University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. HOWARD S WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY EE-WA-0029
Docket / Court 3:06-cv-05492-RBL ( W.D. Wash. )
State/Territory Washington
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Seattle office of the EEOC brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, against Howard S. Wright Construction Company. The complaint, filed in August 2006, alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; specifically ... read more >
The Seattle office of the EEOC brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, against Howard S. Wright Construction Company. The complaint, filed in August 2006, alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; specifically that Defendant had discharged the charging party based on his age (60). In April 2007, the parties proposed a consent decree and it was signed two weeks later.

The decree, valid for 2 years, required Defendant to pay charging party a total of 18,977.20 ($6,560.40 in back pay, $2,928.20 as a benefit contribution and $9,488.60 in liquidated damages). Defendant was enjoined from discriminating, and required to provide annual EEO training to employees, post a notice of non-discrimination at its facility, distribute an EEO policy sheet to its employees, discipline any managers who discriminate and report to the EEOC annually on its compliance with the decree. Defendant was also required to provide neutral references for the charging party if asked by another employer.

Shankar Viswanathan - 06/22/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Neutral/Positive Reference
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. ยงยง 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) Howard S. Wright Construction Company
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2007 - 2009
Case Closing Year 2007
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:06-cv-05492-RBL (W.D. Wash.) 05/07/2007
EE-WA-0029-9000 PDF | Detail
General Documents
Complaint 08/28/2006
EE-WA-0029-0001 PDF | Detail
Consent Decree [Accepted as Proposed] 04/20/2007
EE-WA-0029-0002 PDF | Detail
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -