EEOC v. FedEx Freight East, Inc., fka American Freightways, Inc. (E.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2005)
The Commission alleged that American Freightways discriminated against African-American employees at its St. Louis terminal by selecting them for promotion from part-time to full-time dockworker jobs at a slower pace than whites, treating them adversely with respect to work assignments, training, and skill-development opportunities, and failing to promote an African-American employee into a dock foreman job because of his race. Under a consent decree, 20 aggrieved individuals shared $500,000 in monetary relief. Defendant must report quarterly to the Commission for 3 years on promotions to dockworker and city driver positions.
EEOC v. Automotive Components Holdings, LLC, Visteon Corp., and Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2007)
EEOC alleged that defendants used a written test for skilled trades apprentice positions (electrical, millwright, plumber-pipefitter, machine repair, and tool and die) that had a disparate impact on African-American applicants. The case was consolidated with a private class action filed in conjunction with EEOC's suit, and was resolved through a settlement agreement approved by the court through a consent order entered following a fairness hearing. The class consists of current and former Ford Motor Co. and Visteon (a former manufacturer of automotive components for Ford) employees of African-American descent who took the Apprentice Training Selection System test at 14 North American Visteon facilities between January 1, 1997, and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement (September 9, 2007), and were not placed on an apprenticeship program eligibility list. (Ford ceased using the apprenticeship test in August 2004, and it was not used at the Visteon facilities after June 2003.) The settlement provides that Ford will select 55 class members for placement on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list at one of the 14 former Visteon facilities or a Ford facility. Approximately 666 class members will receive $2,400 each, for a total recovery of approximately $1.6 million.
EEOC v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods, Inc. No. 1:09-CV-01151 (N.D. Ga. June 22, 2010)
EEOC alleged that defendant, a land developer and home builder with number of locations in the Southeastern United States, failed to hire or assign African Americans to work as sales agents in predominantly white communities in the Atlanta metropolitan area. The complaint also alleged that defendant subjected the Charging Party, an HR representative, to a hostile work environment by prohibiting her from doing her job in compliance with employment discrimination laws, and that due to Charging Party's opposition to defendant's unlawful conduct she was forced to resign. The suit was resolved through a consent decree that also resolves a pending Commissioner's Charge alleging that, throughout the company, defendant failed to hire and promote women and African Americans into management positions because of their sex or race. The decree applies to defendant's sites throughout the Southeastern United States, and prohibits race and sex discrimination in the hiring and placement of sales agents and hiring and promotion into management positions. The decree provides for $378,500 to be distributed to six claimants (40% backpay and 60% damages). Defendant will make good faith efforts to hire African American and female applicants into management positions consistent with their qualified application rates for those positions. Defendant is required to offer at least five management positions to qualified African American applicants and five management positions to qualified female applicants during the term of the decree. Defendant will report its progress in meeting these goals to EEOC annually. The consent decree's term will be 6 years, shortened to no less than 2 years if defendant attains its numerical hiring goals early or extended beyond 6 years if defendant fails to meet them.
EEOC v. Scrub, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 9, 2010)
EEOC alleged that a provider of janitorial services, discriminated against African Americans in recruitment and hiring because of their race and national origin. Defendant engaged in intentional discrimination by recruiting through media directed at Eastern European immigrants and Latinos and hiring people from those groups over African Americans, and engaged in hiring practices -- subjective decision making -- that had a disparate impact on African Americans. Latino applicants were about three times more likely to be hired than African American applicants. Further, the external availability of African Americans for janitor positions (about 25%) was much larger than their representation in defendant's applicant pool (about 6%). The 4-year consent decree provides that Scrub will pay $3 million in compensatory damages to a class of approximately 550 African Americans denied employment between October 20, 2004, and December 31, 2009. Scrub is enjoined from discrimination against applicants or employees on the basis of race or national origin and from retaliation. Scrub will hire interested claimants for entry level positions (janitorial and driver) at a rate of one out every three hires (with each claimant having a right of one refusal), and after exhausting the instatement list will make best efforts to hire African Americans at the applicant flow rate of the preceding 6 months. Scrub is required to actively recruit African-Americans. Scrub must retain a monitor (identified in the decree) for the term of the decree to report semiannually on, and make recommendations regarding, Scrub's implementation of and compliance with the decree. Scrub must provide annual training on Title VII by an EEOC-approved trainer to all employees involved in the hiring process. Scrub must report every 6 months on hiring from the instatement list; progress in meeting its hiring benchmarks; applicants and hires for janitorial and driver positions; and efforts to recruit African Americans.
EEOC v. Dial Corp., No. 3:02-CV-10109 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 29, 2005)
EEOC received a favorable verdict in its Title VII case against Dial, a nationwide manufacturer of household products, alleging that defendant's use of a physical "work tolerance" test for production operator positions at a plant that produces and packages sausages and other foods has a disparate impact on female applicants and constitutes a pattern or practice of intentional sex discrimination. In August 2004, a jury found that the test was intentionally discriminatory after April 2001, presumably when the extent of the disparate impact should have become apparent to Defendant. The jury denied punitive damages, but in a separate one-day trial on the compensatory damages claims of nine class members, it awarded $5,000 each to six of the nine. The court later ruled that the test had a disparate impact against women. The judgment provides approximately 3.38 million dollars in back pay, prejudgment interest and compensatory damages to be shared among 52 class members. It also includes injunctive relief against the test and job offers with rightful place wages to all class members.
EEOC v. Robertson's Ready Mix, LLC (C.D. Cal. April 1, 2008)
EEOC alleged that a producer of concrete and aggregates used in the construction industry, with 24 plants in central and southern California, denied women jobs driving cement mixer trucks because of their sex. Between November 1997 and September 2001, defendant filled 755 mixer driver positions and hired only 3 women, all after an EEOC charge had been filed. The disparity between defendant's hiring of women drivers and their availability in the relevant geographic area was highly statistically significant. Under a 3 year consent decree that covers all of defendant's facilities, defendant will pay $550,000 into a class fund to be distributed to female applicants denied hire during the period from January 1, 1997, to entry of the decree, who meet certain qualifications set out in the decree. Defendant must report semiannually to EEOC on applicants and hires for mixer driver positions.
EEOC v. Pitt Ohio Express, LLC (N.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2009)
EEOC alleged that a regional transportation carrier denied women employment as truckdrivers and dockworkers at its four Ohio terminals. The case arose from a charge filed by an experienced female truckdriver who had applied unsuccessfully at defendant a number of times since 1992. There was a statistically significant difference between the availability of women for truckdriver and dockworker positions in the geographic areas around defendant's terminals and defendant's selection of women for those positions. A 5-year consent decree provided $2,430,000 in compensatory damages to women who applied and were not hired for driver or dockworker positions at defendant's Ohio terminals between September 1, 1997, and October 19, 2008. (The woman who filed the EEOC charge intervened in EEOC's suit and settled separately for $265,000 plus attorney's fees; she is also eligible for payments from the $2.43 million class settlement fund.) Defendant will extend 40 offers of employment to rejected female applicants: 26 for driver positions and 14 for dockworker positions. Each woman hired will receive seniority rights and accompanying benefits based on her initial application date, but seniority rights will not extend to displacement of drivers from routes and shift assignments. The decree enjoins defendant from sex discrimination in hiring for driver and dockworker positions at any Ohio terminal. Defendant will report to EEOC every 6 months for the first 3 years of the decree and annually for the next 2 years on the identity and sex of driver and dockworker applicants and hires at its Ohio terminals.
EEOC v. Preferred Labor, LLC, d/b/a Preferred People Staffing (D. Mass. July 6, 2009)
EEOC alleged that a nationwide staffing firm providing temporary day labor in areas such as light industrial, construction, freight handling, and hospitality denied female applicants job referrals based on their sex and complied with sex-based discriminatory requests from clients. A woman applying at defendant's Worcester, Massachusetts' facility in May 2005 was told that only waitressing, dishwashing, and maid service jobs were available for women. A 5-year consent decree provides a claims fund of $250,000. Defendant will pay all costs associated with administering and distributing the fund, running English- and Spanish-language newsprint and radio advertisements, and making reasonable efforts to locate female applicants for whom defendant's contact information is out of date. Defendant has ceased conducting business as a temporary day labor agency, but if it resumes operations it will be enjoined from sex discrimination and retaliation.
EEOC v. Mars Super Markets, Inc. (D. Md. Sept. 1, 2009)
EEOC alleged that a retail grocery chain with 17 locations in the Baltimore metropolitan area refused to hire female applicants for meatcutter positions because of their sex. From January 2006 through July 2008, defendant hired 28 meatcutters at its Baltimore-area stores, half for entry-level apprentice positions; all 28 hires were men. A woman employed as a deli clerk who tried in late 2006 to transfer to an apprentice meatcutter position, but was discouraged by her manager, who told her the job involved heavy lifting, long periods of standing, and cold environments. She filed a number of transfer requests, and finally resigned when she received no response. A 3-year consent decree provided a total of $275,000 to six individuals. Defendant will extend written offers of employment for meatcutter positions to three named women (two for apprentice positions and one as a journeyman), and make good faith efforts to place them in their preferred geographic areas within 6 months. EEOC will develop a job offer list from individuals who applied for or expressed an interest in transferring to the meatcutter position from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008, and defendant will offer individuals on the list every other apprentice or meatcutter vacancy. Defendant is enjoined from refusing to hire or transfer female applicants because of their sex. Every 6 months, defendant will report to EEOC on hires, transfers, and discharges for the apprentice and journeyman meatcutter positions.
EEOC v. Imagine Schools, Inc., No. 4:08-0731 (W.D. Mo. April 12, 2010)
The St. Louis District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, which operates charter schools and owns and operates private schools in a number of states, failed to hire two Charging Parties because of their pregnancies. Charging Parties worked at a charter school in Kansas City, Missouri, and in June 2006, when the charter school was converted into a private school owned and operated by defendant, defendant did not select Charging Parties, both pregnant at the time, for positions at the new school. Defendant's executive director, Samuel Howard, made numerous negative comments about Charging Parties pregnancies and their need for maternity leave, and its regional director told the director of business operations that the Charging Parties were not retained because they were pregnant. The 2-year consent decree provides the Charging Parties, who intervened, with $570,000 ($295,000 to one Charging Party and $275,000 to the other) in backpay, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees. The decree prohibits sex and pregnancy discrimination at any Missouri facilities over which Samuel Howard has oversight responsibilities, and prohibits retaliation at any facility owned or operated by defendant in Missouri. The decree requires defendant to provide 4 hours of EEO training to Samuel Howard and all other executives, managers, and HR employees responsible for defendant's Missouri facilities. Defendant will disseminate to all Missouri employees its antidiscrimination policy, including procedures for reporting complaints about pregnancy discrimination. Defendant will report to EEOC every 6 months on employees or applicants at Missouri facilities who have informed it of pregnancies, defendant's response, and internal complaints about defendant's actions.
EEOC v. Robertson Sanitation, A Div. of Republic Services of Georgia, Ltd. P'ship (N.D. Ga. Feb. 11, 2009)
EEOC alleged that a provider of waste collection and disposal services with three facilities in Georgia denied female applicants employment as truckdrivers at its Winder and Austell, Georgia facilities because of their sex. Between January 2005 and September 2006, 1254 individuals, 109 of whom (8.7%) were women, applied for driver positions at the two facilities. Defendant hired 163 men and 3 women (1.8%). A 4-year consent decree created a $475,000 settlement fund to be distributed to women rejected for truckdriver positions at the two facilities between January 1, 2005, and October 31, 2006, who meet criteria set out in the decree, and prohibits defendant from sex discrimination in hiring and from retaliation. Defendant is required to make a good faith effort to offer employment to female applicants for externally advertised driver openings at its Austell and Winder facilities at a level that reflects their representation in the qualified applicant pool each year. Defendant will report to EEOC annually on the number of qualified men and women in the driver applicant pool; the identity, sex, and qualifications of individuals offered driver positions or hired; the identity and qualifications of women who met the minimum qualifications for a driver position and were not hired, and a detailed explanation of the reasons; and the identity and sex of drivers laid off or involuntarily terminated.
EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC and OS Restaurant Services, LLC No. 1:06-CV-01935-CMA-KLM (D. Colo. Dec. 29, 2009)
EEOC filed this Title VII action in December 2006, alleging that defendants, which operate restaurant chains throughout the United States, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against women by failing to hire and promote them into management positions and by subjecting them to less favorable terms and conditions of employment, including inferior job assignments, fewer training opportunities, and less opportunity for advancement. On November 2, 2007, the court granted Outback's motion to dismiss the nationwide claims and limited the action to a three-state region (Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana). On December 20, 2007, an EEOC Commissioner filed a nationwide gender discrimination charge against Outback. The 4-year consent decree resolves EEOC's suit (including the claims of three intervenors), the Commissioner's Charge, and claims of gender discrimination, gender harassment, and related retaliation and provides a $19 million settlement fund. The decree covers all of defendant's corporately-owned Outback Steakhouse restaurants within the United States, including restaurants owned by partnerships in which an Outback-affiliated corporation is a general partner. It enjoins discrimination against applicants or employees based on gender and enjoins defendant from retaliating under Title VII. Additionally, Defendant will adopt objective promotion procedures for designated positions (Key Manager, Assistant Kitchen Manager, Service Tech, Food Tech, Kitchen Manager, Manager, and Managing Partner) to ensure that selections for the positions are gender-neutral.
EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 01-330 (E.D. Ky. March 1, 2010)
EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, an international discount retailer, failed to hire women for orderfiller positions in its London, Kentucky, distribution center because of their sex. Charging Party worked at Wal-Mart's retail store in London, and in October 1998 sought a transfer to the distribution center, which was denied. There was a significant disparity between female applicants for warehouse positions, almost all of which were for orderfillers, and their selection for warehouse jobs. The 5-year consent decree applies to the London distribution center and provides for $11,700,000 ($8,405,877 in backpay and $3,294,123 in compensatory damages) to be paid into a qualified settlement fund (QSF) account established by a third party settlement claims administrator. Eligible claimants are females who sought employment at the London distribution center from January 1, 1998, through February 15, 2005, whose applications do not contain exclusionary criteria and who were denied employment at least once during the relevant time period. EEOC has sole discretion regarding eligibility status and allocation of the QSF. The decree enjoins defendant from sex discrimination in hiring for the orderfiller position and prohibits retaliation. Defendant will use validated interview questions for the orderfiller position. EEOC will provide defendant a list of eligible claimants for instatement, and defendant will fill the first 50 orderfiller positions at the London facility from the list; for the next 50 openings, defendant will fill every other job from the list and thereafter every third position. Defendant will report annually to EEOC on its compliance with the decree, including the number of males and females who apply for orderfiller positions or for an unspecified hourly warehouse job, the number of males and females hired for orderfiller positions, information on individuals promoted or transferred into orderfiller positions, and instatement information. Defendant will retain records necessary for EEOC to monitor future hiring into the orderfiller position.
EEOC v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, No. 2:06-cv-0045-RSM (W.D. Wash. March 10, 2010)
EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, a tire retailer with locations in seven western states, failed to hire women into its sales/service departments because of their sex. Jobs in the sales/service department involve changing tires and various mechanical work on automobiles, and experience in that department is a prerequisite for management positions. The two Charging Parties had several years of sales/administration department experience at Les Schwab stores in Washington State and made multiple requests to transfer into the sales/service department, but neither was permitted to work in that department. Women were significantly underrepresented in defendant's sales/service departments in comparison to their representation in the applicant pool for those jobs. Charging Parties resolved their individual claims against defendant and were not part of the litigation when EEOC resolved its suit. The 4-year consent decree provides for $2 million to be paid into a class fund with class members and distributions to be determined by EEOC. The decree states that its terms operate as an injunction. Defendant will target recruitment efforts to promote the employment of women in sales and service positions. Defendant will make best efforts to hire females into sales and service positions in proportion to their availability in the qualified applicant pool. Annually, defendant will report to EEOC on its recruitment efforts and on applicants and hires into sales and service positions.
EEOC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (E.D. Mo. Sept. 14, 2009)
EEOC alleged that a nationwide insurance company imposed a hiring moratorium that had a disparate impact on former sales agents age 40 and over. In November 1999, defendant announced a "Planning for the Future" reorganization program pursuant to which, effective June 30, 2000, it would terminate all of its remaining 6,200 sales agents and thereafter sell its products entirely through independent contractors (positions for which the former employee-agents were eligible). Defendant also implemented a policy prohibiting the rehire of any former employee-agent during the longer of 1 year after termination or the period during which the individual received severance benefits (a maximum of 2 years). Almost 95% of the former sales agents affected by the hiring moratorium were age 40 or older. A 3-year stipulated order provided $4.5 million (75% backpay and 25% interest) to 92 individuals in amounts determined by EEOC and set out in an exhibit to the order. The stipulated order requires that before adopting any policy limiting the reemployment rights of individuals affected by a reorganization or reduction-in-force, defendant will determine whether the policy has a disparate impact on individuals age 40 and older, using the standards in EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and will not implement a policy having a disparate impact without notifying EEOC and providing it with written reasons and an opportunity to meet and discuss the policy. Any new policy limiting individuals' reemployment rights must comply with the ADEA.
EEOC v. Cavalier Telephone, LLC, No. 3:10CV664 (E.D. Va. July 15, 2011)
EEOC alleged in this ADEA lawsuit that defendant, a provider of telephone, Internet, and digital TV services, demoted a sales director and sales manager because of their ages and in retaliation for opposing age discrimination, and subjected the sales manager to adverse conditions of employment, discipline, and discharge because of his age, opposition to age discrimination, and participation in age discrimination proceedings. The complaint also alleged that defendant failed to hire applicants age 40 and over into account executive positions in its mid-Atlantic region, and failed to retain hiring-related documents as required by the Commission's ADEA regulations. The 3-year consent decree provides for $1 million in monetary relief to 25 claimants and enjoins defendant from age discrimination, prohibits retaliation, and requires defendant to maintain applications and personnel records required by the ADEA and Commission regulations. EEOC will provide defendant with a distribution list that directs the disbursal of funds among aggrieved individuals. Defendant will make specified efforts to recruit individuals in the PAG into commissioned direct sales positions and will make a good faith effort to hire qualified individuals within the PAG into open sale positions at or above the rate at which they apply for such positions. Defendant will report to EEOC every 6 months on applicants for sales positions by name, age, referral source, job sought, work location, and whether hired, and will provide reasons for why any PAG applicant was not hired. Every 6 months, defendant will compare the percentage of PAG applicants with the percentage hired, report the results to EEOC, and explain any negative disparities in hiring rates. Defendant will distribute its EEO policy (attached to the decree) to all employees, and provide annual training on the ADEA and the policy to all mid-Atlantic managers and supervisors, and employees with recruiting and hiring responsibilities.
EEOC v. Freeman, No. 8:09-cv-02573-RWT (D. Md. 2009)
EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that the Defendant, a nationwide convention, exhibition and corporate events marketing company, engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination by refusing to hire a class of black, Hispanic, and male job applicants across the United States. Specifically, the case alleges that since at least 2001, Defendant has rejected job applicants based on their credit history and various types of criminal charges or convictions. These practices have an unlawful discriminatory impact because of race, national origin, and sex, and are not job-related nor justified by business necessity.
EEOC v. Kaplan, No. 1:10-cv-02882 (N.D. Ohio 2010)
EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, a nationwide provider of postsecondary education, engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination by refusing to hire a class of black job applicants nationwide. Since at least 2008, defendant has rejected job applicants based on their credit history. This practice has an unlawful discriminatory impact because of race and is neither job-related nor justified by business necessity.
EEOC v. Bass Pro, No. 4:11-CV-3425 (S.D. Tex. 2011)
EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, a nationwide retailer of sporting goods, apparel, and other miscellaneous products, engaged in a pattern or practice of failing to hire African-American and Hispanic applicants for positions in its retail stores nationwide, and retaliated against employees who opposed the discriminatory practices. The suit specifically alleges that since at least November 2005 qualified African-Americans and Hispanics were routinely denied retail positions such as cashier, sales associate, team leader, supervisor, manager and other positions at many of defendant's stores nationwide and that defendant's managers at several stores made overtly racially derogatory remarks acknowledging the discriminatory practices, including that hiring black candidates did not fit the corporate profile. The lawsuit also claims that defendant unlawfully destroyed or failed to keep records and documents related to employment applications and internal discrimination complaints.
EEOC v. Texas Roadhouse, No. 1:11-cv-11732-DJC (D. Mass. 2011)
EEOC filed this ADEA lawsuit alleging that defendant, a national, Kentucky-based restaurant chain, engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of age discrimination in hiring hourly, "front of the house" employees. Since at least 2007, defendant has been discriminating against a class of applicants for "front of the house" and other public, visible positions, such as servers, hosts, and bartenders, by failing to hire them because of their age, 40 years and older. The case alleges that Defendant instructed its managers to hire younger job applicants and emphasized youth when training managers about hiring employees for its restaurants. All of the images of employees in its training and employment manuals are of young people. Defendant's hiring officials also allegedly told older applicants across the nation that "there are younger people here who can grow with the company;" "you seem older to be applying for this job" and "do you think you would fit in?" "we are looking for people on the younger side... but you have a lot of experience;" and "how do you feel about working with younger people?"
EEOC v. Mavis, No. 12-CV-0741 (JGK) (GWG)) (S.D.N.Y 2011)
EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, a regional company selling tires and a variety of other automotive parts and services in some 110 facilities throughout the northeast, refused to hire women for a wide variety of positions despite some applicants' superior qualifications. At issue are defendant's store and service center jobs of tire installers, mechanics, assistant managers, managers, and related positions. According to the lawsuit, since at least 2008, only one woman was employed in any of these positions out of approximately 800 employees. The Commission also alleged that out of some 1,300 hires made between 2008-2010 for those positions, not one was female. Additionally, despite defendant's failure to maintain applications-itself a separate violation of federal law-those applications available indicate that women with superior credentials and experience were rejected while less qualified men were hired.
EEOC v. Propak Logistics, No. 3:09-cv-00347 (W.D.N.C. 2009)
EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, A nationwide freight management company, discriminated against a class of applicants for employment by refusing to hire them based on their national origin, non-Hispanic.
EEOC v. PBM Graphics, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-805 (M.D.N.C. 2011)
EEOC filed this Title VII case alleging that from Jan. 1, 2003 to the present, defendant, failed to place and/or assign non-Hispanic applicants and temporary workers to its core group of "regular" temporary workers based on their national origin, non-Hispanic. The case also alleges that defendant provided fewer work hours to non-Hispanic temporary workers because of their national origin, non-Hispanic.
EEOC v. New Hanover Regional Medical Center, No. 7:09-CV-00085 (E.D.N.C. 2009)
EEOC filed this ADA lawsuit alleging that defendant, a medical center, prohibited applicants and employees from working if the applicant or employee were taking a narcotic medication. Thus, a class of applicants and employees were denied hire or placed on unpaid leave because of a perceived disability.
EEOC v. Hi-Line Electric Corp. Inc, No. 3-09-CV-1848 (N.D. Tex. 2009)
EEOC filed this ADEA case alleging that defendant, a tools manufacturing and marketing company, developed hiring criteria that excluded applicants older than age 50 from consideration for hire as Territory Managers.
EEOC v. Hampton Inn, No. 1:10-cv-01234WTL-DKL (S.D. Ind. 2010)
EEOC filed this Title VII action alleging that defendant, a franchise-owned hotel, engaged in a pattern of discrimination by refusing to hire a class of housekeeping applicants because of their race, black, subjected housekeeping employees to less favorable terms and conditions of employment and reduced their pay and hours, terminated Charging Party and a class of similarly situated employees in retaliation for complaining about the race-based differential terms and conditions of employment, and failed to preserve records.
EEOC v. Celadon Trucking Services Inc, No. 1:12-cv-0275-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind. 2012)
EEOC filed this case under the ADA alleging that defendant, a trucking company, violated the ADA by refusing to hire Charging Party and a class of qualified applicants for employment as truck drivers because of disability. It further alleged that Defendant violated the ADA by maintaining a policy and engaging in a pattern or practice which subjects all applicants for truck driving positions to pre-offer disability-related inquiries.
EEOC v. Ventura Corporation Limited, No. 3:11-cv-01700 (D.P.R. 2012)
EEOC filed this Title VII action alleging that defendant, a wholesaler of beauty products and jewelry, discriminated against Charging Party by denying him a position as Zone Manager and/or Support Manager on the basis of his sex and retaliated against him because he filed a charge of discrimination and thereafter continued to object to and complain about discriminatory practices. EEOC also alleges that since 2004, defendant discriminated against a class of males seeking positions as zone manager or support manager by subjecting them to a pattern or practice of hiring discrimination.
EEOC v. FAPS Inc, No. 2:10CV03095 (D.N.J. 2010)
EEOC filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant tire retailer did not hire women as managers, assistant managers, mechanics, tire installers, and similar jobs because of their sex.
EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick's, No. 08-00984 (D. Md. 2008)
EEOC filed this Title VII case alleging that this upscale seafood restaurant engaged in race discrimination against applicants and employees by failing to hire black applicants for "front of the house" positions at two Baltimore, Maryland, restaurants and assigning black servers to less lucrative tables in the restaurants.
EEOC v. Presrite Corporation, No. 1:11cv00260 (N.D.Ohio 2011)
EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, a metal forging company with manufacturing facilities in Cleveland and Jefferson, Ohio, engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination by refusing to hire a class of female applicants for laborer and operative jobs because of their gender since at least 2005.
EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, No. 2:09-1330 (W.D.Pa. 2009)
EEOC filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, which operates over 600 family dining restaurants, has engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to hire individuals age 40 and over in six identified locations in Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio.
EEOC v. Grane Healthcare And Ebensburg Care Center, No. 3:10-cv-00250-KRG (W.D.Pa. 2008)
EEOC filed this ADA case against Grane Healthcare and Ebensburg Care Center, which is a nursing facility and appears to be owned and operated by Grane, alleging that that Grane/Ebensburg subjected a class of approximately 200 job applicants (all of whom worked for Ebensburg's predecessor, which was purchased by Grane effective 1/1/10) to unlawful pre-offer medical exams and inquiries. EEOC further alleges that Grane/Ebensburg discriminated against a class of those applicants in that they failed to offer the class members employment at Ebensburg Care Center because they were disabled or perceived as disabled. The class members' disabilities (or perceived disabilities) were all discovered in the course of the unlawful pre-offer medical exams and inquiries.
EEOC v. Bashas', No. 2:05-cv-02382-SMM (D. Ariz. 2005)
EEOC alleges that defendant, an operator of supermarkets, denied the Charging Parties jobs (one as a meat cutter and one in the delicatessen department) because they were Native Americans (members of the Hopi Tribe) who were not members of the Navajo Nation. Defendant also failed to hire others because they were Native Americans, but not Navahos and failed to retain employment applications.
EEOC v. Peabody Coal Company, No. CIV 01 1050 PHX SLV ((D. Ariz. 2001)
EEOC filed this Title VII lawsuit alleging that defendant, an operator of a coal mining business, denied three Charging Parties jobs as an overburden driller, haul truck driver, and heavy equipment operator because they were Native Americans who were not members of the Navajo Nation. The defendant similarly discriminated against a class of other applicants.
EEOC v. New Prime Inc., No. 6:11-cv-03367 (W.D. Mo. 2011)
EEOC filed this Title VII case alleging that defendant, one of the nation's largest trucking companies, violated federal law by discriminating against female truck driver applicants when it required that they be trained by female trainers only. This policy allegedly resulted in qualified female applicants being placed on a waiting list due to a lack of female trainers, thus delaying or denying them employment, while defendant provided training for male applicants without similar delay.