The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed suit against SDI of Mineola doing business as Sonic Drive-In to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide relief for four named former female employees and other “aggrieved female employees.”

The suit, filed in the federal court of the Eastern District of Texas-Tyler Division, alleges that two females were subjected to sex harassment that led to their “constructive discharge” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that two other named females and others were discriminated against by being subjected to sex harassment.

According to the suit, one of the plaintiffs filed a charge with the commission alleging the violations.

The commission issued a letter of determination to the defendant on Feb. 11 inviting the defendant to join with the commission in informal methods of conciliation to endeavor to eliminate the unlawful employment practices and provide appropriate relief.

On April 19 the commission issued a notice of failure of conciliation and filed the lawsuit in June.

According to the suit the unlawful practices date back to at least July 2016.

Beginning in July 2019, one of the plaintiffs, still in her teens, was working as a car hop when a co-manager began making “sexually inappropriate comments on a daily basis,” as well as unwelcome touching.

The harassment was reported to another co-manager “to no avail.”

The defendant co-manager was promoted to general manager of another Sonic location and on his last night made a comment to the plaintiff in front of other female car hops.

They began discussing that they had also experienced similar sexual harassment.

Some of the discussion took place in the presence of an assistant manager.

The suit alleges that the assistant manager took no remedial action but in November 2019 called the defendant’s manager to tell him what the female employees were saying. He appeared at the Mineola location screaming and cursing.

Three other female employees allege similar behavior, verbal as well as physical, according to the suit.

“Preying on young women is bad enough,” said Joel Clark, a senior trial attorney in the EEOC’s Dallas District Office in a news release. “Here, even after the sexual harassment was reported to management, Sonic did nothing to protect these women. The EEOC is here to stand up for their rights.”

In this case, the EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including an order barring Sonic from engaging in discriminatory treatment in the future, the release said.

EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Eduardo Juarez said, “Managers have a responsibility to provide a workplace free from sexual harassment for all of the employees under their supervision, especially teen workers, who are particularly vulnerable to this kind of abuse.”   

The defendant filed a general denial of the allegations in July through its attorneys.

A July 25, 2022 trial date has been set. A mediator has also been appointed.

In the most recent filing, “Defendant asks the Court to enter judgment that Plaintiff take nothing, dismiss Plaintiff’s suit with prejudice, assess costs against Plaintiff, and award Defendant all other relief to which it is entitled.”