As many as 289 past or present workers were victims of sexual harassment at Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Monday.
This marks the first time the EEOC has disclosed how many people it believes were affected by what the federal agency has alleged were egregious practices at the Normal, Ill., plant.
The EEOC, which a year ago filed suit against the Japanese automaker charging widespread sexual harassment, has sent letters to each of the victims it identified, informing them that their names were being turned over to Mitsubishi’s lawyers, as required by law.
But the number of victims who actually remain as class members in the suit could shrink or swell, depending on the climate at the plant, according to EEOC Chicago regional attorney John C. Hendrickson.
Mitsubishi, which at the time the suit was filed last April employed about 800 women in its work force of 4,000, has denied the charges and is aggressively fighting the suit. The company maintains that sexual harassment “is not tolerated” at the company, a spokeswoman said.
The women identified as victims include those who were subjected to unwelcome physical or verbal conduct of a sexual nature or “were offended by observing the perpetration of sexual harassment upon others,” according to the EEOC letter, sent April 7.
The federal agency and Mitsubishi have agreed to keep the names confidential.
Victims who do not want the EEOC to seek relief for them in the lawsuit have the option of notifying the commission to remove their names from the list. The maximum punitive damages award in a case filed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 is $300,000 per victim.
“The public relations campaign that Mitsubishi conducted, including the march on our headquarters and the employee meeting at the plant, may have misfired with the public at large, but it has created a significant amount of fear down there,” Hendrickson said Monday.
On the other hand, Hendrickson said, “realizing that they are part of a larger group may give other women the courage to contact us.”
The individuals were identified through the EEOC’s original investigation, which took place between April 1994 and August 1995, interviews that were conducted since the suit was filed and documents provided by Mitsubishi.
The alleged victims now will be subject to questioning under oath by Mitsubishi’s lawyers as long as EEOC representatives and lawyers are present.
“We want to know the names . . . to be able to learn what the facts are,” said Mitsubishi spokeswoman Gael O’Brien.
The EEOC suit alleges there was a pattern of sexual harassment against women and retaliation against those who filed complaints since 1990. The suit also charges that the company permitted an environment of sexual harassment that affected virtually all of the women who worked there.
After the suit was filed, Mitsubishi hired former U.S. Labor Secretary Lynn Martin to study its workplace and make recommendations.
In February, Martin released the report that capped her study. Without acknowledging that the alleged illegal practices occurred, the company said it was implementing a wide range of programs designed to eliminate discrimination and harassment.
