The EEOC's Seattle office filed this suit on May 10, 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The EEOC alleged that defendant Macnab Manufacturing, Inc., violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating on the basis of sex and retaliation against two female complainants. The complainants were allowed limited intervention in the case.

The court entered a consent decree on August 3, 2000. The defendant were required to pay $330,000, which was to be appropriately dispersed by the complainant's counsel to the appropriate parties. The defendant was also required to obtain a "sexual harassment consultant" who would help the defendant in drafting antidiscrimination policies and creating an effective complaint procedure for sexual harassment. Defendant was also ordered to implement a training program for its employees to prevent sexual harassment and was ordered to implement policies promoting supervisor accountability for sexual harassment. Finally, the defendants were required to prepare and submit reports to the EEOC for five years so that the EEOC could monitor their progress.

It has been more than five years since the implementation of the consent decree, and there has been no subsequent action on the docket. It is most likely that the case is closed.

The EEOC's Birmingham office filed this suit on March 31, 1998 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northwestern Division. The EEOC alleged that defendant Estes Oil Company, Inc., violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against a class of female employees. Soon after filing, one complainant intervened in the suit. The second complainant later intervened, but the defendant alleged that a settlement had already been reached with that complainant. The court granted the motion to intervene but also granted the defendant's motion to enforce the previously reached settlement agreement. The second complainant settled for $12,000 according to the findings and recommendation resulting from the hearing to enforce the settlement agreement. No other available documents revealed the extent of the defendant's settlement. By February of 2000, all claims were resolved.

Megan Brown - 01/12/2018


compress summary