Monthly Archives: September 2010

$3M Settlement of Age Discrimination Class Action Against Republic Services

September 30th, 2010

Republic Services, Inc. and its subsidiary Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., will pay $2,975,000 and provide other relief to a class of older workers, settling an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC, Phoenix-based Republic terminated and denied job transfer opportunities to about 21 employees over the age of 40 at its facilities in southern Nevada between 2003 and 2005 because of their age. The list of terminated employees includes garbage collectors, drivers, and supervisors, some of whom were employed by the company for more than 25 years. The EEOC contends that those jobs were then offered to younger employees who were subsequently held to lower performance standards. The EEOC further charged that Republic engaged in a form of hazing called “break him off,” in which some employees were worked to the point of exhaustion, often making it difficult for them to do their jobs.
The EEOC originally filed suit against Republic in 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (U.S. EEOC v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., CV04-1352-DAE (LRL) consolidated with Robert LaRocca and William Lacy v. Republic Services, Inc. et al., CV 04-1479-DAE (LRL), arguing that the alleged conduct was a direct violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).
“No one should be harassed at work or forced out of a job for discriminatory reasons,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The law clearly prohibits mistreatment or dismissal of older workers on account of their age, and no workplace should lose productive and valuable employees because of illegal age stereotyping.”
“Our hope is that other employers implement practices to ensure that age stereotyping does not occur in any facet of employment,” said P. David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC. “As illustrated by this settlement, the EEOC will insist on substantial and meaningful relief for victims of illegal age discrimination.”
Aside from the monetary relief, the parties entered into a three-year consent decree requiring Republic to:
* Designate a corporate equal employment opportunity compliance officer;
* Conduct an audit of its employment policies and procedures;
* Provide annual anti-discrimination training to its employees;
* Closely track any future discrimination complaints to conform to its obligations under the ADEA; and
* Provide annual reports to the EEOC regarding its employment practices.
“We appreciate the great efforts that Republic has made and will continue to make to ensure that age is not a factor in the workplace,” said Anna Park, Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office whose jurisdiction includes Nevada. “Although employers may assume that younger employees are more efficient and less costly, this is simply not true.”

Atlanta-based Gerresheimer Sued for Paying Black Employees Less Than White Employees For The Same Job

September 28th, 2010

Gerresheimer Wilden Plastics (USA) L.P., a glass and plastics manufacturer based in Peachtree City, Ga., violated federal law when it paid an African-American employee less than non-blacks for performing equal work and then fired her in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, the employer terminated Donna McLeod from her position as a quality assurance manager in January 2009 in retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. McLeod, who was hired in February 2008, complained internally about race-based wage discrimination in October 2008. After the employer concluded there was no discrimination in wages, McLeod took her grievance to the EEOC. Within six weeks of receiving notice of the charge of discrimination, the employer terminated McLeod.
The agency alleges that Gerresheimer Wilden terminated McLeod because she filed a charge with the EEOC, and that such conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The agency filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:10-03082) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The EEOC is seeking back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for McLeod. The lawsuit also seeks injunctive relief designed to stop race discrimination and prevent it from recurring in the future.

$152,000 Settlement in Race Discrimination Suit against Cintas

September 28th, 2010

Cintas Corporation, the largest uniform manufacturer in North America and a provider of specialized services to businesses, including fire protection, will pay $152,500 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a federal racial and sexual harassment lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Claude Ash, Armand Upchurch and a class of African- American and male employees were subjected to egregious sexual and racial harassment by a co-worker with supervisory responsibilities in the company’s fire protection unit, which was then located in Warminster, and is now located in Conshohocken, Pa. The class members worked in the dry cell unit, which refurbishes and refills customers’ portable fire extinguishers. The EEOC charged that this supervisor’s unlawful harassment included: fondling the buttocks of class members; exposing his private parts and asking class members to expose their private parts to him; requesting sexual favors; and discussing his sexual exploits and sexual activities he would like to perform.
The EEOC further alleged that the supervisor engaged in unlawful racial harassment including: referring to the dry unit as the “ghetto division”; calling black employees nicknames using some derivation of “chocolate” such as “chocolate delicious”; and using a racial epithet to Upchurch and Ashe when professing why no one would believe their accounts about the harassment over company witnesses. The EEOC contended that the uncorrected harassment culminated in the discriminatory discharge of Upchurch, Ashe and other class members.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual and racial harassment. T he EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement prior to filing suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-04449.
In addition to the $152,500 in monetary relief to Upchurch, Ashe and the class members, the consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins Cintas from engaging in sexual or racial harassment or retaliation. The company must also provide training about federal anti-discrimination laws to all employees at the Conshohocken facility, report to the EEOC about the company’s response to any complaints of alleged discrimination, harassment or retaliation, and post a remedial notice.