Judgment Against Titan Waste Services for Race Discrimination Lawsuit

Federal Agency Charged That Employer Harassed and Discharged Black Employee Because of His Race

 

Titan Waste Services, Inc., a Milton, Fla., waste disposal and recycling company, has been ordered to pay $228,603 for violating federal law by harassing and then firing a truck driver because of his race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced.

According to the EEOC's suit, Titan's highest-level managers subjected its sole black driver, Michael Brooks, to discriminatory treatment during his employment, including assigning white drivers more favorable routes, requiring Brooks to perform degrading and unsafe work assignments. Brooks was also subjected to harassment such as racial slurs and racially derogatory insults, taunting and racial stereotypes, including the use of the "N-word." According to the EEOC, shortly before the 2008 presidential election, Titan's facility manager terminated Brooks without cause after discussing the upcoming election with him.

Racial discrimination, including racial harassment, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Titan Waste Services, Inc. Case No. 3:10-cv-00379) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida after an investigation was completed by the EEOC's Mobile Local Office and after the agency first attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. 
 
After depositions and other discovery in the case were completed and settlement discussions were unsuccessful, Titan's attorney withdrew from the case. Subsequently, the court found Titan did not continue to assert its defenses and ignored several orders of the court, displaying a reckless and willful disregard for the judicial proceedings. As a result, a default judgment was entered by U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers, based upon evidence submitted by the EEOC. The court's judgment included lost wages and other damages suffered by Brooks. 
 
"This case illustrates that race discrimination and harassment continue to be problems in the American workplace," said Gerald Miller, senior trial attorney for the EEOC's Birmingham District Office. "The EEOC stands poised to target these violations in court."

Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director for the EEOC's Birmingham District, added, "No employee should have to be subjected to racial slurs, threats and intimidation. And no employer should ever allow its managers or supervisors to engage in continuous racial abuse of any employee. The EEOC will continue to pursue cases like this in our efforts to eradicate any vestiges of discrimination that continue to plague our country's workplaces."

According to company information, Titan is a Florida corporation that provides waste disposal and recycling services to commercial and residential customers.

Source: EEOC
 

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

Court Found Holmes & Holmes' Work Environment Was Hostile to Blacks

Utah construction company Holmes & Holmes Industrial, Inc. will pay three former employees $230,000 and improve its future employment practices to settle a race harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC filed suit against Holmes in September 2010, charging that the company subjected Antonio and Joby Bratcher and a class of African-American employees to racial harassment and retaliation. In a ruling last year, Judge Dale A. Kimball found that the Bratchers and class member James Buie were subjected to an objectively hostile work environment based on race. The court observed that the site superintendent, Paul E. Facer, referred to the African-American employees as "n----rs" or a variation of that word almost every time he spoke to them. Other Holmes employees used the term "n----r-rigging" while working there, and racist graffiti was evident both inside and outside portable toilets on the work site. Finally, the EEOC charged. Holmes fired one of the harassment victims for complaining about it.

The court also noted that the employer's anti-harassment policy was "unreasonable as a matter of law" because it directed employees to report harassment to their harassing supervisor with no alternative means to bypass that supervisor.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC et al. v. Holmes & Holmes Indus., Inc., No. 10-CV-955, D. Utah) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The Bratchers intervened in the EEOC's suit and alleged claims under Section 1981.

"Employers have an obligation to protect their employees from the use of racial slurs and epithets," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "This case is our latest in a series of successes to combat racial harassment in the workplace. This conduct has no place nearly fifty years after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

The $230,000 to be paid to the victims is the maximum Holmes would have to pay if all Title VII claims were won at trial for all three victims; each victim will receive $50,000 for compensatory damages, the maximum cap under the 1991 Civil Rights Act, and one victim will receive $80,000 in back pay because he was fired.

In addition to the monetary relief, Holmes also committed to implement several affirmative steps to prevent and address race-based conduct on the worksite. These measures include: a comprehensive training regimen on discrimination (including racial discrimination and harassment); discussions of harassment in work site meetings on a monthly basis; the provision of an external ombudsman to receive and investigate complaints of discrimination or retaliation; and a detailed review and revision of Holmes' policies and procedures concerning protected-class discrimination and retaliation.

"I am pleased that the investigation of this case was done by our sister agency, the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division; they share in this success," said Rayford Irvin, district director of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office. "I am also proud of our legal team and everything they have done to successfully prosecute this case. Preventing workplace harassment through systemic litigation and investigation is one of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan."

EEOC Trial Attorney Richard Sexton said, "The use of racial slurs is unacceptable in any workplace. The Bratchers and Mr. Buie never should have been subjected to this egregious conduct while simply trying to make a living."

Source: EEOC

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

Day & Zimmerman Resolve EEOC Racial Discrimination Claims for $190,000

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Day & Zimmerman NPS, a leading supplier of maintenance, labor, and construction services to the power industry, yesterday filed a consent decree resolving EEOC's claims that Day & Zimmerman violated federal law by creating a hostile work environment for an African-American laborer. In the lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Day & Zimmerman, through its foreman at the Poletti Power Plant in Astoria, Queens, N.Y., had subjected Carlos Hughes to physical and verbal racial harassment.

According to the EEOC, Day & Zimmerman's foreman subjected Hughes to daily harassment for almost a year and a half. The harassment included racial insults and derogatory stories referring to African Americans as stupid and incompetent, as well as frequently tripping Hughes, and once kicking him in the buttocks. The foreman also told racist jokes in the workplace, and made negative comments about African Americans; including that Sean Bell (shot by the police at a nightclub) deserved to be shot, and threatened that candidate Barack Obama would be shot before the country allowed a black president.
 
EEOC alleged that Hughes complained to management many times for more than a year regarding the harassment, and that when Day & Zimmerman finally arranged a meeting in response, it disciplined Hughes less than an hour later, and then fired him that same day, citing a false safety violation as a reason.
 
This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, including racial harassment, and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation.

"Race harassment has absolutely no place in any workplace. Derogatory and hateful language poisons the work environment and creates a serious emotional toll on affected employees," said Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney in the EEOC's New York District Office.

Kevin Berry, director of the EEOC's New York District Office, said, "EEOC is particularly concerned when repeated complaints of race harassment are met not with a solution but with retaliation. We will pursue retaliation claims against those employers who punish employees who come forward to complain of harassment or discrimination."
 
Day & Zimmerman is one of the largest providers of plant maintenance, modification and construction services to the fossil and nuclear power generating industries throughout the United States. Last year it boasted annual revenues of $2.1 billion and a global workforce of over 24,000 across 150 worldwide locations. As part of the consent decree, Day & Zimmerman agreed to additional training of its managers at the Poletti Power Plant and to encourage use of its telephone hotline number by employees who believe they have been subjected to discrimination or harassment.

Eliminating policies and practices that discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under employment discrimination statutes, or that impede the EEOC's investigative or enforcement efforts, is one of six national priorities identified by the Commission'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.