University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Pitt Ohio Express EE-OH-0056
Docket / Court 1:06-cv-00747-LW ( N.D. Ohio )
State/Territory Ohio
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization ACLU National Prison Project
EEOC
Case Summary
The Philadelphia district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc., a transport company, in March 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint was brought on behalf of a woman who had applied ... read more >
The Philadelphia district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc., a transport company, in March 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint was brought on behalf of a woman who had applied to work for Pitt-Ohio Express but had allegedly been denied employment as a truck driver or dockworker in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The complaint sought injunctive and monetary relief for the individual complainant and a class of similarly situated women. In August 2006, the court granted the complainant’s request to intervene on behalf of herself and the class of women who had been refused employment due to their sex.

The parties began settlement discussion on November 20, 2007. Almost a year later, on October 1, 2008, the court approved of the plaintiff-intervenor and Pitt-Ohio’s settlement agreement. The settlement called for the defendant to pay $570,000.00 total to the plaintiff: the plaintiff-intervenor was awarded $265,000.00 in monetary relief and $305,000.00 in attorney fees and costs. In addition, the plaintiff-intervenor agreed to dismiss her claims against the defendant.

On October 21, 2008, the court approved the EEOC and defendant’s consent decree. The court retained jurisdiction for five years to ensure compliance. The terms of this decree were as follows:

1. The defendant was made to pay $2,430,000.00 to be distributed amongst the class of claimants, women that the EEOC determined to have been denied an opportunity to work as a driver and/or dockworker at Pitt-Ohio establishments. Specifically, the decree aimed at women that were not hired between September 1, 1997 through October 19, 2008.
2. The defendant was prohibited from discriminating against women applicants based on their sex.
3. The defendant was prohibited from retaliation.
4. The defendant was required to implement “priority hiring consideration.” Priority hiring consideration required Pitt-Ohio to make employment offers for driver and dockworker positions to women that EEOC determined were not hired for a position at Pitt-Ohio for which she applied, but who was qualified under Pitt-Ohio’s hiring criteria, and remained interested in employment at Pitt-Ohio as a driver and/or dock worker.
5. The defendant was obligated to provide EEOC approved anti-employment discrimination training for all employees.
6. In addition to training, the defendant had to ensure that managers and supervisors enforce anti-employment discrimination through management accountability. This directed managers and supervisors to take corrective action when necessary to counter individuals engaging in unlawful employment discrimination. Further, managers and supervisors were obligated to report incidents of unlawful discrimination or retaliation to Pitt-Ohio’s human resources group.
7. Pitt-Ohio Express was obligated to post notices of the outcome of this case to its Ohio terminals and headquarters in areas where bulletins and notices are posted to employees and applicants. These notices were to remain posted for the duration of this consent decree.
8. Pitt-Ohio Express was obligated to give regular reports to the EEOC in regard to recruitment and hiring of women in the driver and dock worker positions in Ohio.
9. Both parties bear their own attorney fees and costs.

This case is currently closed. The consent decree’s duration has lapsed, and the court docket shows no further activity.

Shankar Viswanathan - 05/29/2008
Sean Whetstone - 06/14/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Hire
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Required disclosure
Retaliation Prohibition
Training
Defendant-type
Transportation
Discrimination-area
Hiring
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
No EEOC Final Resolution Type
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers that were discriminated because of their sex. A female employee intervened in the case on behalf of herself and a class of woman who had been refused employment on the basis of sex.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU National Prison Project
EEOC
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Declaratory Judgment
Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2009 - 2014
Filing Year 2006
Case Closing Year 2014
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
1:06-cv-00747-LW (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/06/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [ECF# 1-1] (2006 WL 1468506)
EE-OH-0056-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/31/2006
Complaint on Behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenor and the Class [ECF# 16] (2006 WL 5244349)
EE-OH-0056-0002.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/08/2006
Joint Motion of Pamela Moher and Pitt Ohio Express, LLC for QSF Designation as Part of Settlement and Settlement Agreement [ECF# 40]
EE-OH-0056-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/01/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 41] (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/03/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree [ECF# 48] (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/21/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Wells, Lesley Brooks (N.D. Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-0004 | EE-OH-0056-0005 | EE-OH-0056-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Besser, Barbara Kaye (Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-0003 | EE-OH-0056-9000
Elfvin, Bruce B (Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-0003 | EE-OH-0056-9000
Lawrence, Debra Michele (Maryland)
EE-OH-0056-9000
Malik, David B. (Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-0003 | EE-OH-0056-9000
Mays, Lawrence (Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-9000
Niermann, Dennis J. (Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-0003 | EE-OH-0056-9000
Phillips, Ronald L. (Maryland)
EE-OH-0056-9000
Stern, Jefferey A (Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-9000
Watson, C. Larry (Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Barnard, Thomas (Ohio)
EE-OH-0056-0003 | EE-OH-0056-9000
Murphy, Terrence H. (Pennsylvania)
EE-OH-0056-0003 | EE-OH-0056-9000
Tucker, Bobbi Britton (Pennsylvania)
EE-OH-0056-9000
Tuite, Jaime S. (Pennsylvania)
EE-OH-0056-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -