a murder victim if he or she were in the country illegally? Would the victim of a robbery not be a robbery victim if he or she were in the country illegally?
Hemmingway,
Excellent and obvious points.
Interesting that LB doesn’t think the employer’s character is in any way questionable, even though he is undeniably breaking the law as well by employing illegals.
Oh well, smart isn’t everything.
Sorry, doesn’t work, my grandchild is legal.
And you owe me an apology, for lying. You said I said she had it coming. Never said it, never implied it. You should be ashamed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.