tdekany Loc: Oregon

The U.S. Department of Labor has announced that the giant NYC-based photography retailer B&H has agreed to pay $3.22 million to resolve a lawsuit filed by the agency back in February 2016. B&H had faced allegations of discrimination, bias, and harassment.

The settlement, first reported by The Phoblographer, is a “consent decree” between the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. that resolves the allegations.

“The decree settles allegations that B&H Foto discriminated against female as well as black and Asian job seekers by hiring only Hispanic men for entry-level positions,” the Labor Department writes. “In addition, there were allegations that Hispanic shipping workers were paid significantly less than comparable workers and denied promotion to higher level positions.

“There were also allegations that Hispanic workers were routinely subjected to harassing conduct and had unequal access to restroom facilities, and the company failed to take corrective action when confronted with employee complaints.”

B&H serves as a federal contractor and the U.S. Government responded to allegations to ensure that taxpayer money is going to a business that treats its employees fairly.

In addition to paying $3,220,000 in back wages and monetary relief to over 1,300 workers involved in the settlement, B&H will also be hiring a workplace consultant to correct employment practices at its current Brooklyn warehouse and future New Jersey warehouse. Managers will also be receiving annual training on harassment prevention and equal opportunity principles.

jlrivera Loc: Round Lake, Illinois

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I'm disappointed in B&H. Blatant discrimination of that sort should have no place in the 21st century.

I remember when I worked at a major department store (John Wanamaker's) in the 1980's, minority employees were hired only for lower paid warehouse positions and deliberately kept off the sales floor, out of view of the customers. Which I thought was very unfair, as some of the minority employees were as much qualified if not more so than me to work on the sales floor. If I had voiced my opinion to management on the matter, I surely would have been let go quickly. I guess some things haven't really changed. If it weren't for the government contract, it is likely B&H would have continued their discriminatory practices.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

You mean "allegations of discrimination" which is different.

In today's sue-happy society, we are butt-hurt over anything we perceive as a slight on us...we sue at the slightest provocation. It doesn't matter whether the charges are true or not, it matters whether B&H wants to go through the time and money to fight it.

Settlement isn't an admission of guilt, it means they felt that it would be cheaper and smarter to pay out than keep fighting.

Thanks big government looking out for us...now the prices of our gear go up for no reason.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Local coverage has fully described this from both points of view, and there is one thing for sure - these "allegations" have more than enough merit. The DoL does NOT bring about frivolous lawsuits unless there is overwhelming evidence. There was. The DoL is not a sue-happy client.

Instead of making broad generalizations - it's better to learn the details.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/us/bh-photo-lawsuit/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/nyregion/bh-electronics-store-sued-for-discrimination-of-hispanic-workers.html
https://www.law360.com/articles/37768/b-h-photo-pays-4-3m-to-settle-discrimination-suit" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/bh-hit-with-discrimination-lawsuit.htmlhttps://www.law360.com/articles/37768/b-h-photo-pays-4-3m-to-settle-discrimination-suit

And their statement after the second lawsuit was announced:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/promotion/11326/statement.html

Which was a collection of broad generalizations, statements about their "policies," history, heritage and how they are so great compared to their competition as far as labor practices go, and how B&H opted to keep jobs
in the US while many US companies chose to send jobs overseas - and they should be congratulated for doing that. But they did not answer the allegations. Their business practices were being evaluated against current law and they fell short. There were years of discussions and warnings in an attempt to fix the problem, and B&H was arrogant, stubbornly resisting making any changes in their policies. So this is justified, B&H did in fact decide this was the path of least resistance and costs associated with defending a series of bad policies, and the the pubic reaction and the corresponding loss of business.

Trust me, if they weren't guilty as hell they would have prevailed in court and wouldn't have settled. No overt admission of guilt, but . . .

At $10M and counting, how much cheaper is it for B&H to continue to defend it's workplace discrimination policies vs making the necessary adjustments? Just sayin'

Rpavich - you are not Hispanic, so I doubt you would understand.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I disagree. If B&H wants to continue to be a lucrative government contractor then they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. The odds of B&H increasing their prices to compensate for compliance and the cost of back wages is little to none. Prices are market driven and were B&H to raise their prices to the rank and file consumers, they would lose business to all the other reputable dealers

henryp Loc: New York, NY

B&H Agrees to Settle Outstanding Government Claims: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/bh-agrees-settle-outstanding-government-claims

B&H settled this matter without admitting guilt and in fact continues to deny any guilt. Why did we settle? To put this matter to rest so we could resume normal business operations. As the matter dragged out, lawyers were the only ones really benefiting.

The OFCCP statement included this, from their Regional Solicitor of Labor Jeffrey S. Rogoff.:
“We are pleased that B&H Foto entered into this agreement, and has committed to ensuring that their workers will receive equitable wages and opportunities, and enjoy a workplace that promotes equal employment opportunity.”

Jim Bob

Gene, you know how it is. It's just the rant of an ignoramus and should be treated as such.

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

Though this has nothing to do with the B&H lawsuit this is a case of what you are talking about. Isn't that the truth when I was bottom dump trucking one of the local drivers got into an accident with a car injuring 2 people, the driver was at fault but they not only sued him they sued the gravel pit, Peterbilt, and the company we sub hauled for. Non but the driver was at fault and at the time we had to carry a minimum of 3 million dollars insurance that was not enough for them they sued and won from all companies now why Peterbilt and the pit lost and had to pay non of us ever understood as they were just the truck he was driving (no defects), and the haul pit which he was 3 blocks away from.

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

While I support labor' I find your comparison offensive and ignorant!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The eternal optimist!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

And often controlled by the manufacturer.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

I wouldn't say "for no reason". I would not knowingly patronize an establishment that discriminates against certain classes of workers. I do hope, though, that they can stay profitable and stay in business. I don't want to end up ordering gear from China...

guyaurora Loc: Aurora, Ohio

Knowing the history of B & H this does not surprise me. Although the story of this company began as a store front in Manhattan it has grown into a giant but its culture has never changed. Nuff said.

Jim Bob

Good for you. I find your comment likewise.