Return to Home PageThe San Antonio District Office filed this Title VII race discrimination lawsuit against defendant, a railroad, because it terminated charging party, an African American switchman/brakeman/conductor, for allegedly lying on his job application about his criminal background but did not terminate non-black employees who actually lied on their applications. According to charging party, when he applied for employment defendant's interviewer asked him whether he had ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor. Charging party answered "no" to the question even though he had been convicted of misdemeanor theft. Charging party had initially checked "yes," but after explaining to his interviewer that his guilty plea resulted in his being placed on probation and a dismissal and discharge of the theft charge once he completed probation, the interviewer told him to check the "no" box. Charging party's application showed that there is a mark in both the "yes" and "no" boxes. Further, documents revealed that at least three non-African American employees had checked "no" in response to the conviction question even though they had felonies or misdemeanors on their records, and they were not fired.
In accordance with a two-year consent decree, defendant is required to pay $84,000 to charging party, who had been reinstated to his job (without back pay) through defendant's internal complaint process approximately 20 months after his discharge. Defendant is enjoined from terminating the employment of any African American employee on the basis of his or her race and from retaliation. In addition, on an annual basis, defendant must mail or e-mail copies of its EEO policies to its employees in the El Paso, Texas Transportation Department and provide EEO training to its managerial and supervisory employees that explains the damaging effects of race discrimination and retaliation.
The New York District Office filed this Title VII gender discrimination suit, alleging that defendant, a housing complex, refused to select female applicants for permanent or long-term positions as groundskeepers and maintenance workers because of their sex. In addition, defendant failed to maintain employment records as required by law.
The case settled pursuant to a two-year consent decree that requires defendant to pay a total of $90,000 into a Claims Fund to be divided among individuals who applied or were refused an application for groundskeeper and maintenance worker positions. In addition, defendant will offer the two charging parties the next openings for groundskeeping or maintenance positions at the Rochdale Village site so long as they meet any pre-employment or job performance requirements. Defendant is prohibited from discriminating against any applicant or employee on the basis of sex and from retaliation. Further, defendant will provide at least four hours of training regarding federal employment discrimination law for its management employees and at least one hour of training shall be dedicated to the prevention of sex discrimination. Thereafter, defendant shall provide at least two hours of EEO training by an EEOC-approved outside instructor to all persons hired or promoted into management positions. Defendant will submit periodic reports to EEOC providing the name, gender, date of application, contact information, and hiring, promotion, and termination data for each person working in the maintenance and groundskeeping job classification at Rochdale during the reporting period. Additionally, defendant must maintain all records of applicants for employment for at least one year from the date of application.
The Houston District Office filed this Title VII action alleging that during the course of her employment, charging party, a female accounts payable clerk, was subjected to pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. Defendant, which manufactures and supplies electric heating equipment for the process industry, hired a person to replace charging party while she took maternity leave, and charging party trained the replacement on defendant's new computer system. After charging party had nearly completed her eight-week leave, she contacted the company about returning to work but was told she was no longer needed. Defendant then asked charging party to sign a release waiving any claims, including Title VII claims, against the company as a condition of returning to work and when she refused to do so defendant fired her. Charging party's replacement was ultimately fired, but defendant did not offer the position to charging party even though she was familiar with the job. Instead, it hired another person who had to be trained on the new computer system. In accordance with a two-year consent decree, defendant must pay charging party $57,000 and provide the EEOC annually with a list of all pregnant employees who are terminated or placed on a leave of absence and their contact information.
The Phoenix District Office filed this ADA action alleging that defendant engaged in disability discrimination when it unlawfully terminated charging party due to a blanket policy that prohibits diabetics from operating mobile equipment. Charging party is an insulin-dependent diabetic with 30 years experience as an industrial engineer. He is licensed to operate mobile equipment and has never had a diabetic incident at work. After charging party was interviewed and passed defendant's class on operating equipment, defendant hired him to work as an industrial engineer on the San Carlos, Arizona project, maintaining existing power systems. During a 10-day period after his employment began, defendant's hiring official told charging party that he was doing good work, but after charging party's physical disclosed that he had diabetes, the hiring official informed him that he was fired because he was diabetic and company policy prohibited him from operating mobile equipment. Despite charging party's efforts to have defendant reconsider its decision, defendant refused without attempting to work with charging party or to do an individualized assessment of his condition or work history.
Pursuant to a two-year consent decree, defendant agrees to pay a total of $70,000 in back pay and compensatory damages to charging party. Defendant is prohibited from engaging in any activity which violates Title I of the ADA and from retaliation. Defendant further agrees to maintain a work environment free of disability discrimination by instituting and enforcing nondiscrimination policies and practices and allowing employees to request reasonable accommodations pursuant to the ADA. In addition, defendant shall submit to the EEOC a written plan for reaffirming its current Mobile Equipment Operator Medical Standard and for reemphasizing to its management and medical employees the procedure for executing the Standard. The written plan will identify the person at defendant's Chandler, Arizona facility responsible for conducting an individualized evaluation of the employees who operate mobile equipment, including the employee's work experience and history. In addition, the plan will provide an assurance that defendant will respond fairly and promptly to waiver requests, that such requests will be kept confidential, and that qualified medical personnel will participate in the decisions regarding the employee's eligibility for certification.
The Philadelphia District Office filed this Title VII suit against defendant, a financial services provider, alleging that charging party, a Puerto Rican payment processor, was subjected to national origin harassment by her supervisor and coworkers. The harassment, which included jokes and inappropriate comments about charging party's accent, was so pervasive that one of charging party's coworkers complained to the supervisor about the behavior. Instead of taking remedial action to stop the harassment, the supervisor began to scrutinize charging party closely, allegedly because she had made two personal calls to Puerto Rico, and prohibited her from speaking Spanish in the workplace. The complaint also alleged that defendant discriminated against charging party because of her national origin when it denied her a promotion to notification specialist and instead gave the position to a non-Puerto Rican individual with less experience than charging party. The case was resolved by a one-year consent decree which requires defendant to pay $70,000 to the charging party. Additionally, defendant agrees to have the EEOC or an EEOC-approved vendor conduct training on all aspects of Title VII for the managers and supervisors in its Indirect Client Services and Marketing Division within one year of the filing of the decree.
The Milwaukee District Office brought this disability discrimination suit, alleging that defendant, a nationwide temporary employment agency that provides staffing for the production area of Scotts Company in Fort Madison, Iowa, violated the ADA when it refused to consider charging party, a hearing impaired applicant, for a general laborer position with Scotts and failed to consider accommodating her disability. Specifically, defendant's branch manager rejected charging party for the position because he did not think it would be safe for her to work at Scotts since she would not be able to hear the audible startup signal from the production lines and would be in close proximity to forklifts. Although charging party's employment experience included working in factories and around forklifts, the manager did not ask charging party about her experience as it related to his concerns or whether she needed an accommodation. The branch manager also did not ask Scotts whether it could accommodate charging party.
Pursuant to a consent decree, defendant will pay $80,000 to charging party. Defendant also is permanently enjoined from engaging in future disability discrimination and is required to provide live or videotaped annual ADA training to all managers and supervisors in its offices and franchises nationwide for the next two years. The training will include disability discrimination, reasonable accommodations, and stereotypes involving persons with disabilities. Additionally, defendant will disseminate annually for two years a company policy against disability discrimination to all of its human resources staff, recruiting department personnel, and anyone with day-to-day ADA responsibility, including franchisees. Twice a year for two years defendant is required to report to the EEOC the number of applicants who advise defendant they have a disability and need a reasonable accommodation, the outcome of their applications and requests for accommodation, and an explanation as to why any accommodation was denied.
This page was last modified on March 29, 2004.