EEOC's Baltimore, MD office alleged violations of Title VII, ADEA, and ADA in the hiring and recruiting process of the defendant, PJAX, Inc. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore) on 05/27/2003. The defendant, headquartered in Gibsonia, ...
read more >
EEOC's Baltimore, MD office alleged violations of Title VII, ADEA, and ADA in the hiring and recruiting process of the defendant, PJAX, Inc. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore) on 05/27/2003. The defendant, headquartered in Gibsonia, PA, operated facilities and terminals nationwide.
EEOC made allegations on behalf of two individual complainants and two class complainants. EEOC alleged that a class of qualified females that applied for the positions of driver and dockworker were rejected because of their sex. It was also alleged that the defendant required all applicants that applied for the driver and dockworker positions to complete a medical questionnaire as to their disabilities and rejected those that indicated disabilities. Additionally, EEOC claimed that a 55-year-old female was refused employment at defendant's Cleveland, OH terminal because of her sex and age. EEOC also alleged that a former regional operations manager at defendant's Baltimore terminal was subject to retaliatory termination because of his oppositions to the discriminatory hiring practices based on age, sex and disability. None of the complainants intervened or filed a separate lawsuit.
The defendant proposed settlement before answering the complaint. The district court entered a consent decree on 11/24/2003.
Under the two-year consent decree, the defendant agreed to pay $200,500 to the terminated manager, $25,000 to the female who was refused employment, and a total of $1.775 million to all eligible claimants. The eligible claimants include two classes: all qualified females that applied for driver and/or dockworker positions from 01/01/1997 to the entry of the consent decree but were rejected because of their sex; all qualified applicants that applied for driver and dockworker positions in the same period but were rejected because of their elicited disabilities. The consent decree also required the defendant to give all eligible claimants priority hiring consideration.
Additionally, the defendant was required to provide training and post notice of its EEO policies at all its facilities and terminals nationwide. The defendant was also required to create an internal HR Specialist position to ensure compliance with federal laws at all facilities and terminals nationwide.Justin Kanter - 07/06/2007