University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. STEVEDORING SERVICES OF AMERICA EE-CA-0213
Docket / Court LACV 03-7020 JSL ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed this failure-to-hire case against Stevedoring Services of America, Inc. (SSA) on September 30, 2003 on behalf of a female job applicant. The EEOC alleged that SSA's decision not to hire the employee constituted sex discrimination and violated Title ... read more >
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed this failure-to-hire case against Stevedoring Services of America, Inc. (SSA) on September 30, 2003 on behalf of a female job applicant. The EEOC alleged that SSA's decision not to hire the employee constituted sex discrimination and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.). The EEOC sought monetary and injunctive relief.

The parties reached a settlement agreement, which the Court entered as a consent decree on October 29, 2004. The decree, which was to last two years, set out a comprehensive set of injunctive provisions to remedy the applicant's injury. The applicant would be hired to a chassis mechanic position with a 60-day probationary period during which she could only be fired for cause. SSA would be required to retain a monitor for the 60-day period to ensure that the applicant be provided equal employment opportunity. If SSA fired the employee, Monitor would make an independent determination of whether the firing was for cause and based on the same standards to which other chassis mechanics at SSA are held. If the termination was not for cause, the applicant would keeps her job and receives $50,000 as a penalty. The Monitor also would have discretion to award up to $50,000 to the applicant as a penalty if SSA undertook a for-cause termination in a situation in which circumstances within SSA's knowledge and control had undermined the applicant's ability to perform.

The decree also contained injuctive provisions designed to eliminate sex discrimination from SSA's hiring process. SSA would be required to, among other things, develop hiring procedures that comply with Title VII, create objective hiring criteria, proved annual training on Title VII-compliant recruiting/hiring to managerial and supervisory staff, develop job descriptions, hire a consultant, and submit to semiannual EEOC hiring audits.

At some point the monitor invoked the penalty provisions of the decree. As the monitor's report is unavailable to the Clearinghouse, it is not clear which penalty provision was invoked.

SSA moved to vacate the monitor's award of $50,000 on August 3, 2006. The EEOC moved for imposition of an additional $50,000 penalty and the costs of defending against SSA's motion. The Court (Judge Percy Anderson) orally denied both motions on November 3, 2006. SSA apparently continued to refuse to pay the $50,000, so the EEOC filed a motion to enforce the consent decree and for sanctions. The Court orally denied the EEOC's motion without prejudice, ruling that even though SSA's refusal to pay the $50,000 penalty was indefensible the EEOC's motion was procedurally improper. A confidential settlement conference was held on October 17, 2007. The docketed minutes of the conference state, "The case is completely settled. The settlement is placed on the record." The Clearinghouse has been unable to ascertain the exact outcome of this issue. The case is closed.

Kenneth Gray - 07/15/2013


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Auditing
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Hire
Monitoring
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Utilize objective job description
Discrimination-area
Hiring
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Stevedore Services of America, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of a female job applicant
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2004 - 2006
Case Closing Year 2004
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)
2:03-cv-07020-PA-PLA (C.D. Cal.) 10/17/2007
EE-CA-0213-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
[Proposed] Consent Decree; Order; signed 10/29/2004
EE-CA-0213-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Abrams, Paul L. (C.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
EE-CA-0213-9000
Anderson, Percy (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0213-0001 | EE-CA-0213-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Noh, Sue J. (California)
EE-CA-0213-9000
Park, Anna Y. (California)
EE-CA-0213-0001 | EE-CA-0213-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Fisher, Truth (California)
EE-CA-0213-9000
McMullen, James J Jr (California)
EE-CA-0213-0001 | EE-CA-0213-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -