On December 23, 2013, the Indianapolis District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs sued Bright Petroleum under Title VII of 42 U.S.C §2000e. The plaintiffs alleged Bright Petroleum ...
read more >
On December 23, 2013, the Indianapolis District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs sued Bright Petroleum under Title VII of 42 U.S.C §2000e. The plaintiffs alleged Bright Petroleum subjected a female employee to unwarranted scrutiny and discipline and discharged her because she filed and maintained a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC asked the court for a permanent injunction enjoining Bright Petroleum from engaging in retaliatory practices or any other employment discrimination practices; an order for Bright Petroleum to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities; an order for Bright Petroleum to compensate a discharged employee; and punitive damages.
Bright Petroleum answered the complaint on March 6, 2014 and the EEOC moved to strike insufficiently pleaded defenses on March 12, 2014.
On December 19, 2014, Judge Sarah Evans Barker entered a consent decree. The consent decree stipulated that any business owned, managed, or operated by the owners of Bright Petroleum were permanently enjoined from discriminating or retaliating against any person because of opposition to any practice made unlawful under Title VII, because such person files a charge of discrimination alleging an unlawful employment action, or because such person participates in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII. Bright Petroleum paid the plaintiff $15,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The consent decree further required Bright Petroleum to write plaintiff a recommendation letter, modify plaintiff’s personnel file to remove reference to this suit, and to not reference plaintiff’s termination, charge of discrimination, or participation in the suit if contacted for references, a provision that survives the expiration of the decree. The court retained jurisdiction of the case for the three years of its term. This case is presumably closed because as of March 2019, no further docket activity has occurred.
Kowa Takata - 09/25/2014
Erica Becker - 03/20/2019
compress summary
