The New York District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a putative class action complaint against Preferred Labor LLC (doing business as Preferred People Staffing) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in August 2006. The complaint alleged sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. According to the EEOC, the defendant employment agency discriminated against female applicants on the basis of their sex; unlawfully classified jobs on the basis of sex; complied with requests for employees on the basis of sex; and retaliated against a female employee who complained about the discrimination. The case was referred to a magistrate judge for mediation. In April, a status conference was scheduled for 7/14/2008.

On July 21, 2008, the plaintiff amended its complaint to include Preferable People LLC as a defendant. Preferable operated a temporary day laborer operation similar to Preferred but had not operated in Worcester, Massachusetts. Preferable purchased most of Preferred’s assets in Worcester and purchased the rights to use the name “Preferred.” Preferable then operated out of Preferred’s former offices but did not engage in any discriminatory practices. EEOC acknowledged that Preferable had not engaged in any discriminatory practices, but argued that Preferable was Preferred’s successor and that liability should attach. In response, Preferable asked the court to dismiss them from the lawsuit.

On February 13, 2009, District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted Preferable’s request to be dismissed from the lawsuit.

On July 6, 2009, the court approved a consent decree in favor of the plaintiff. This decree took into account that the defendant no longer operated the business at issue. So, although the decree had a duration of five years, if the defendant resumed its business within that time-frame, then the duration would be reset from the time the business resumed. The court retained jurisdiction throughout the duration of the decree to resolve any issue related to the decree.

If the defendant resumed its business, then it would have to implement non-discriminatory policies and procedures, this would include prohibiting sex discrimination and retaliation. The defendant would then be required to implement anti-discrimination training for its employees.

If the defendant resumed business, this decree required that the defendant implement a complaint procedure for applicants and employees who believed they have been discriminated or retaliated against. Afterwards, the defendant was then required to implement and maintain procedures to investigate complaints. After an investigation, the defendant had to provide the EEOC with reports on any complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation within the first four months it resumed business and every four months after.

In addition, this decree required the defendant to pay $ 250,000 in monetary damages.

The five years for the consent decree have passed, and there has been no further litigation. The case is now presumably closed.

Kevin Wilemon - 05/28/2008
Sean Whetstone - 05/22/2018


compress summary