University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. PJAX INC EE-MD-0093
Docket / Court 1:03-cv-01535-JFM ( D. Md. )
State/Territory Maryland
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
EEOC's Baltimore, MD office alleged violations of Title VII, ADEA, and ADA in the hiring and recruiting process of the defendant, PJAX, Inc. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore) on 05/27/2003. The defendant, headquartered in Gibsonia, ... read more >
EEOC's Baltimore, MD office alleged violations of Title VII, ADEA, and ADA in the hiring and recruiting process of the defendant, PJAX, Inc. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore) on 05/27/2003. The defendant, headquartered in Gibsonia, PA, operated facilities and terminals nationwide.

EEOC made allegations on behalf of two individual complainants and two class complainants. EEOC alleged that a class of qualified females that applied for the positions of driver and dockworker were rejected because of their sex. It was also alleged that the defendant required all applicants that applied for the driver and dockworker positions to complete a medical questionnaire as to their disabilities and rejected those that indicated disabilities. Additionally, EEOC claimed that a 55-year-old female was refused employment at defendant's Cleveland, OH terminal because of her sex and age. EEOC also alleged that a former regional operations manager at defendant's Baltimore terminal was subject to retaliatory termination because of his oppositions to the discriminatory hiring practices based on age, sex and disability. None of the complainants intervened or filed a separate lawsuit.

The defendant proposed settlement before answering the complaint. The district court entered a consent decree on 11/24/2003.

Under the two-year consent decree, the defendant agreed to pay $200,500 to the terminated manager, $25,000 to the female who was refused employment, and a total of $1.775 million to all eligible claimants. The eligible claimants include two classes: all qualified females that applied for driver and/or dockworker positions from 01/01/1997 to the entry of the consent decree but were rejected because of their sex; all qualified applicants that applied for driver and dockworker positions in the same period but were rejected because of their elicited disabilities. The consent decree also required the defendant to give all eligible claimants priority hiring consideration.

Additionally, the defendant was required to provide training and post notice of its EEO policies at all its facilities and terminals nationwide. The defendant was also required to create an internal HR Specialist position to ensure compliance with federal laws at all facilities and terminals nationwide.

Justin Kanter - 07/06/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Male
Content of Injunction
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Discrimination Prohibition
Monitoring
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Defendant-type
Transportation
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Hiring
Hiring
Medical Exam / Inquiry
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
Age discrimination
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Sex discrimination
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Retaliation
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Defendant(s) PJAX
PJAX, Inc.
Plaintiff Description EEOC, on behalf of a women who had applied for driver and/or dockworker positions but were rejected because of their sex; and of applicants for driver and dockworker positions in the same period who were rejected because of their disability.
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 2003 - 2005
Case Closing Year 2003
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing EE-PA-0133 : EEOC v. PJAX, INC (W.D. Pa.)
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)
1:03-cv-01535-JFM (D. Md.) 11/24/2003
EE-MD-0093-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 05/27/2003
EE-MD-0093-0001.pdf | Detail
Consent Decree 11/24/2003
EE-MD-0093-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
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 -