U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Armed Forces Services Corporation

On July 5, 2022, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Anna Y. Park, Connie K. Liem and Nakkisa Akhavan of the U.S. EEOC, filed a civil rights action against Armed Forces Services Corporation (“Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged employment discrimination by the defendant. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, with Judge Cynthia Bashant presiding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff stated, “This is an action brought by Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (hereinafter ‘Title VII’) to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide appropriate relief to the Charging Party.”

Plaintiff alleged, “Armed Forces Services Corporation unlawfully discriminated against Charging Party on the basis of sex (female) and retaliation. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.”

Plaintiff further alleged, “Defendant has continuously been a corporation doing business within California and the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Defendant has continuously employed fifteen (15) or more persons. All conditions precedent have been fulfilled by more than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Prior to filing suit, the Commission issued Defendant a Letter of Determination on the charge of discrimination, finding reasonable cause to believe that Title VII was violated and invited Defendant to join with the Commission in informal methods of conciliation to endeavor to eliminate the discriminatory practices and provide appropriate relief. The Commission engaged in communications with Defendant and provided Defendant the opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices as described in the Letter of Determination.”

 The plaintiff additionally alleged, “On or about June 2017, Charging Party began her employment with Defendant. From June 2017 through early July 2018, Defendant allowed Charging Party to be subjected to sexual harassment based on sex (female). After complaining about the sexual harassment, Charging Party was subjected to retaliation.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “The effect of the practices complained of, has been to deprive Charging Party of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of sex, female. The unlawful employment practices complained of, caused Charging Party to suffer emotional distress.”

Plaintiff stated one claim for relief for alleged violation of Section 703 (a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1).

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested injunctive and declaratory relief along with an award of punitive damages and costs of litigation.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.