After an unsuccessful attempt to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process, on January 25, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Bay State Milling Company, a major ...
read more >
After an unsuccessful attempt to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process, on January 25, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Bay State Milling Company, a major flour and grain producer. The EEOC alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Bay State Milling discriminated against a qualified applicant when the hiring manager rejected him for the position because of his age. The hiring manager informed the applicant of the company's desire to hire a younger individual for the job. The company ultimately hired a 22-year-old with less experience than the applicant. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief as well reinstatement of the affected individual. District Judge Donald L. Graham was assigned to this case.
The parties agreed upon a settlement agreement on November 12, 2013. The two-year consent decree settling the lawsuit, approved by the court on December 10, 2013, includes injunctive relief to ban the defendant from considering age as a factor when making hiring decisions, mandatory training for the hiring manager, interviewing officials and the company's human resources department, with an emphasis on age-related discriminatory practices and age sensitivity. The decree also provides for a number of reporting requirements, which subject the company to additional monitoring by the EEOC for a period of two years. The monetary award was $80,185.66, which includes back pay and liquidated damages.
On May 5, 2014, the plaintiff, the affected individual, moved to vacate the settlement, proceeding pro se because of a dispute in the settlement amount. Bay State opposed the plaintiff’s motion.
On July 25, 2014, the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman who issued a Report and Recommendation.
On August 17, 2014, District Judge Graham adopted the Magistrate’s reports. He denied the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the settlement agreement and granted in part and denied in part Bay State’s motion to enforce settlement by: (i) ordering the plaintiff to execute a W-9 form; (ii) requiring Bay State to, as soon as practicable, pay the plaintiff after he provides Bay State with his W-9 form; and (iii) denying Bay State's request for attorney's fees.
This case is closed. Susie Choi - 03/08/2017