Oral Arts Laboratory Inc. settles hiring discrimination case

Huntsville, Alabama, manufacturer will pay $115K in back wages, interest to 159 applicants

Oral Arts Laboratory Inc., a dental lab and manufacturer, will pay $115,000 to resolve allegations of systemic hiring discrimination at its Huntsville corporate headquarters. A compliance review by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs found that the federal contractor discriminated against 83 women and 19 African Americans who were denied dental lab technician positions, as well as 57 men who were rejected for shipping positions. Under the agreement, Oral Arts will extend job offers to at least 19 of the original class members as positions become available.

"This agreement underscores the notion that federal contractors, like Oral Arts, should closely examine their employment policies and practices to identify and eliminate unfair barriers to equal opportunity," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu.

OFCCP investigators found that, from November 2011 to November 2013, Oral Arts used a dexterity test in the selection process for dental lab technicians. This test was used even though it was not supported by a validation study that satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.

The investigation also uncovered that the company stereotyped shipping positions as female jobs and rejected male applicants. The agency concluded that Oral Arts' hiring process systematically discriminated against women, men and African-American applicants, a violation of Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of race or sex. The company has ceased using the tests and revised its selection process to ensure equal opportunity for all applicants.

Oral Arts is a manufacturer of dental prostheses, orthodontic appliances, fixed and removable implants and dentures. A family owned and operated dental lab, Oral Arts in 2014 held more than $2 million in federal contracts with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Comcast Corporation settles charges of sex and race discrimination

Company will pay nearly $190K in back wages and interest to 96 former and current female employees and 100 minority job applicants; reform hiring practices

Comcast Corporation has entered into a conciliation agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to resolve allegations of sex and race discrimination.

OFCCP investigators determined that between March 2006 and September 2007 in Everett, Washington, Comcast violated Executive Order 11246 by steering 96 women into lower-paying positions that assisted customers with cable services rather than higher-paid positions providing customer assistance for Internet services because these positions were considered "technical."

Investigators also established that Comcast disproportionately rejected 100 African American, Asian, and Hispanic applicants for call center jobs because its hiring tests were neither uniformly applied nor validated as related to the job. This resulted in systemic hiring discrimination on the basis of race. Comcast Corporation is a federal contractor.

"Sex-based compensation discrimination and race-based hiring discrimination are not only illegal, they also hurt our economy," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "We cannot build an economy that works for everyone by depriving women and minorities of opportunities to get ahead."

The notices of violation were issued March 22, 2011. After a lengthy conciliation process, an agreement was reached on April 30, 2015. The agreement requires Comcast to:

• Pay a total of $53,633.48 in back pay and interest to 96 current and former female employees;
• Pay $133,366.52 in back pay and interest to 100 African-American, Asian and Hispanic applicants; and
• Hire up to 31 members of the affected class as call center positions become available, to immediately correct any discriminatory practices, and to undertake self-monitoring measures to ensure that all compensation practices fully comply with the law.

The Comcast Corporation is a global media and technology company. It is also the largest provider of video, high-speed Internet, and phone services to residential customers in the United States. The company also provides these services to business customers and in federal facilities and installations.

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Company Refused to Hire Any Women, Federal Agency Charged

Unit Drilling Company, a nationwide oil drilling company, will pay $400,000 and furnish other relief to settle a systemic sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced. The EEOC had alleged that Unit Drilling refused to hire any women nationwide on its oil rigs.

According to the EEOC's suit, when women applied for jobs at Unit Drilling, they were told that the company did not hire women. Rejected female applicants testified that they were told by Unit employees that the company did not hire women because it only had "man camps," that women were "too pretty" and that their presence would "distract the men," the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After unsuccessfully trying to settle the case through its pre-trial conciliation process, the EEOC sued Unit Drilling on Sept. 28, 2012 in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, and the case was transferred to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma at the request of Unit Drilling (EEOC v. Unit Drilling Company,13-cv-00147-TCK-PJC).

On the eve of trial, Unit Drilling and the EEOC signed a consent decree resolving the case, and Tulsa Federal Court Judge Terence C. Kern signed and entered the decree today. Under the decree, Unit Drilling will pay $400,000 to five women whom, the EEOC alleges, Unit Drilling refused to hire because they are women. In addition, Unit Drilling will change its policies, provide training against sex discrimination, post anti-discrimination notices, and provide detailed hiring information to the EEOC, which will monitor Unit Drilling's compliance with the decree.

"Hiring discrimination is a very high priority issue for the EEOC," said the district director of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, Rayford Irvin. "Our investigation showed that women have not been able to get in the door to be considered or hired at Unit Drilling. This complete refusal to consider or hire any women is a blatant violation of federal law. Employers need to consider all applicants for all jobs."

EEOC Regional Attorney Mary O'Neill said, "The women in this case were qualified and interested in working on oil rigs as floor hands in order to support themselves and their families. It is shocking that in these times - over 50 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law - qualified women were not even considered for these high-paying jobs simply because of their gender. We expect that this settlement will make Unit Drilling change its practices and finally consider and hire qualified women on its rigs."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Prestige Transportation Service to Pay and Mend Hiring Practices to Settle Race Discrimination Lawsuit

Predecessor Company Refused to Hire African-Americans,

Federal Agency Charged

 

Prestige Transportation Service, LLC. a Miami company which provides transportation services to airline personnel to and from Miami International Airport, will pay $200,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC charged in its suit that Prestige's predecessor company, Airbus Alliance, Inc., which was under different ownership, repeatedly instructed its human resources manager not to hire African-American applicants because they were "trouble" and "would sue the company." Airbus also stated that it would be a "waste of paper" to give applications to black employees, the EEOC said.

According to the EEOC's suit, Airbus's owners referred to one employee as "the monkey" and fired her after she filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. In addition, Airbus terminated its human resources manager and another employee once they opposed the company's discriminatory practices.

Such alleged practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 1:13-cv-20684) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida after first attempting to reach a settlement through its conciliation process.

According to the terms of the four-year consent decree approved late Friday, September 26, 2014, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea Simonton, Prestige will pay $200,000 to settle the suit. Payments will be made to three named claimants, as well as a class of black applicants for employment. In addition, Prestige has agreed to the following additional measures as part of the consent decree. The company will:

• hire class members as openings become available over the next four years;
• implement numerical goals for the hiring of black applicants;
• use targeted advertising and recruitment to encourage black applicants to apply for employment at Prestige;
• implement an anti-discrimination policy that includes clear avenues for reporting discriminatory conduct;
• train human resources personnel, management personnel, and hiring personnel on an annual basis; and
• report to the EEOC and keep records about its hiring practices and compliance with the consent decree.

"We are pleased that Prestige -- under its new ownership -- worked with the EEOC in reaching this important settlement," said Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney of the agency's Miami District Office. "The hiring and policy changes implemented by Prestige demonstrate the company's commitment to hiring African-Americans and we are confident that going forward, Prestige will have a diverse workforce."

Malcolm Medley, director of the EEOC's Miami District, added, "This case demonstrates the EEOC's ongoing commitment to eliminating class barriers in recruitment and hiring. The EEOC will hold employers responsible if they make hiring decisions based on race rather than the applicant's ability to do the job."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

ACM Services Sued for Refusing to Recruit or Hire African-Americans and Women

Contractor Also Harassed Two Women and Fired Them Because They Opposed Unlawful Harassment and Discrimination, Federal Agency Charges

ACM Services, Inc., a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor, violated federal law when it refused to hire women and African Americans for field laborer positions and subjected two female employees to sexual and national origin harassment before firing them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged in a lawsuit announced.

The EEOC charged that since at least January 2005, ACM Services has exclusively used word-of-mouth recruitment practices for field laborer positions with the intent and effect of avoiding recruiting black job applicants and refusing to hire black job applicants because of their race. The EEOC lawsuit claimed that ACM Services has refused to hire female applicants for field laborer positions because of their sex.

In addition, the EEOC says that ACM Services subjected two Hispanic female employees to harassment based on sex, race and national origin. The egregious harassment included: requesting a sexual relationship of one of the women; sexual comments; making offensive comments to another of the women based on her association with persons of another race; repeatedly making derogatory comments about Hispanic persons, especially Hispanic women; and the unwelcome display of graphic sexual images of women.

The EEOC also alleged that ACM Services engaged in unlawful retaliation against the two Hispanic women because they opposed the harassment and discrimination and that this retaliation culminated in their terminations. The EEOC further charged that ACM Services failed to preserve employment applications as required by federal law and regulations.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits discrimination and harassment based on race, sex and national origin. Title VII also forbids employers from retaliating against individuals who oppose discrimination. The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (EEOC v. ACM Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 8:14-cv-02997 PWG), after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

"It is simply unacceptable and plainly unlawful that 50 years after the passage of Title VII, some employers still refuse to recruit or hire African-Americans or women," said EEOC Philadelphia District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. "We are committed to ensuring that everyone is afforded equal opportunities during the hiring process to be judged on abilities and not race or sex."

EEOC Philadelphia Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence said, "When employers rely exclusively on current employees to spread information concerning job vacancies to their family, friends, and acquaintances, unless the workforce is already racially and ethnically diverse, such word-of-mouth recruiting can create a barrier to equal employment opportunity for racial or ethnic groups that are not already represented in the employer's workforce - and this violates federal law."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

GE Lighting settles sex discrimination case

Agreement includes $537K for 102 female applicants

GE Lighting LLC has agreed to settle allegations of hiring discrimination following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Under the terms of the agreement, the federal contractor will pay $537,000 in back wages and interest to 102 women who were rejected for entry-level attendant positions at the company's Bucyrus facility. GE Lighting will also extend job offers to at least five of the original class members as positions become available.

"I am pleased that we were able to work out a fair and mutually agreeable resolution with GE Lighting," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "The time is always right to shine a light on any and all barriers to equal opportunity in the workplace, and I encourage women who were previously denied jobs at GE's Bucyrus location to reconsider, secure in the knowledge that they will get a fair shake going forward."

During a scheduled compliance review, OFCCP investigators found that GE Lighting used the WorkKeys test as part of its selection process, even though it was not properly supported by a validation study that satisfies the requirements of the "Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures." The agency concluded that GE Lighting's hiring process systematically discriminated against female applicants, a violation of Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of sex. GE Lighting has already ceased using the WorkKeys test, revised its selection process to ensure equal opportunity for all applicants and invited women to reapply under the revised hiring procedures. It has also extended one of the five job offers.

GE Lighting is a subsidiary of the Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. In the past two years, GE Lighting held more than $1.8 billion in federal contracts to provide machines and equipment to the Air Force, Navy, Army and Defense Logistics Agency.

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Central Parking System of Louisiana Inc. settles hiring and pay discrimination case

Company will pay $275,000 in back wages and interest to 195 female and black applicants

The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs announced today that Central Parking System of Louisiana Inc. has agreed to pay $275,000 in back wages and interest to settle allegations of placement and hiring discrimination affecting 104 women and 91 African Americans who were rejected as valets at the company's New Orleans location.

"I am pleased with this settlement, which reflects a mutual commitment between the department and Central Parking to ensure that all workers have a fair shot at competing for good jobs," said OFCCP Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regional Director Melissa L. Speer. "Outdated notions about race and gender don't belong in any workplace, even when those workplaces are parking garages."

An OFCCP investigation found that qualified African Americans, who applied for jobs as valets between 2007 and 2009, were hired at a significantly lower rate than similarly situated applicants of other races. Simultaneously, qualified women who applied for these positions were steered into cashier positions, which do not earn tips, leading to lower earnings compared with men hired into the valet positions. These hiring and placement practices violate Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors such as Central Parking from discriminating in employment based on race and gender.

Under the terms of its conciliation agreement with OFCCP, the company will pay $100,000 in back wages and interest to the female class members and $175,000 to the affected African American applicants. Central Parking has agreed to place 65 of the women and hire 27 of the African Americans into valet positions, with retroactive seniority and benefits for the new hires, as positions become available. The company will undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure that its personnel practices, including record keeping, comply with the law.

Central Parking provides parking services and facilities for numerous federal agencies. During the two-year period reviewed in this investigation, the company received more than $3.2 million in federal contracts. In October 2012, Chicago-based Standard Parking Corp. purchased the company.

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Cargill agrees to pay more than $2.2M to settle charges of hiring discrimination

Company will pay back wages and interest to nearly 3,000 applicants rejected for jobs.

 

Cargill Meat Solutions, headquartered in Wichita, Kan., has agreed to settle charges of hiring discrimination based on race and sex with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Under the agreement, Cargill will pay $2,236,218 in back wages and interest to 2,959 applicants who were rejected for production jobs at facilities in Springdale, Ark.; Fort Morgan, Colo.; and Beardstown, Ill., between 2005 and 2009. The affected workers include: female applicants at Springdale and Fort Morgan, Caucasian and Hispanic applicants at Fort Morgan, and African American and Caucasian applicants at Beardstown.

"This settlement will benefit thousands of workers who were subjected to unfair discrimination," said U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. "And it demonstrates the Department of Labor's commitment to ensuring that everybody has a fair and equal shot at competing for good jobs."

During a series of scheduled reviews, OFCCP compliance officers found evidence that Cargill's hiring processes and selection procedures at facilities in Arkansas, Colorado and Illinois violated Executive Order 11246 by discriminating on the bases of sex, race and/or ethnicity. The reviews also uncovered violations of the Executive Order's record-keeping requirements. The Department of Labor filed a lawsuit regarding violations at the Springdale facility in November 2011 and this settlement resolves the issues in that complaint as well as the two other reviews.

"Discrimination should never be used to justify favoring one group of workers over others," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "I am pleased that Cargill has agreed to put a proactive strategy in place to address this issue through new hiring procedures and in-depth training on combating stereotypes."

In addition to paying more than $2.2 million in back wages and interest to the affected applicants, Cargill has agreed to extend 354 job offers to the affected workers as positions become available. Additionally, the company has agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure that all hiring practices fully comply with the law, including record-keeping requirements.

Cargill Meat Solutions, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Minneapolis-based Cargill Inc., distributes beef, pork and turkey products. Since 2005, Cargill has held federal contracts worth more than $1.4 billion.

Source: OFCCP

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Cargill agrees to pay more than $2.2M to settle charges of hiring discrimination

Company will pay back wages and interest to nearly 3,000 applicants rejected for jobs

 
Cargill Meat Solutions, headquartered in Wichita, Kan., has agreed to settle charges of hiring discrimination based on race and sex with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Under the agreement, Cargill will pay $2,236,218 in back wages and interest to 2,959 applicants who were rejected for production jobs at facilities in Springdale, Ark.; Fort Morgan, Colo.; and Beardstown, Ill., between 2005 and 2009. The affected workers include: female applicants at Springdale and Fort Morgan, Caucasian and Hispanic applicants at Fort Morgan, and African American and Caucasian applicants at Beardstown.
 
"This settlement will benefit thousands of workers who were subjected to unfair discrimination," said U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. "And it demonstrates the Department of Labor's commitment to ensuring that everybody has a fair and equal shot at competing for good jobs."

During a series of scheduled reviews, OFCCP compliance officers found evidence that Cargill's hiring processes and selection procedures at facilities in Arkansas, Colorado and Illinois violated Executive Order 11246 by discriminating on the bases of sex, race and/or ethnicity. The reviews also uncovered violations of the Executive Order's record-keeping requirements. The Department of Labor filed a lawsuit regarding violations at the Springdale facility in November 2011 and this settlement resolves the issues in that complaint as well as the two other reviews.
 
"Discrimination should never be used to justify favoring one group of workers over others," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "I am pleased that Cargill has agreed to put a proactive strategy in place to address this issue through new hiring procedures and in-depth training on combating stereotypes."
 
In addition to paying more than $2.2 million in back wages and interest to the affected applicants, Cargill has agreed to extend 354 job offers to the affected workers as positions become available. Additionally, the company has agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure that all hiring practices fully comply with the law, including record-keeping requirements.
 
Cargill Meat Solutions, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Minneapolis-based Cargill Inc., distributes beef, pork and turkey products. Since 2005, Cargill has held federal contracts worth more than $1.4 billion.
 
Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

New Jersey dairy company to settle charges of sex and race discrimination

The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs today announced that federal contractor Cream-O-Land Dairy Inc. has resolved claims of sex and race discrimination affecting 227 workers who applied for jobs at the company's dairy plant in Florence, N.J. An OFCCP review of the facility determined that the dairy company used a hiring process that violated Executive Order 11246 because it discriminated against women, African Americans and Asian Americans who applied for warehouse positions in 2010.

"I am pleased that we were able to reach a fair settlement in this case," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "Today's agreement underscores the notion that federal contractors, like Cream-O-Land, should closely examine their employment policies and practices to identify and eliminate any unfair barriers to equal opportunity.

Under the terms of the conciliation agreement, Cream-O-Land will pay $324,288 in back wages, interest and benefits to the rejected applicants. The company will also make 24 job offers to the affected class members as positions become available. Additionally, the company has agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures, including committing a minimum of $10,000 for training to ensure that all of its hiring processes comply with the law.

Cream-O-Land Dairy Inc. delivers dairy products to grocery stores, supermarkets and schools throughout New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Connecticut. In Fiscal Year 2012, Cream-O-Land sold more than $1.5 million worth of products to federal agencies such as the Federal Prison System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Logistics Agency and Department of the Army.

In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These three laws require those who do business with the federal government, contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For more information, please call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Bay State Milling Company to Pay $80K to Settle EEOC Hiring Discrimination Case

Indiantown, Fla., Milling Company Refused to Hire Qualified Applicant Based on His Age, Federal Agency Charged

 

Bay State Milling Company, a major flour and grain producer, will pay $80,185 and furnish other relief to settle an age discrimination suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC's suit charged that Bay State Milling Company discriminated against Gary Legore, a qualified applicant, when the hiring manager for the Indiantown, Fla., miller vacancy rejected him for the position because of his age. The hiring manager informed Legore of the company's desire to hire a younger individual for the job. The company ultimately hired a 22-year-old with less experience than Legore.

Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits discrimination based on an individual's age. Employees and applicants are covered by this statute. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 2:12-cv-14439-DLG) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the lawsuit, approved by the court on December 10, includes mandatory training for the hiring manager, interviewing officials and the company's human resources department, with an emphasis on age-related discriminatory practices and age sensitivity. The decree also provides for a number of reporting requirements which subject the company to additional monitoring by the EEOC for a period of two years. The monetary award includes back pay and liquidated damages.

"Relying on prejudicial stereotypes based on an applicant's age is unlawful and emotionally harmful for the victim," said Regional Attorney Robert E. Weisberg of the EEOC's Miami District Office. "This agency is charged with the responsibility of protecting the rights of all citizens, and age discrimination will not be tolerated."

EEOC Miami District Director Malcolm Medley added, "When a company is seeking someone to fill a vacant position, it is important that it looks to an individual's qualifications and ability to do the job and not to his or her age, which should never be a factor in a company's decision to hire."

According to company information, Bay State Milling is one of the largest producers of flour and grain products in the United States, and employs between approximately 200 and 500 people nationwide at approximately nine facilities.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

G&K Services Co. settles claims of pay and hiring discrimination

Agreement includes $265,983 in back pay to 59 women steered into lower paying jobs

 

G&K Services Co. has agreed to settle allegations that it discriminated against female laundry workers by steering them into lower-paying positions regardless of their qualifications. The conciliation agreement between the federal contractor's facility located in Santa Fe Springs, Calif., and the department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs resolves this pay discrimination violation, as well as the related finding that the company discriminated against male applicants in hiring.

"The settlement reflects a mutual commitment between the department and the leadership of G&K Services Co. to ensure that qualified workers, irrespective of gender, have a fair shot at competing for good jobs," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "I am pleased by this contractor's willingness to work with us on a proactive strategy to guarantee that all their workers have an equal opportunity to succeed in the workplace."

During a compliance evaluation, OFCCP determined that G&K Services had a practice of assigning laundry workers to different tasks and different pay rates on the basis of gender. Specifically, OFCCP found that between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010, female employees who had been hired as general laborers were assigned to "light duty" jobs that paid less than the "heavy duty" jobs involving similar work and qualifications, which the company reserved for men. Denying women access to higher-paying opportunities because of sex stereotyping is a form of pay discrimination in violation of Executive Order 11246. Investigators also found that male applicants were frequently denied the option to compete for a majority of the open laborer opportunities during the review period because the company only considered them for so-called heavy duty work.

Under the terms of the agreement, the contractor will pay $265,983 in back wages to 59 female workers who were steered into the lower paying jobs. G&K Services will also extend to the 59 female class members job offers in the higher-paying laborer positions. In addition, G&K Services will pay $23,968 in back wages to 331 male job applicants who were denied the opportunity to compete for open lower-paying laborer positions and make three job offers. The company has also agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures, and review and revise their hiring and pay practices, to ensure they fully comply with the law.

G&K Services provides textile leasing and renting services to a number of different government agencies, including the Defense Commissary Agency, Bureau of Reclamation and NASA.

In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For general information, call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit its website at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

Source: OFCCP

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Nearly 400 minority applicants to receive back wages as company reviews hiring practices

The U.S. Department of Labor today announced that federal construction contractor M.C. Dean Inc. has settled allegations that it failed to provide equal employment opportunity to 381 African American, Hispanic and Asian American workers who applied for jobs at the company's Dulles headquarters. A review by the department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs determined that the contractor used a set of selection procedures, including invalid tests, which unfairly kept qualified minority candidates from securing jobs as apprentices and electricians.

"Our nation was built on the principles of fair play and equal opportunity, and artificial barriers that keep workers from securing good jobs violate those principles," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "I am pleased that this settlement will provide remedies to the affected workers and that M.C. Dean has agreed to invest significant resources to improve its hiring practices so that this never happens again."

Under the terms of the agreement, M.C. Dean will pay $875,000 in back wages and interest to 272 African American, 98 Hispanic and 11 Asian American job applicants who were denied employment in 2010. The contractor will also extend 39 job offers to the class members as opportunities become available. Additionally, M.C. Dean has agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures and personnel training to ensure that all of its employment practices fully comply with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment on the bases of race, color and national origin.

M.C. Dean is a construction, design-build and systems integration corporation with more than 30 offices worldwide. Since 2006, the company has held more than $600 million in contracts with federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Defense.

In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These three laws require those who do business with the federal government, contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For more information, please call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit http://www.dol.gov/ofccp.

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

River View Coal to Pay $245,000 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination Suit

Company Excluded a Class of African-American Applicants From Jobs, Federal Agency Charged

 

River View Coal, LLC, will pay a total of $245,000 to a class of African-American applicants and furnish other relief to settle a class race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, River View Coal excluded a class of African-American applicants from coal mining jobs at its Waverly, Ky., facility since Aug. 1, 2008.

Race discrimination in hiring violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (4:11-cv-00117-JHM-HBB) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the suit provides that the settlement proceeds will be distributed to a class of applicants. The decree requires River View Coal to report on its hiring for two years. The company will be prohibited from engaging in future discrimination against African-American employees or applicants and from retaliating against applicants or employees who exercise their rights to complain about discrimination or assist in an investigation or discrimination-related proceeding. River View Coal will also post a notice of non-discrimination at its facility and train its hiring managers and employees involved in the hiring process. The company will also endeavor to increase its racial diversity in the workforce by advertising all open underground positions throughout the duration of the decree with the Marion, Ill., employment services office, the Harrisburg, Ill., WorkNet office and the unemployment offices that serve Union County, Ky., and Vanderburgh County, Ind.

"Addressing allegations of hiring discrimination is an EEOC priority, and I am delighted that a resolution has been reached," said EEOC Indianapolis Regional Attorney Laurie A. Young.

Indianapolis District Director Webster Smith echoed the sentiment and indicated that he was pleased that the EEOC charge process resulted in the resolution of the claims in this case.

According to company information, River View Coal is a subsidiary of Alliance Resource Partners LP, the third-largest eastern United States coal producer. Alliance operates 10 coal mines in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Maryland.

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 people with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Rosebud Restaurants for Race Discrimination in Hiring Across Chicago Area

Italian Restaurant Chain Refused to Hire Blacks; Many Locations Had None at All; Managers Said to Use Racial Slurs

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit today alleging that ten Rosebud Restaurants in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs violated federal civil rights laws by refusing to hire African-Americans in numerous Chicago area locations because of their race.

The EEOC's pre-suit administrative investigation, managed by District Director John Rowe, revealed that company managers, including Rosebud owner Alex Dana, indicated that they preferred not to hire African-Americans to work in the company's restaurants. He noted that Dana and other managers used racial slurs to refer to blacks, according to the agency's investigation.

The EEOC charged in the suit that Rosebud failed to maintain employment applications for a one-year period and to file required employer information reports with the EEOC prior to 2009, in violation of federal regulations. Private employers with more than 100 employees are required to file annual reports with the EEOC providing employment data by job category, race, ethnicity and gender. Federal regulations also require that employers keep all personnel and employment records, including employment applications, for one year.

"The EEOC is committed to using education, outreach, informal settlement efforts, and, if necessary, litigation to make equal opportunity the reality in the workplace," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "Cases like this illustrate that, unfortunately, race discrimination continues to be a barrier for African-Americans seeking employment and this is the latest in a series of such challenges."

The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago (EEOC v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-6656), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Marvin E. Aspen. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the black applicants denied employment, hiring of qualified African-American applicants, an order barring future discrimination, and other relief to prevent future discrimination.

Rowe said, "At the time the EEOC began examining Rosebud's hiring practices, most of its restaurants had no black employees at all. In most of them we were looking at what we call the 'inexorable zero'-situations where the absence of any African-Americans makes it unlikely this was caused by chance. Those are almost always the result of strong racial bias."

John Hendrickson, EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, said, "Major restaurants in Chicago present the face of the city to the world, so it is a special shame when they present a face disfigured by intentional discrimination. That is not what Chicago is about, and the EEOC can be counted on to challenge that kind of discrimination. This discrimination will not stand."

Rosebud currently operates ten restaurants in greater Chicago, including eight white-tablecloth Italian restaurants and two steakhouses. The restaurants that are subject to the suit include Carmine's, The Rosebud, Rosebud Prime, Rosebud on Rush, Rosebud Old World Italian, Rosebud Steakhouse, Rosebud Deerfield, Rosebud Theater District, Rosebud Italian Specialties and Pizzeria, Ristorante Centro (formerly known as EATT and Bar Umbriago), and the recently closed restaurants Rosebud of Highland Park, Rosebud Burger & Comfort Foods, and Rosebud Trattoria.

In December 2012, the EEOC adopted its Strategic Enforcement Plan, which sets forth the agency's priorities for combating employment discrimination, and includes eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring.

Source: EEOC
 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Spokane home care operator settles US Labor Department charges of discrimination against male job seekers

Company will pay back wages and interest to 77 male job applicants, reform hiring practices

 

The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs announced today that it has entered into a conciliation agreement to resolve allegations of sex discrimination by federal contractor, ResCare HomeCare Spokane. OFCCP investigators determined that ResCare's selection process violated Executive Order 11246 because it led to systemic hiring discrimination affecting men who applied for in-home care positions between June 2009 and May 2010. The investigation concluded that 77 male job applicants were denied full consideration during the hiring process.

 

"When we tell our daughters that there are no limits to what jobs they can pursue, we should be mindful that those same aspirations apply to our sons," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "Outdated stereotypes about women being better suited to caregiving jobs than men perpetuate unlawful and unfair sex discrimination. At OFCCP, we are committed to combating sex stereotyping whenever it gets in the way of equal employment opportunities for qualified workers."

 

Though ResCare officials asserted that most of their clients are women and requested female caregivers, the company had no evidence to support this. An overwhelming majority of client care plans contained no gender preference, and when OFCCP contacted a sample of these clients to ask whether they had a gender preference for their caregiver, nearly half of the female clients indicated that they had no gender preference.

 

Under the terms of the agreement, the company will pay a total of $92,059 in back pay and interest to 77 rejected male applicants. ResCare has also agreed to hire eight members of the affected class as in-home care positions become available. Additionally, the federal contractor agreed to immediately correct any discriminatory practices and undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure that all compensation practices fully comply with the law.

 

ResCare provides homecare services and in-home senior care, including nursing, therapy, personal care, Alzheimer and dementia care, homemaking, companionship and other services. The Spokane facility is a part of ResCare Inc., based in Louisville, Ky., and it holds approximately $100 million in contracts with the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration to operate 15 Job Corps centers across the country and is the program's second largest center operator in the nation.

 

In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For more information, please call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

 

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

Go Figure: The EEOC Clears Itself on Discrimination Charges

Posted by Susan R. Maisa on 05 August 2013

Yes, the title of this article is right. The EEOC recently issued a decision finding that it — the EEOC — did not discriminate on the basis of age when it chose a 35-year old applicant over a 71-year old applicant (and we will just tactfully ignore questions about the EEOC’s having the ability to decide whether it engaged in discrimination). Not only that, but the EEOC’s reasoning in its decision provides great ammunition for an employer defending against charges filed with the EEOC alleging discrimination in as to a hiring or promotion decision.

In Hardwick v. EEOC , Ms. Hardwick, who was 71 years old at the time, applied for a job as an EEOC investigator The EEOC instead selected an applicant who was 35 years old on the basis that the younger applicant had attended law school, even though a law degree was not required for the job. Ms. Hardwick herself was no slouch applicant and met the qualifications for the job. She had an undergraduate degree with a major in labor and employment and a minor in employment law. She also had a certification in paralegal studies and had experience as a caseworker for the Missouri Division of Family Services. Interestingly, Ms. Hardwick claimed she was also qualified for the job because of “her experience as a pro se litigant.”

The EEOC concluded that the decision to hire the substantially younger employee was not age discrimination because Ms. Hardwick failed to prove that “no reasonable person” could have selected the much younger applicant over her for the job. The EEOC also held that employers’ decisions as to “the assessment of the candidates’ qualifications” should not be “second guessed.”

These are the same types of arguments employers routinely make in responding to charges filed with the EEOC that allege discrimination as to a hiring or promotion decision. So keep this decision in your back pocket (or a nearby file) for the next time you are filing a position statement with the EEOC.

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

ALJ rules against OFCCP in hiring discrimination case

A Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) ruled on August 5, 2013 that the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) cannot proceed with a disparate impact claim against a clothing manufacturer because “Non-Asians” is “neither a race nor an ethnic group” for purposes of Executive Order 11246.

OFCCP issued a Notice of Violation in 2009 to VF Jeanswear Limited Partnership, an apparel manufacturer with a facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The Notice stated that in 2005 VF Jeanswear discriminated against “non-Asian” applicants in the hiring of Operative job group positions. OFCCP filed an administrative complaint against VF Jeanswear in May 2011 and both parties moved for summary judgment.

The ALJ decision granted VF Jeanswear’s motion for summary judgment. The ALJ noted that the “non-Asian” classification “was apparently custom-designed for this case,” aggregating one group that was over-represented (Hispanics), one group that was under-represented (Whites) and one group that was closely proportional (African-American) compared to regional U.S. Census data. The ALJ explained that the only accepted “race” and “ethnic group” classifications for both EEOC and OFCCP purposes are African-American, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and White. Although “non-whites” are effectively a protected class (collectively as “minorities”), the regulations do not recognize other “non-” classifications for the purposes of analysis and enforcement. The ALJ concluded that because “Non-Asian” is not a protected race, ethnic group, or class for OFCCP purposes, it could not serve as a basis for asserting a discrimination claim.

The decision recognizes constraints on OFCCP’s ability to make groupings and comparisons in assessing potential discrimination claims and issuing notices of violation.

(OFCCP v. VF Jeanswear Ltd. P'ship, DOL OALJ, No. 2011-OFC-00006, 8/5/13).

Source: Matt Nusbaum Proskauer Rose LLP

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Orland Park Janitorial Company to Pay $360,000 to Resolve Claim of Discrimination against Hispanics

EEOC Says RJB Properties Harassed and Fired Hispanic Employees and Retaliated Against Supervisors Who Refused to Fire Hispanic Employees

RJB Properties, Inc. (RJB), a janitorial company headquartered in Orland Park, Ill., will pay $360,000 and provide other non-monetary relief under a consent decree resolving an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
 
The EEOC had alleged that RJB illegally fired a group of Hispanic janitors because of their national origin and subjected them to harassment and discriminatory work conditions. These included the use of ethnic slurs and requiring that Hispanic employees perform more difficult work than non-Hispanic co-workers. EEOC also alleged that RJB retaliated against two African-American supervisors by firing one and forcing the other to quit because they refused to follow the vice president's orders to fire Hispanic employees. In addition, EEOC alleged that one of those supervisors, a man, was sexually harassed and fired for refusing to submit to his female supervisor's sexual advances.

The consent decree entered by United States Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys May 1, 2013, provides $360,000 in monetary relief to be distributed to ten discrimination victims. In addition, the decree prohibits RJB from engaging in national origin discrimination or harassment, sexual harassment, or retaliation.
 
During the two-year term of the decree, RJB must provide a wide variety of additional defined relief targeted to combat the discrimination alleged by EEOC. It must revise and distribute a policy in English and Spanish against national origin discrimination and harassment, sexual harassment, and retaliation, and provide annual training in English and Spanish to all employees regarding the company's policy and complaint procedure. It must also identify a Spanish-speaking employee to receive complaints of discrimination or harassment, and maintain records of complaints. In addition, RJB is required to provide periodic reports to EEOC of any complaints of discrimination, and to post a notice in English and Spanish regarding the resolution of the suit.

John Hendrickson, EEOC's Regional Attorney in Chicago, said, "EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan has made protecting the rights of vulnerable workers, like the relatively low-wage janitors here, a priority. We hope our work on this case signals that this priority is not just a matter of paying lip service, but that we are putting real muscle behind it."

"We are pleased with this decree because it includes a number of provisions specifically tailored to have a real, practical impact upon the discrimination we intended to challenge," added EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason, "We were interested not only in money but in effecting a real change, and we think this consent decree will do that."

"Firing Hispanic workers because of their national origin clearly violates Title VII," said John Rowe, EEOC's district director in Chicago who oversaw the EEOC's administrative investigation of the charges of discrimination underlying the lawsuit. "Title VII also makes it illegal to retaliate against employees who oppose discrimination. Firing supervisors, like EEOC alleged RJB did in this case, because they stood up and refused to go along with their company's discriminatory orders is illegal retaliation. Combating retaliation has long been a high priority for us."
 
The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin and sex (including harassment) as well as retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The EEOC filed the case (EEOC v. RJB Properties, Inc. and Blackstone Consulting, Inc., No. 10-CV-2001) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 31, 2010. In addition to Hendrickson and Smason, EEOC was represented by trial attorneys Ann Henry, Laura Feldman, and Gordon Waldron.
 
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

14 minority job applicants in Jefferson, La., to receive back pay, job offers

Bertucci Contracting Co. LLC, a federal construction contractor, has settled allegations of hiring discrimination against minority job applicants at its Jefferson facility.

Investigators with the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs determined that the company's hiring process violated Executive Order 11246 by creating a disparate impact on African-American, Hispanic, Asian and Native American job seekers. As a result, 14 qualified minority applicants were denied the opportunity to fairly compete for positions as laborers and deckhands between 2009 and 2011.

"The people of the Gulf Coast have shown tremendous resilience in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the BP oil spill and the Great Recession," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "Our job — and the job of taxpayer-funded construction contractors like Bertucci — is to make sure the doors of opportunity are open for all workers who want to be a part of rebuilding and fortifying their communities. This agreement underscores that commitment by facilitating success for the workers, the company and the government agency involved."

Under the terms of the conciliation agreement, Bertucci will pay $70,000 in back wages and interest to the 14 affected workers and extend at least six offers of employment — with retroactive seniority — as positions become available. Furthermore, the company will revise its selection process to provide better training for hiring managers, annually review supervisors' adherence to employment policies and affirmative action obligations, and improve its recruitment efforts in order to avoid future violations.

Bertucci provides a variety of flood control and coastal restoration services, including environmental dredging and disposal, stone placement in vulnerable waterways, and levee construction and armament. During the two-year period reviewed by OFCCP investigators, Bertucci held more than $80 million in government contracts with the U.S. Army.

In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For general information, call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.