Se, US. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York Distriet Office 33 Whitehall Steet, $* Floor New York, NY. 10004-2112 For General Information; ($00) 669-1000 TTY: ($00)-669-6820 District Office: (212) 336-3620 ‘General FAX: 212) 336-302: Der INATION Charge No.: $20-2015-01236 Charging Party Charging Party’s Attorney Anthony Nimmons Gary E. Ireland, Esq, 2355 Bayswater Avenue 1700 Broadway, 21” Floor Far Rockaway, NY 11691 New York, NY 10019 Respondent Respondent's Attorney United States Tennis Association Kevin J, Mulvehill, Esq, 70 West Red Oak Lane Phillips Lytle LLP. White Plains, NY 10604 28 East Main Street, Suite 1400 Rochester, NY 14614 On behalf of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission “EEOC” or “Commission"), H issue the following determination on the merits of the subject charge. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. All requirements for coverage have been met ‘Charging Party alleges that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race (Black) and retaliated against him after engaging in a protected activity. Charging Party claims that he was hired as an Officiating Pathway Coordinator. In this role, Charging Party was to promote diversity and inclusion on a national and international level for the organization. Charging Party asserts that he informed his supervisor about the discriminatory treatment that he was subjected to and his supervisor failed to address the issue. Charging Party further claims his supervisor, Francis “Skip” Gilbert, discriminated against him by demoting him, removing him from meetings, and traveling, Charging Party further claimed that Mr Gilbert subjected him to derogatory comments regarding his physical appearance and voice. Charging, Party filed an internal discrimination complaint regarding the discriminatory treatment he was subjected arty asserts that his role in promoting diversity and inclusion was diminished in retaliation {or filing an internal complaint, Charging Party filed another internal complaint of discrimination and retaliation. This complaint also mentioned a female co-worker that was subjected to racial dis Someone filed a noose near her work area, Charging Party maintains that after filing his complaints of discrimination he was banned from officiating and demoted. Charging Party asserts that he was subjected 10 a hostile work environment and constructively discharged mination. Respondent denies that Charging Party was discriminated and retaliated against. Respondent claims that Charging Party's complaint of discrimination could not be substantiated, despite numerous thorough investigations. Respondent further contends that Charging Party’s disciplinary action was for cause and not the result of any discriminatory and/or retaliatory animus. Respondent maintains it suspended Charging Party's mentoring duties, travel, evaluating, and coaching events due to complaints from the officiating community. Respondent further maintains that the alleged racist comments Charging Party heard did not come from Respondent's employees, it came from outside officials or players at non-USTA tournaments which were held outside of the United States. Respondent confirms that that the noose incident occurred, in 2012 at a separate location and within a separate corporate entity, which is affiliated with the Respondent. Respondent contends that this incident is in no way related to the Charging Party.‘The incident was investigated and responded to appropriately at that time. Respondent claims that the noose was not related to race but was a poor conceived joke relating to difficult vendors. Documentary evidence confirms that Charging Party was demoted. Respondent admitted to “suspending” Charging Party's mentoring duties, travel, evaluating, and coaching events. Credible evidence confirms that Charging Party was discriminated against on the basis of his race. The Commission's investigation reveals that Charging Party was repeatedly subjected to disparaging comments that were targeted specifically at him because of his race. Respondent failed to take effective remedial action in response to Charging Party's complaint of discrimination, Each disciplinary action Charging Party received after every discrimination complaint appears to be retaliatory in nature, Based on the above, Respondents asserted defense does not withstand scrutiny and the Commission has determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent has discriminated and retaliated against Charging Party on account of his race and him engaging in a protected activity ‘This determination is final. Title VII requires that, if the Commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that violations have occurred, it shall endeavor to eliminate the alleged unlawful ‘employment practices by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. Having determined that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission now invites Respondent to join with it in an effort toward a just resolution of this matter. Enclosed is a letter outlining the proposed terms of conciliation, Disclosure of information obtained by the Commission during the conciliation process may only be made in accordance with Title VII and the Commission’s Procedural Regulations. The confidentiality provisions of Sections 706 and 709 of Title VIL and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained during conciliation If Respondent declines to enter into conciliation discussions, or when the Commission's representative is unable to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement, the Director shall so inform the parties, advising them of the court enforcement altematives available to aggrieved persons and the Commission. 7 Jus 07 2007 Date Distriet Director