The Philadelphia District Office alleged in this ADEA/Title VII suit that defendant, a healthcare provider headquartered in Haddonfield, New Jersey, failed to promote charging party into a Brain Injury Services (BIS) Program Manager position because of his race (black) and age (47). Charging party, who had worked for about 7 years as an Educator/Residential Rehabilitation Associate at defendant's Mullica Hill, New Jersey facility, applied for a Program Manager position in March 2002. Qualifications for the position included 3 to 4 years of experience, a bachelor's degree or related experience in lieu of the degree, and 1 year of supervisory experience. The charging party met the qualifications for the position and had received good performance evaluations. Defendant rejected charging party and promoted a 19-year-old white individual, with a high school diploma and 1 year of experience, whom charging party had trained. On three earlier occasions, defendant had passed over charging party and selected younger white candidates for Program Manager positions.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay charging party $100,000 in monetary relief and offer him a BIS Program Manager position at any of defendant's facilities (except in Mullica Hill) within 30 days of such position becoming open at these facilities. When promoted, charging party will receive a salary increase equal to the salary of a comparable Program Manager employed by defendant at the time the position became available, accounting for wage increases and bonuses a comparable Program Manager would have received up to the signing of the consent decree. Charging party also will receive seniority retroactive to the time his promotion should have occurred, although for subsequent promotions or transfer requests, his seniority will be calculated from the date he was actually promoted into the BIS Program Manager position. The decree enjoins defendant from engaging in discriminatory practices or retaliating against any person under Title VII or the ADEA.
In this Title VII/EPA suit, the Philadelphia District Office alleged that defendant, a Defense Department contractor that manufacturers electronic and communications equipment, paid charging party, a senior buyer at its Philadelphia facility, lower wages than men performing substantially equal work, because of her sex. After 6 years as a secretary/junior buyer and 5 years as a buyer for defendant, charging party rose to the position of senior buyer in 1999. Defendant paid male senior buyers more than it paid charging party, and its claim that wages were based on seniority and performance did not explain the wage differential. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay charging party $95,000 in monetary relief and will raise her annual salary to $71,088. The decree enjoins defendant from discriminating against any employee or applicant because of sex in violation of Title VII or the EPA, and from retaliation.
This page was last modified on October 24, 2005.