University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Protis Executive Innovations, Inc. EE-IN-0088
Docket / Court 1:04-cv-01585-DFH-TAB ( S.D. Ind. )
State/Territory Indiana
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In September 2004, the Indianapolis District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit against Protis Executive Innovations, a professional recruitment and placement agency, alleging discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The complaint specifically alleged that the defendant ... read more >
In September 2004, the Indianapolis District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit against Protis Executive Innovations, a professional recruitment and placement agency, alleging discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The complaint specifically alleged that the defendant coded applications by age and denied referrals to applicants age 40 and older because of their ages. Following a settlement conference, the parties settled the lawsuit in March 2005 through a consent decree.

The three-year consent decree, containing anti-discrimination and retaliation clauses, required the defendant to: to update its recruitment database so that it can regularly search the database for age-related references to applicants; stop using age-related terms, birth dates, or age codes in its database, except

where the applicant has voluntarily provided such information or where age is a bona fide occupational qualification for the position; keep records of any age discriminatory requests from

clients and report the requests to EEOC within 5 days; inform clients in writing within 5 days that both the client and defendant are prohibited under federal law from discriminating against job candidates on any protected basis, that defendant will not discriminate against job candidates on any protected basis, and that defendant will cease making referrals to the client unless it receives a written commitment of nondiscrimination from the client; make compliance reports to the EEOC; keep records; allow the EEOC access for monitoring; post notice of employee rights; provide training; and pay $150,000 to affected individuals identified by the Commission.

Daisy Manning - 03/18/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. ยงยง 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) Protis Executive Innovations, Inc.
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 2005 - 2008
Case Closing Year 2005
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)
1:04-cv-01585-DFH-TAB (S.D. Ind.) 03/18/2005
EE-IN-0088-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 09/28/2004
EE-IN-0088-0001.pdf | Detail
Consent Decree 03/18/2005
EE-IN-0088-0002.pdf | Detail
EEOC Litigation Settlement Report (March 2005) 03/18/2005
EE-IN-0088-0004.pdf | Detail
EEOC's Office of General Counsel FY 2005 Annual Report [Excerpt] 04/13/2006
EE-IN-0088-0003.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 -