Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard 2010 Annual Report

Civil Rights Division (continued)
fitness test known to have a
call taker who requested to
• State v. La Paloma: This
leged that a manager sexually
The employer had less than
disparate impact on women
use her certified service dog
employment lawsuit involves
harassed an employee on
15 employees when the
a requirement to promote to
at work as a reasonable ac-
an employer that owns and
more than one occasion and
harassment occurred, so the
sergeant in order to prevent
commodation for her mobility
operates group homes serv-
when the employee com-
Division had jurisdiction under
the only woman ever to have
disability. The defendants
ing adolescents with mental
plained of the treatment, the
the Arizona Civil Rights Act
otherwise qualified from
refused to grant her request
health diagnoses. The Divi-
employer retaliated against
to investigate the complaint
attaining that position. The
and retaliated against her
sion alleges that the employer
her by reducing her work
(whereas the EEOC did not
case includes claims for
for engaging in protected
failed to hire an otherwise
hours, asking her to transfer
have jurisdiction under fed-
disparate impact as well as
conduct.
qualified applicant as a
to a location farther from her
eral law.) The parties entered
disparate treatment discrimination
relating to defendants’
implementation of the physical
fitness test. As such, the
case has implications for
female police officers other
than the charging party.
• State v. Dupnik, et al.: The
Division filed a lawsuit against
Pima County Sheriff Clarence
Dupnik, Pima County and the
Pima County Sheriff’s Department
for alleged disability
• State v. Frito-Lay, Inc. and
Frito-Lay North America:
This case of sex- and racebased
employment discrimination
involves allegations
that the defendants harassed
and discriminated against a
Caucasian female employee
after she was promoted to a
position generally occupied
by Hispanic males, and then
threatened her with termination
and demoted her after
behavioral health technician
because she is deaf. The
Division also alleges that the
employer failed to engage
in the interactive process or
consider available reasonable
accommodations that would
have enabled the applicant to
perform the essential functions
of the position.
• State v. CEO Foods d/b/a
eegee’s: The Division settled
a claim against this Tucson
home and treating her less
favorably than other employees.
The settlement agreement
required the defendant
to provide fair monetary relief
to the employee, adopt new
sexual harassment policies
and procedures, expand its
training program, and appoint
a trained employee to
be responsible for receiving
and investigating employees’
harassment allegations.
into a consent judgment that
required the defendant to pay
$15,000 to the employee.
discrimination and retaliation
she was injured in an indus-
employer that owns and
• State v. Unique Hair Artistry,
against a former employee.
trial accident attributable to
operates a chain of fast-food
et al.: The Division filed a
The employee was a 9-1-1
the defendants’ safety viola-
restaurants. The lawsuit al-
lawsuit against this employer
tions.
for alleged sexual harassment
of a female employee.
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard • 2010 Annual Report
47