On August 24, 2006, the Wilmington office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act against I.G. Burton of Seaford in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The EEOC alleged that the defendants had violated ADEA- ...
read more >
On August 24, 2006, the Wilmington office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act against I.G. Burton of Seaford in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The EEOC alleged that the defendants had violated ADEA-protected rights of the complainant, who worked for the defendant as a "runner," driving and delivering vehicles, by firing him on the basis of his age.
On December 17, 2007, the parties entered into a consent decree, which the court adopted two days later and closed the case. Under the decree, the defendants agreed to pay $70,000 in damages to three former employees that they terminated on the basis of age. The decree enjoined the defendants from discriminating unlawfully on the basis of age, and it required them to post notice of their employees' rights in a conspicuous location at their place of business. Under the decree, the EEOC had the right to send a representative (unannounced) to the defendants' place of business to determine whether they were in compliance with the terms of the consent decree that required them to post such notice. The defendants agreed to provide EEO training to all management personnel within 180 days of the entry of the consent decree, and annually thereafter during the life of the decree. The defendants were required to send a report to the EEOC within 10 days of their completion of the training requirements of the decree. The defendants agreed to provide the EEOC with a copy of all training materials that they used to train their management personnel. They also agreed to give the EEOC the right to prior approval of the person that they hired to administer the training. The terms of the agreement were to run for 3 years. The docket sheet does not show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2010.
Kristen Sagar - 06/10/2007
compress summary