On May 31, 2006, two women brought suit against their former employer, Les Schwab Tire Centers of Washington, and other related corporations, alleging discrimination on the basis of their sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The plaintiff's’ complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Western Washington (Judge Ricardo Martinez), alleged that the plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated individuals employed by the defendant were denied promotions, training, and other employment opportunities because of their sex. The plaintiffs sought relief in the form of monetary damages.
On July 7, 2006, this matter was consolidated with a lawsuit by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which received a filed discrimination charge by the named plaintiffs, alleging similar claims of a pattern and practice of sex-based employment discrimination.
On July 18, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that provided additional factual detail and further clarified the plaintiffs’ allegations of discrimination on the basis of gender with respect to the defendants’ policies and practices that emphasized subjective gender based and/or arbitrary criteria in employment decisions, excluding women from management positions through the use of relocation requirements, and retaliating against female employees who complained of unequal treatment. The complaint alleged both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories.
On August 1, 2006, the EEOC filed a complaint against the defendants also alleging the defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by failing to train and promote the plaintiff and a class of women similarly situated for management positions and for discriminatory hiring practices based on the plaintiff’s charge filed with the EEOC.
Around that time, the parties engaged in discovery and a protective order was ordered on December 11, 2006.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class on August 8, 2008 because the court found the plaintiffs failed to show that there were common questions of fact.
On November 10, 2008, the court granted the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate the trial and discovery and severed the individual plaintiff’s claims from the EEOC’s claims.
One of the defendants, Les Schwab Warehouse Center, moved for partial summary judgment because it was not included as an employer that could be liable under Title VII. On January 21, 2009, the court granted the motion in part, agreeing that it is not liable under Title VII, but denied it in part, finding that the entity could still be liable under the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
Between May and June 2009, the defendants filed five motions for summary judgment on various claims brought by the plaintiff. On September 3, 2009, the court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the promotion claim, finding that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden in providing direct evidence to support the claim. On September 8, the court denied the remaining two motions for summary judgment, finding that there remained disputed issues of fact for a jury to determine on the plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
Trial was held from November 3 to November 6, 2009 for the named individuals’ claims. On November 9, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them $85,200 ($42,600 each) for past and future emotional distress and punitive damages totaling $200,000 ($100,000 each). The court entered judgment for the plaintiffs on November 13, 2009. On January 8, 2010, the court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial. On June 1, 2010, the court ordered the defendant to pay the individual plaintiffs $583,930 in attorney’s fees and $47,218 in expenses.
Regarding the EEOC’s remaining claims, the court denied defendant’s motions for summary judgement on January 11 and 12, 2010 and set a date for trial in March 2010 following mediation.
On the eve of trial, the EEOC and the defendants filed a notice of a proposed settlement and consent decree. The court approved the consent decree on March 10, 2010. The consent decree required the defendants to provide $2,000,000 to establish a settlement class fund, as well as injunctive relief in the form of a training program and policy changes regarding the defendant’s recruitment efforts and hiring, and annual reporting requirements for a four-year period.
Kevin Wilemon - 08/21/2008
Sean Mulloy - 02/11/2018
compress summary
