Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hamilton Standard Division, United Technologies Corp.

D. Conn.July 7, 1986No. Civ. H-84-252(JAC)Cited 7 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Jos㉠A. Cabranes
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
settlement

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

The parties settled a sex discrimination case with the employer paying the plaintiff $4,800 and agreeing to upgrade her employment record. The court granted the plaintiff-intervenor's application for attorney's fees and costs, finding her a prevailing party despite the absence of a liability admission.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Hamilton Standard Division (part of United Technologies Corporation) on behalf of a female employee who claimed she faced sex discrimination at work. The woman alleged that her employer treated her unfairly because of her gender, which violated federal employment discrimination laws. **What the Court Decided:** Rather than going to trial, both sides reached a settlement agreement. Hamilton Standard agreed to pay the employee $4,800 in damages and upgrade her employment record to remove any negative marks related to the discrimination incident. The court also ordered the company to pay the woman's attorney fees and court costs, recognizing that she had achieved a successful outcome even though the company didn't formally admit wrongdoing. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case shows that employees can win discrimination cases even when employers don't admit fault. Workers who face sex discrimination can file complaints with the EEOC, which may sue on their behalf. Even in settlements, employees can receive financial compensation, have their work records corrected, and get their legal costs covered. This demonstrates that there are real consequences for workplace discrimination and protections available for affected workers.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.