University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. THE PARKER GROUP, INC EE-AL-0078
Docket / Court 2:98-cv-01045-IPJ ( N.D. Ala. )
State/Territory Alabama
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
On April 29, 1998, the Washington DC and Birmingham offices of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under Title VII against The Parker Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The EEOC alleged that the defendants had violated the rights of ... read more >
On April 29, 1998, the Washington DC and Birmingham offices of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under Title VII against The Parker Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The EEOC alleged that the defendants had violated the rights of the complainant by discriminating on the basis of race when handing out assignments to their employees.

On August 28, 1998, the complainant intervened as a private party in the lawsuit, and on July 22, 1999, the EEOC settled with the defendants during mediation. On August 10, 1999, the court approved a consent decree, and on September 1, 1999, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, resolving all private party claims. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants agreed to pay $10,000 in damages to the complainant in this lawsuit, as well as another $32,000 in compensatory damages to a class of plaintiffs that the EEOC would later specify. All other claims made by the complainant in this lawsuit against the defendant were to be settled separately. In addition, the defendant agreed to pay the costs of the mediation process, except for the $2000 in mediation costs paid by the EEOC. The defendants were also enjoined from discriminating or retaliating against employees who reported discrimination in the workplace, and within 90 days of the consent decree, and at least annually in the 3 years following the decree, the defendants were to hold training sessions for management, supervisors, and hourly employees regarding methods of preventing discrimination in the workplace. All attendees at the anti-discrimination training sessions were to sign a roster to document their attendance. Within 120 days of the consent decree, the defendants were required to provide the EEOC with evidence that they had complied with the anti-discrimination training portion of the consent decree.

The consent decree further specified that any further claims that the complainant had against the defendants were to be settled separately, but we have no further information on further pursuit of claims by the complainant.

Kristen Sagar - 02/18/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Neutral/Positive Reference
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
Race discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Parker Group, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
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 1999 - 2002
Case Closing Year 1999
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)
2:98-cv-01045-IPJ (N.D. Ala.) 09/01/1999
EE-AL-0078-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
[Order Approving] Motion to Intervene 09/14/1998 (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0078-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Dismissing Case] 07/26/1999 (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0078-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree 08/10/1999
EE-AL-0078-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 09/01/1999 (N.D. Ala.)
EE-AL-0078-0004.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 -