Filed Date: March 31, 2006
Closed Date: Oct. 21, 2013
Clearinghouse coding complete
The Philadelphia district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc., a transport company, in March 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint was brought on behalf of a woman who had applied to work for Pitt-Ohio Express but had allegedly been denied employment as a truck driver or dockworker in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The complaint sought injunctive and monetary relief for the individual complainant and a class of similarly situated women. In August 2006, the court granted the complainant’s request to intervene on behalf of herself and the class of women who had been refused employment due to their sex.
The parties began settlement discussion on November 20, 2007. Almost a year later, on October 1, 2008, the court approved of the plaintiff-intervenor and Pitt-Ohio’s settlement agreement. The settlement called for the defendant to pay $570,000.00 total to the plaintiff: the plaintiff-intervenor was awarded $265,000.00 in monetary relief and $305,000.00 in attorney fees and costs. In addition, the plaintiff-intervenor agreed to dismiss her claims against the defendant.
On October 21, 2008, the court approved the EEOC and defendant’s consent decree. The court retained jurisdiction for five years to ensure compliance. The terms of this decree were as follows:
1. The defendant was made to pay $2,430,000.00 to be distributed amongst the class of claimants, women that the EEOC determined to have been denied an opportunity to work as a driver and/or dockworker at Pitt-Ohio establishments. Specifically, the decree aimed at women that were not hired between September 1, 1997 through October 19, 2008.
2. The defendant was prohibited from discriminating against women applicants based on their sex.
3. The defendant was prohibited from retaliation.
4. The defendant was required to implement “priority hiring consideration.” Priority hiring consideration required Pitt-Ohio to make employment offers for driver and dockworker positions to women that EEOC determined were not hired for a position at Pitt-Ohio for which she applied, but who was qualified under Pitt-Ohio’s hiring criteria, and remained interested in employment at Pitt-Ohio as a driver and/or dock worker.
5. The defendant was obligated to provide EEOC approved anti-employment discrimination training for all employees.
6. In addition to training, the defendant had to ensure that managers and supervisors enforce anti-employment discrimination through management accountability. This directed managers and supervisors to take corrective action when necessary to counter individuals engaging in unlawful employment discrimination. Further, managers and supervisors were obligated to report incidents of unlawful discrimination or retaliation to Pitt-Ohio’s human resources group.
7. Pitt-Ohio Express was obligated to post notices of the outcome of this case to its Ohio terminals and headquarters in areas where bulletins and notices are posted to employees and applicants. These notices were to remain posted for the duration of this consent decree.
8. Pitt-Ohio Express was obligated to give regular reports to the EEOC in regard to recruitment and hiring of women in the driver and dock worker positions in Ohio.
9. Both parties bear their own attorney fees and costs.
This case is currently closed. The consent decree’s duration has lapsed, and the court docket shows no further activity.
Summary Authors
Shankar Viswanathan (5/29/2008)
Sean Whetstone (6/14/2018)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5650472/parties/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-pitt-ohio-express-inc/
Lawrence, Debra Michele (Maryland)
Barnard, Thomas (Ohio)
Besser, Barbara Kaye (Ohio)
Elfvin, Bruce B (Ohio)
Malik, David B. (Ohio)
Wells, Lesley Brooks (Ohio)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5650472/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-pitt-ohio-express-inc/
Last updated March 23, 2024, 3:01 a.m.
State / Territory: Ohio
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 31, 2006
Closing Date: Oct. 21, 2013
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers that were discriminated because of their sex. A female employee intervened in the case on behalf of herself and a class of woman who had been refused employment on the basis of sex.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc. (Cleveland, Ohio), Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: $3,000,000
Order Duration: 2009 - 2014
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Affected Sex or Gender:
EEOC-centric: