This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Sexual Harassment
Retaliation

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cyma Orchids Inc., Taean Orchids USA Inc.

Published: Dec. 24, 2011 | Result Date: Nov. 29, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:2010-cv-07122 Settlement –  $240,000

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Carol A. Igoe
(California Nurses Association)

Anna Y. Park
(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

Michael J. Farrell

Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes


Defendant

Hubert H. Kuo

Alexander J. Chang

Sara B. Wang

Neil B. Klein

Douglas M. Wade


Facts

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint against Cyma Orchids Inc. on behalf of Latina greenhouse workers alleging pervasive harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on sex and national origin.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The workers alleged that they were continually sexually harassed by supervisors, managers, and the owners. They were groped on their breasts and buttocks; received repeated unwelcome touchings and propositions; and were the subject of sexual jokes and comments about their bodies. The complaint further alleged that both Korean and Hispanic male supervisory staff engaged in the widespread sexual harassment and racial discrimination. The complaint further alleged that workers who complained were retaliated against, including a male worker who was fired after he defended one of the victims.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Cyma purchased the assets of Taean, including its California orchid growing operations in 2008. At that time, Taean's employees came to work for Cyma, but the company was not aware of any allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination that occurred at Taean prior to that time. Taean denied that such actions occurred, and Cyma denied that any such alleged actions took place thereafter, in particular that its owner (who purchased the business from the owners of Taean) was involved in any such alleged actions.

Result

When the suit was filed in 2010, the EEOC demanded Cyma (as Taean's successor) pay over $10 million and agree to EEOC oversight under a 5-year consent decree. At a settlement conference before Judge Magistrate Margaret Nagle, Cyma agreed to pay $200,000 to settle the entire class action and the prior owners of Taean agreed to pay $40,000 to cover the CRLA's attorneys fees. Further, the EEOC and Cyma agreed to a 2 1/2 year consent decree.


#94947

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390