Posts Tagged ‘sex discrimination’

$3.2M to Settle EEOC Sex Bias Case Against CSX; Strength Testing Requirement Also Goes

You might soon see more women in railroad jobs typically held by men.

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) will pay $3.2 million and furnish other relief to settle a company-wide sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced June 13.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, CSXT conducted isokinetic strength testing as a requirement for workers to be hired for various jobs. The EEOC said that the strength test used by CSXT, known as the “IPCS Biodex” test, caused an unlawful discriminatory impact on female workers seeking jobs as conductors, material handler/clerks, and a number of other job categories. The EEOC also charged that CSXT used two other employment tests, a three-minute step test seeking to measure aerobic capacity and a discontinued arm endurance test, as a requirement for selection into certain jobs, and that those tests also caused an unlawful discriminatory effect on female workers.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, including the use of tests that are administered to all applicants and employees regardless of sex but that cause a discriminatory effect or impact on persons of a particular sex or any other demographic category. Employers using such tests must prove that those practices are necessary for safe and efficient performance of the specific jobs for which the tests are used. Even if this necessity is proven, such tests are prohibited by Title VII if it is shown that there are alternative practices that can achieve the employers’ objectives but have a less discriminatory effect.

The EEOC originally filed the lawsuit (U.S. EEOC v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Case No. 3:17-cv-03731) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in Huntington on Aug. 1, 2017. The EEOC and CSXT agreed to settle the EEOC’s disparate impact claims before any ruling by the federal court. The EEOC did not allege any intentional discrimination by CSXT in this case.

The consent decree settling the EEOC’s lawsuit, which has received approval by the federal court, requires CSXT to cease the physical abilities testing practices that the EEOC charged were causing a disparate impact against female workers. The decree also requires CSXT to pay $3.2 million into a settlement fund to pay lost wages and benefits to a class of women in over 20 states who were denied positions because of the testing. Under the decree, CSXT must also retain expert consultants to conduct scientific studies before adopting certain types of physical abilities testing programs for use in its hiring.

“We commend CSX Transportation for working collaboratively with the EEOC to address our concerns about the railroad’s physical abilities testing program,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “The company’s willingness to confer with the EEOC about the agency’s concerns and its agreement to cease the testing practices at issue reflect a corporate commitment to gender diversity and inclusion that will benefit both workers and the company.”

EEOC Pittsburgh Area Office Director Roosevelt Bryant said, “Railroad and other transportation occupations provide excellent career opportunities for women when sex-based barriers to their participation in those jobs are removed. The EEOC is committed to ensuring that all workers have an equal opportunity for hiring and advancement in such work.”

EEOC District Director Jamie R. Williamson said, “The EEOC will continue to carefully examine employer testing and screening practices to identify those that operate as systemic barriers to employment based on protected characteristics. Workers who believe they are being subjected to the discriminatory effects of such practices should bring them to the attention of the EEOC.”

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, especially class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate against racial, ethnic and religious groups, older workers, women and persons with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan.

According to company information, CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries based in Jacksonville, Fla., is one of the nation’s leading transportation suppliers. CSX’s principal operating company, CSX Transportation, provides an important link to the transportation supply chain through its approximately 21,000 route-mile rail network, which serves major population centers in 23 states east of the Mississippi River, the District of Columbia and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. CSX serves more than 70 ocean, river and lake ports along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. CSX also serves thousands of production and distribution facilities through connections to more than 240 short line and regional railroads.

The lawsuit was commenced by the EEOC’s Pittsburgh Area Office, one of four component offices of the agency’s Philadelphia District Office. The Philadelphia District Office has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. Attorneys of the Philadelphia District Office also prosecute discrimination cases in Washington, D.C. and parts of Virginia.

Fla. Car Dealer to Be More Open to Hiring Women Following Settlement of Gender Bias Allegations

Expect to see more women and minorities hawking cars at this Florida dealership.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The Collection, a South Florida automobile dealership, have reached a voluntary conciliation agreement to resolve allegations of gender discrimination raised by an unsuccessful female job applicant, the federal agency announced June 6.

Following an investigation, the EEOC found that the company had discriminated in its hiring practices on the basis of gender by failing to hire enough females into the position of sales representative.

To demonstrate their support of the EEOC and without admitting liability, the company will pay a monetary settlement to the affected females; hire qualified external trainers to conduct anti-discrimination training for all employees; create the position of director of diversity and inclusion to act as a liaison with the EEOC; and implement new recruiting tools and resources to attract female candidates for open positions, amongst other anti-discrimination hiring tactics.

“We commend The Collection for its cooperation in working to resolve this matter,” said the district director for the EEOC’s Miami District Office, Michael Farrell. “This agreement is a step toward addressing concerns regarding access to job opportunities for women in an industry where those opportunities have historically been limited. This agreement shows that we strive to work with employers willing to establish policies and practices that ensure equal opportunity, and I applaud The Collection for its efforts.”

$625K Settlement for EEOC in Hostile Work Environment Suit Against Louisville, Ky Printer

This printing company was on place for women to work, according to federal investigators.

LDDZ, Inc., doing business as DDZ CA, Inc., formerly known as Zoo Printing, Inc., will pay $625,400 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Zoo Printing failed to hire female applicants for the position of boxer/packer at its Louisville facility between January 2013 and December 2015. The EEOC also alleged that female employees were subjected to a hostile work environment because of their sex.

Failing to hire applicants because of their sex and subjecting employees to a hostile work environment because of their sex violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit against DDZ, Inc., dba DDZ CA, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division (EEOC v. DDZ, Inc., dba DDZ CA, Inc., formerly known as Zoo Printing, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-199 (JHM-CHL)) on March 30, 2018. The parties reached agreement and filed a joint motion to approve a consent decree that same day. The motion was approved by the court and the consent decree was entered on April 13, 2018.

Under the consent decree settling the suit, DDZ is required to pay $625,400 to women who unsuccessfully sought employment as boxer/packers at the Louisville, facility between January 2013 and December 2015, and to women who were employed at the facility and determined by the EEOC as having been subjected to gender harassment.

The assets of Zoo Printing, Inc., including its name and Kentucky operations, were purchased by PrintBuyer, LLC in an asset purchase transaction in November 2016. PrintBuyer, LLC subsequently closed the Kentucky operations of Zoo Printing, Inc. in 2017. PrintBuyer, LLC is not a party to the consent decree.

“We are pleased the parties were able to resolve this matter without prolonged and expensive litigation,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Kenneth Bird. “This case demonstrates the EEOC’s ongoing commitment to eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring. We hope this settlement furthers the public’s understanding that hiring decisions need to be based on the applicant’s ability to do the job, regardless of gender.”

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring that discriminate against women or other protected groups is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan.

The Louisville Area Office is part of the EEOC’s Indianapolis District, whose jurisdiction includes Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and parts of Ohio.

EEOC Says Waste Co. Wouldn’t Hire Woman

Women have as much right as men to equal treatment when they apply for a job, no matter the industry.

American Pride Waste Solutions, Inc., a Bluffton, S.C., waste collection company, violated federal law by discriminating against a qualified female job applicant because of her sex, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it recently filed.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, American Pride rejected the woman’s truck driver application in favor of less-qualified male applicants.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Pride Waste Solutions, Civil Action No. 9:18-cv-912-DCN-JDA) in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The federal agency seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the discrimination victim, as well as injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.

“Federal law clearly requires employers to give equal opportunity to all applicants for positions, regardless of the applicant’s sex,” said Bernice Williams-Kimbrough, director of the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “That goes for all jobs — truck drivers, computer programmers, police officers and CEOs. No exceptions.”

Antonette Sewell, regional attorney for the Atlanta District Office, added, “Denying people equal employment opportunity because of gender has been against federal law for more than 50 years. It’s distressing that some employers still try to get away with such misconduct, but the EEOC will keep combating it.”

EEOC: Gender Bias Cost Woman Chef’s Job

We’d like to think that these retrograde views on women no longer affect employers’ promotion decisions, but if the allegations in this case are proven that’s clearly not the case.

Morrison Management Specialists Inc., a division of Compass Group USA Inc., unlawfully denied a promotion to a female shift supervisor to an open sous chef position because of her gender, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Patricia Joyce was employed the company’s University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) location in Galveston, Texas, when a sous chef position opened. Joyce applied and was interviewed for the position, along with two male applicants. Thereafter, in a meeting with Executive Chef Jeff Inman, Joyce learned that an external male applicant had been selected for the position. Inman informed Joyce that he believed that the professional kitchen is a “man’s world” and he wanted to get it back to being that way. Joyce objected to the sentiment. Inman told her she needed to transfer to another of the company’s locations because she was no longer a good fit at the Galveston location. He subsequently reiterated these beliefs in an email to her.

A few weeks later, following a complaint to the company’s human resources department about his actions towards Joyce, Inman sent her a second email, again confirming his position that the kitchen is a “man’s world,” telling her that she would never be a sous chef with the company and she had better take the transfer to the other location. He also very strongly objected to human resources having been contacted about him, telling her that he was a “god” at Compass Group USA and that the company would not believe her. As a result, Joyce was subjected to a compulsory transfer and demotion since, following the transfer, she was no longer a supervisor and experienced a cut in her pay.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex with regard to promotions. In addition, employers are prohibited from retaliating against an employee or applicant because the person opposed discriminatory conduct. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division (Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00057) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation processes.

The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief to prohibit the Compass Group USA from engaging in future unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex, instatement of Joyce into a sous chef position, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for Joyce and any other relief the court deems proper.

“Employers’ biased views and stereotypes about gender roles have no place in the workplace,” said Rayford O. Irvin, district director of the Houston District Office of the EEOC. “The Houston District will vigorously enforce the laws that prohibit sex discrimination and retaliation against workers who have the courage to stand against it.”

Rudy Sustaita, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Houston District Office, added, “Employers cannot act on their own stereotypic assumptions and perceptions about gender when making employment decisions. Such conduct is illegal.”

EEOC’s Houston District Office is located on the sixth floor of the Leland Federal Building at 1919 Smith Street Houston, Texas.

$105K Owed to Female Sales Rep at Calif. Company Who Was Paid Less Than Male Rep

It took a year for a California company to make good on its obligation to pay a female salesperson the same as her male counterpart.

Spec Formliners, Inc., a Santa Ana, Calif.-based business, will pay $105,000 and provide other relief to settle an equal pay lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced on Wednesday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, filed in November 2016, Spec Formliners paid a female sales representative less than a male sales representative in base pay. The EEOC also contended that the company required the female sales representative to sell more to earn the same commission as her male colleague.

Such alleged conduct violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed its lawsuit on Nov. 17, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (EEOC v. Spec Formliners, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-02066-BRO-AJW) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

As part of the consent decree settling the suit, Spec Formliners will pay $105,000 to the former employee. In addition to the monetary relief, Spec Formliners also agreed to retain external equal employment opportunity consultants who will assist the company in creating, reviewing and revising its policies and practices to ensure compliance with Title VII and the EPA. The external EEO consultants will also assist the company in conducting fair pay audits, reviewing and revising its recruitment practices, and preparing annual reports for the EEOC on the company’s progress. Spec Formliners further agreed to conduct anti-discrimination training and distribute the revised policies to all employees. The EEOC will monitor Spec Formliners’ progress with the 2.5-year decree.

“We commend Spec Formliners for agreeing to put measures in place that will help remove barriers for female sales representatives and ensure equal pay for equal work,” said Anna Park, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, which includes Orange County in its jurisdiction. “Employees will do their best work when they know that their efforts are fairly compensated.”

Rosa Viramontes, director of the agency’s Los Angeles District Office, added, “The changes that will be implemented as part of this settlement will ensure that female sales representatives will receive fair compensation for sales equal to those of their male counterparts. This not only benefits female employees, but also the company as a whole.”

According to the company’s website, www.specformliners.com, Spec Formliners creates and customizes form liner patterns for concrete projects.

Male Employee Denied Position in Maternity Home Program Has EEOC in His Legal Corner

The Children’s Home, Inc., a Tampa non-profit children’s organization, violated federal law when it refused to consider a male employee for a management position in a maternity home program based on his sex, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged in a lawsuit it filed October 3. Further, after voicing his concerns about not be considered because he is a male, he was excluded from applying for any other positions with the organization, the EEOC said.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Children’s Home’s upper management and human resources personnel discouraged a male manager, Luis Vasquez, from internally applying to a position in a newly created Adolescent Motherhood Program, which was similar to his then-existing position. The EEOC said that Vasquez was told that management “wasn’t sure if they would accept males to work at the new motherhood program,” and asked, “… can you imagine males changing pampers, working with babies and with pregnant girls?”

Vasquez sought a new position with the organization because the program where he was employed didn’t receive renewed funding. Soon after complaining about the refusal to consider him because of his sex, he was advised that there were no other positions available at the organization for him. Vasquez’s less-experienced female subordinate was selected for the newly created position, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. The Children’s Home, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-02262-EAK-JSS) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division after attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“Just as Title VII protects women in the workplace from the gender-based assumption that they always have to be familial caretakers, it also protects men from the stereotype that they cannot hold positions viewed to have such caretaking functions,” said Evangeline Hawthorne, director for the Tampa Field Office.

Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney for the Miami District Office, added, “Employees must not be prevented from work opportunities based on outdated stereotypes of ‘a man’s role’ in maternity and childcare matters. Employment decisions based on such stereotypes violate federal law and the EEOC will vigorously oppose them.”

The Children’s Home is a non-profit organization that provides programs and services to children-in-need and their families in Central Florida.