Case: Dube v. Eagle USA Airfreight, Inc.

On May 12, 2000, several employees of Eagle Global Logistics filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs sued Eagle under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e), the Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C. § 206(d)), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq). The plaintiffs, represented by a combination of public interest and private attorneys, sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Eagle to change its discriminatory workplace practices.

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that Eagle failed and refused to promote African Americans, Hispanics, and women into managerial positions. They further alleged that Eagle refused to hire the same groups of people into warehouse, delivery, and truck driver positions. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that Eagle maintained a hostile working environment with respect to the terms of their employment, including inadequately addressing incidents of workplace harassment. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that Eagle paid members of the aforementioned groups less than their Caucasian and/or male counterparts for the same work.

On February 1, 2001, Judge Marvin Katz granted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) motion to intervene on behalf of the plaintiffs. On the same day, the court also granted the EEOC’s motion to transfer the case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Southern District of Texas.

On October 1, 2001, the EEOC announced a $9,000,000 settlement agreement with Eagle as part of a consent decree. The money was a combination of $8,500,000 in damages and settlement awards for the employees who were part of the original class and $500,000 to fund a leadership and professional training program for women and minorities at Eagle. The consent decree also stayed two related cases in the same court: No. H-00-1535 and H-98-0316 (sealed).

However, the original plaintiffs felt that the consent decree did not represent justice for them individually. They moved to certify a class containing every person who ever worked for or applied to Eagle since 1994 who was not a white or Asian male. Judge Lynn N. Hughes denied the motion because the consent decree obtained by the EEOC allowed people to present individual claims. 204 F.R.D. 312.

Not to be so easily deterred, the plaintiffs requested a fairness hearing, which Judge Hughes promptly declined on November 7, 2001. He reasoned that such complaints as “the Commission sold us out, why did the government side with these hooligans, the Chairwoman wouldn't listen to our cries, nothing like this has ever been done before, [and] our voices have been silenced,” failed to mention any actual injury done to the plaintiffs or other similarly affected people that the consent decree failed to respond to and provide relief for. Judges Hughes went on to reprimand the plaintiffs' counsel for “crassly grasp[ing] after class fees, wasting the resources of the Commission, Eagle, and the court.”

On appeal by the original plaintiffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 3, 2002, went onto order sanctions under Rule 38 against one of the law firms representing the plaintiffs. The sanctions required payment of the attorneys' fees and costs actually incurred by the defendant following the consent decree, which totaled $71,117.75. By June 5, 2003, all of the individual plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Over the course of the three years following the consent decree, however, it became clear that $9,000,000 far exceeded the funds necessary based on the actual number of claims. Eagle moved to strike additional hiring class and adverse treatment class claims after the EEOC tried repeatedly to expand the classes beyond what Eagle considered to be the original qualifications in “what appears to be the EEOC's desire to simply hand over $8.5 million for distribution as it pleases.” The court stepped in on December 21, 2004 and ordered the parties to meet.

On February 7, 2005 the parties filed a joint motion to modify the consent degree’s class fund account. Judge Hughes allowed the modification of the consent decree on February 14, 2005. It allowed for $1,125,000 to be retained in a class fund in an interest-bearing account for the payment of known and future claims. Eagle also indemnified the fund in the event that the total amount awarded exceeded $1,125,000. Additionally, $1,400,000 was transferred for the Leadership Development Fund started and maintained as per the consent decree. Eagle was then allowed to recapture the remaining $5,975,000 plus interest.

Finally, a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice was filed on May 18, 2007 as both parties agreed that the consent decree had been completed and its terms satisfied. All three cases (the two stayed by the consent decree and this present case) were dismissed with prejudice May 29, 2007.

The case is now closed.