U'S.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Baltimore Field 0flice
Gcorgcl{ Faflon Fcdcrct Building
3l Hopkins Ploeo" Srritc ldl2
Baltimuc. MD2l20l
Inrakc lnformulo[ Oruup: (S00] 66g4000
Int*c tnformstion Group TTy: (S00) 660{S20
Bdrimorc Dirccr Dial: (410) S0l{6Bj
FAX (410) 20e.2221
FAX (4t0,9624270
Wctrirc: wwly.ceoc.qov
EEOC Charge No.: 5l l-2019-01589

Charging Party

Sykes Enterprises Inc.

400 North Ashley Drive
Tarnps FL 33602 Respondent

DETERMINATION

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission's Procedurat Regulations, I

issue the
following determination on the merits of this charge. Respondent is anlmployer within
the
meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Titie
VII); and the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the Americans with
Disabilities Act
Amendments Actof 2008 (ADA). All requirements forcoverage have been
met.

Charging Party alleges that she was subjected to harassment, discipline,

unequal terms and
conditions of ernplopnen! and discharge because of her race (African American)
and her
disability. Charglng Party also alleges that she was terminated in retaliation r"r
pJo, i.,
complaints of race and disability discrimination.

The records show tfr,at Charging Party made numerous complaints over five-month
a period
that she was being discriminated against because of her race and disability
after she disclosed
her disability in a request for accommodations. The record firther shows
that Chargdp"*y
was discharged after hsr manager taPed a conversation with the Charging party
and the
Respondent found that Charging Party's behavior during the conversation violated
its written
polices with respect to conduct. Chargng Party denied that she was
ever given the policesn
and there is no indisation in Respondent's submission that she in fact was
*ua" auiare of any
of the polices cited. In addition, the records show that the telephone call that lcd to rhe
Charging Party's discharge, was inade to her on a day when Respondent marager
knew that
the charging Parfy wes nor working due to her medical disabilities.
Based on the foregoing I find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent
terminated the Charging Party in retaliation for her prior complaints of race and disability
discrimination. Regarding the Charging Party's other allegations, I make no finding.

Upon finding that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission
attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation.
Conciliation is Respondents' opportunity to voluntarity remedy the unlawful employment
practices found to have occurred. Ultimately, any conciliation agreement must be acceptable to
the Commission. A conciliation proposal designed to remedy the unlawful employrnent
practices found to have occurred in this Lefter of Determination will be sent under separate
cover. Respondent is invited to respond to this proposal within 14 business days of receipt.

If the Respondent fails to engage in conciliation, or if the Commission determines, in its sole
discretion, that conciliation has failed, the Director will inform the parties and advise them of
the court enforcement alternatives available to the aggrieved persons and the Commission.

ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION:

FIAR 03 ?020

Date

cc: Andrea Kiehl, Esq.

Sykes Enterprises Inc.
400 North Ashley Drive
suite 3100
Tampq FL 33602