On June 22, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Schott North America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleged sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant, a glass manufacturer, allegedly classified quality assurance workers in its Duryea facility according to gender. When it created a new quality assurance classification combining men and women, it allegedly gave preference to men in a variety of ways, including hiring more men than women, giving men an unfair advantage in its application system, and dismissing women instead of men. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief as well as punitive damages against the defendant. The female complainants intervened in the EEOC's suit and alleged that the employers' policies resulted in disparate impact and disparate treatment of female employees. Judge James Munley was assigned to this case.
On November 5, 2007, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The defendant claimed that the plaintiffs offered no evidence of sex discrimination that would offer relief. The court, however, disagreed and denied this request on September 29, 2008. The parties underwent pre-trial proceedings on February 6, 2009, and jury trial was set for June 2, 2009. Before a trial could be held, on May 6, 2009, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement agreement.
About a month later, the court approved the parties’ consent decree. The court retained jurisdiction for three years to ensure compliance. This consent decree required that:
1. The defendant pay $1,450,000.00 to eleven individuals the plaintiffs identified as claimants.
2. The defendant would be prohibited from engaging in employment discrimination and retaliation.
3. The defendant was obligated to post notices on all bulletin boards to be visible to its employees.
4. The defendant was obligated to revise anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and complaint procedures
5. The defendant had to promote supervisor accountability in anti-employment discrimination efforts. This required the managers and supervisors to receive training, to report any incidents of employment discrimination, and to ensure compliance with the defendant’s policy.
6. The defendant had to provide anti-employment discrimination training to all its employees.
7. The defendant had to retain records of any and all employment discrimination complaints.
8. The defendant had to report regularly to EEOC to ensure compliance anti-employment discrimination efforts.
The court docket shows no further activity, and the consent decree duration has lapsed. Therefore, this case is closed.
Kevin Wilemon - 05/29/2008
Sean Whetstone - 06/18/2018
compress summary
