The case will be centered around the U.S. charges of sexual harassment at a Mitsubishi plant in Illinois. The crime was committed by Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, or MMMA, who subjected around 300 women working at the factory to sexual harassment (“Mitsubishi Lawsuit” par. 1). The involved parties included the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission or EEOC and MMMA (“Mitsubishi Lawsuit” par. 1). It is stated that “on 9 April 1996, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Illinois against Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America Inc.” (“Mitsubishi Lawsuit” par. 2). The case was an outrageous one, where MMMA paid compensation to the victims and adopted a zero-tolerance policy.
The plaintiff, EEOC, brought the case to the court of law by claiming that MMMA violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The latter “bans employers from discriminating against employees in their hiring, firing, and promotion practices on the basis of sex, national origin, color, religion, or race” (OpenStax 105). In addition, it applies to employers who employ more than 15 workers for more than 20 weeks without any interruption (OpenStax 106). The case of discrimination on the basis of sex in the form of sexual harassment was brought by the plaintiff. Examples include physical assaults, verbal assaults, sharing of pornographic photos by male employees, ‘flashing’ by male coworkers, inappropriate graffiti, ‘sex bar’ business trips to Japan, and managers’ tolerance of such workplace behavior. It was evident that female workers were subjected to a toxic environment in the workplace, where managers ignored sexual harassment behavior and even facilitated such conduct.
Moreover, despite the numerous reports to the Employee Relations Department of the employer, the department was either unresponsive or slow to respond to these problems. The case also showed that the managers of the department were not interested in stopping the harassment instances. In response, MMMA argued that many complaints were time-barred, and the sexual harassment claims were in the form of summary judgment, which cannot be used as a claim. After two years, in 1998, the proposed argument by the defendant was rejected by the court because it was a case of ‘pattern or practice.’ The court also ruled that there was no inexcusable delay by the plaintiff and no statutes limiting the sexual harassment case’s applicability.
The outcome was manifested in the fact that a settlement was reached after six months in 1998. The settlement was that MMMA undertook a zero-tolerance policy in regard to sexual harassment by revising its policies and showing commitment towards the changes under a review of an independent panel. In addition, compensation of $34 million was paid to the victims. The final reports showed that significant progress was made at the workplace of the subsidiary of Mitsubishi Motors.
In conclusion, the case illuminates the importance of fighting organization-wide violations and discrimination with an organized approach. Although the process took almost two years to settle, effective measures were undertaken to ensure that MMMA was held responsible for its actions. The role of the EEOC was of paramount importance in fighting the employer’s incompetence in a structured and direct manner, where all victims were united under one plaintiff. It is likely that plaintiffs, as individuals, would not have been as effective at bringing change as EEOC was.
Works Cited
“Mitsubishi Lawsuit (Re Sexual Harassment in the USA).” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Web.
OpenStax. Business Law I Essentials. Rice University, 2019.