Compliance March 1, 2004

Babies 'R' Us Settles Same-Sex Harassment Case

November 15, 2002 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A former Babies "R" Us employee who claimed he was sexually harassed and once forcibly partially undressed has won a $205,000 lawsuit settlement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said.
Reported by

According to an Associated Press story, the EEOC reached the out-of-court agreement on behalf of Andres Vasquez with the Paramus, New Jersey-based Toys “R” Us, which owns Babies “R” Us.

The EEOC said Vasquez began working at a New Jersey Babies “R” Us store in February 2000, but quit seven months later, claiming he was the target of derogatory and unwelcome comments.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Spokesman Edward McCaffrey said other co-workers felt Vasquez did not meet stereotypes of how men should look or behave. “His mannerisms were viewed by his co-workers as not masculine enough,” McCaffrey told the Associated Press.

According to the EEOC, the company took no corrective action even when, at one point, Vasquez claimed co-workers forcibly stripped him of his pants and underpants. The EEOC ruled that Vasquez’ federal civil rights had been violated by being subject to a sexually hostile work environment and filed suit.

As part of the agreement submitted to US District Judge William Bassler, Babies “R” Us admitted no wrongdoing in the case, but will instruct all New Jersey workers annually about federal anti-discrimination laws, the AP reported.

Compliance February 27, 2004

CA Public Permanent-Temp Workers Entitled to Benefits

February 27, 2004 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Public workers in California hired and staffed through a staffing agency cannot be denied retirement benefits.
Reported by

>The California state Supreme Court upheld two lower courts’ decisions that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California violated California law in not allowing the so-called permanent-temporary workers to receive benefits offered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).   The water agency maintained it could exclude workers paid through private companies, even if they would be employees under common law principles, according to an Associated Press report.

>The class-action suit, involving about 3,000 people, was filed in Superior Court in 1998 and contends that the workers were told they were coming on board for temporary jobs.   The suit also claims plaintiffs were actually permanent workers employed by the water agency, which entitled them to the same retirement benefits due to regular MWD employees.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

>In the high court’s ruling, the judges only considered whether the water agency is required under the Public Employees’ Retirement Law to enroll people considered Water District employees in CalPERS.   However, the plaintiffs also want a court order requiring the Water District to refer them to CalPERS for enrollment. They will then ask CalPERS to give them credit for their public service as employees of the Water District.

“The message goes to public employers in California and says that if someone is truly your employee … that you have to include them in the pension system,” said attorney Walter Cochran-Bond, who represents plaintiffs.

«