On September 30, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Republic Services, Inc. and Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint alleged that the defendants discharged and/or did not allow employees over the age of 40 to transfer locations because of their age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief. The case was assigned to Judge David A. Ezra.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on May 24, 2006, which was denied. The court consolidated this case with a private party suit, 2:04-cv-01479 (D.C. Nev. October 27, 2004) in October 2006. In that case, two individual plaintiffs brought ADEA claims against the defendants and sought monetary relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
On September 10, 2007, the defendants again moved for summary judgment. Then, on May 13, 2008, the defendants moved for sanctions against the EEOC, reasoning that the EEOC was advocating meritless claims because they had no evidence backing its advocacy. The court denied the sanction and request for summary judgment on June 3, 2008.
About a month later, the defendant moved yet again for summary judgment. This request was granted in part and denied in part on February 17, 2009. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant as to certain individual disparate treatment claims and the EEOC’s pattern and practice claims. On May 21, 2009, the court ordered the EEOC to pay $4,026 for the defendants’ attorney fees and costs.
After four settlement conferences, the parties reached a settlement agreement. Eventually the parties drafted a consent decree, which the court approved on September 21, 2010. The court retained jurisdiction for three years to ensure that the parties complied with the terms of the consent decree. This decree pertained to monetary and injunctive relief. For the monetary relief, the defendants agreed to pay $2,975,000 to the plaintiffs.
For the injunctive relief, the parties agreed to a series of terms. The parties agreed that the defendant would not engage in age discrimination or retaliation. The parties agreed that the defendants would be monitored by an Equal Employment Opportunity compliance officer. This officer would monitor that the defendant was complying with the ADEA and with terms in this decree. More specifically, the officer was required to monitor the defendants’ audits for age discrimination, review individual employment decisions made by the defendant, reform procedures and practices to track information on hiring, involuntary termination, transfers, and promotion, and ensure that complaints of age discrimination were thoroughly investigated. Moreover, the defendants agreed to post notices of the terms of this consent decree to be visible to their employees at the workplace. Defendants agreed to provide anti-age discrimination training to their supervisors, managers, and human resources managers. The defendant had to develop procedures that would allow for tracking of hiring, promotion, transfer, involuntary termination decisions, and complaints of age discrimination made to management. In addition, the defendant was required to report regularly to the Equal Employment Opportunity compliance officer.
The court’s jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the consent decree ended in 2013, and the case’s docket shows no further activity. This case is presumably closed.
Justin Kanter - 08/06/2008
Sean Whetstone - 07/05/2018
compress summary
