Boston Employment Lawyer Blog

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently settled a discrimination suit against New York-based fish wholesaler M. Slavin & Sons, Inc. for $900,000. The EEOC filed suit in December 2009 based on complaints by more than thirty employees of physical and verbal sexual harassment. According to the EEOC's 2009 Press Release, some of M. Slavin’s owners and managers subjected certain non-Caucasian male employees, mostly African-American, to ongoing harassment including groping, offensive sexual comments, and racial slurs.

Some employees left the company because of the harassment, and the individual who first reported the harassment further alleges that he faced retaliation from M. Slavin managers. He claims that managers instructed other employees not to associate with him and threatened his life.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, claimed that M. Slavin violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex, and other protected categories. Discrimination based on sex includes sexual harassment, and it encompasses actions against any gender. The law also protects people who seek to defend their rights from retaliation by their employer, and it allows employees to make claims against employers who create a hostile work environment based on race, sex, and other protected categories.

On December 15, 2011, the EEOC announced that M. Slavin had agreed to pay $900,000 to settle the lawsuit, in addition to providing other relief. As part of the settlement, the company is required to revise its policies on sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, and submit to monitoring by the EEOC for a period of five years. The Company is also required to retain an independent consultant to handle discrimination complaints and must provide one-on-one training for the owners and managers who committed the worst acts of harassment. Finally, the Company is required to provide annual anti-discrimination training for all of its owners and managers, publicize the resolution of the lawsuit to all employees at the work site, and notify the EEOC of any and all new discrimination complaints.

Continue reading "New York Fish Market Settles Race Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

Age discrimination in the workplace manifests itself not only in the form who gets fired, but also who gets hired. A study performed by AARP reviewing employment data for August 2011 found that job seekers age 55 or older spent an average of 52.4 weeks unemployed. In sharp contrast, the average length of time for younger job seekers was 37.4 weeks. The unemployment rate for applicants in the same age demographic jumped from about 3% in December 2007 to about 7% in August 2011, with rates roughly equal for men and women. By August 2011, nearly half of older job seekers met the criteria to be designated “long-term unemployed,” meaning they had been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Not surprisingly, there appears to be a correlation between a faltering economy and age discrimination claims. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the most recent recession began around December 2007 and ended in about June 2009. Based on the EEOC's Enforcement & Litigation Statistics, the number of age discrimination cases filed dramatically rose from 2007 to 2008 by 5,479 or about 29%. There was a relatively small decrease from 2008 to 2009 and a relatively small increase from 2009 to 2010. Overall, from 2007 through 2010, the EEOC saw about a 21% rise in age discrimination claims.

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees age 40 years old or older from age discrimination. The law prohibits employers with 20 or more employees from discriminating in hiring or firing, as well as pay, job duties, and other aspects of employment, because of age. The Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices provides similar protection for employees age 40 years old or older, but applies to employers with 6 or more employees.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Presents a Problem for Older Job Seekers" »

Age discrimination continues to be a hot button issue. Fox News commentator John Stossel stirred controversy in a report on age discrimination in the workplace in which he suggests that the law should not protect older workers from termination based solely on their age. In doing so, Stossel states "we slow down as we age" and "maybe 25 year olds can do it better."

Of course, federal law protects employees from discrimination based on age. Specifically, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination against employees who are at least 40 years old. Such protection applies to both employees and job seekers in relation to any and all terms and conditions of employment, benefits, promotions, hiring, firing, layoffs, and job assignments.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws, recently voted 3-2 to propose regulations defining “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) in the ADEA. The proposals could significantly increase protections for older employees, both in the context of layoffs and firings. Congress and the Supreme Court have held that personnel decisions that affect older workers in greater proportion than younger workers need only be “reasonable” to comply with the ADEA. This is different from the higher standard of “business necessity” used for disparate impact claims based on sex or race under Title VII. As the Supreme Court in Smith v. City of Jackson recognized:

Unlike the business necessity test, which asks whether there are other ways for the employer to achieve its goals that do not result in a disparate impact on a protected class, the reasonableness inquiry includes no such requirement.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Criticism Arises as EEOC Works to Revise Standards for Employers" »

Discrimination by employers because of an employee’s disability or health condition is a serious problem for American workers. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that investigates discrimination claims, has filed suit against a Nashua, New Hampshire company, alleging that it fired an employee because she has a heart condition in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Concord, New Hampshire, alleges that Windmill International, Inc., a defense contractor, terminated employee Nancy Hajjar, shortly after she gave notice that she would need time off for a surgical procedure related to a heart condition and that she may require heart surgery as well. The EEOC claims that the company terminated her because of “an actual or perceived impairment of her circulatory or cardiovascular functions.” Windmill claims that it fired Ms. Hajjar because of job performance problems, but the EEOC alleges that the company did not follow the same progressive discipline procedures afforded to other employees, concluding that the company's explanation is false. The EEOC's Press Release can be viewed here, EEOC Sues Windmill International for Disability Discrimination.

The ADA, which became effective in 1992 and was amended in 2009, protects employees suffering from disabilities from certain types of discrimination in the workplace. Employers with 15 or more employees must provide equal opportunity to disabled employees for all employment opportunities available to other employees. The law prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, promotions, pay, and terms and conditions of employment. The same holds true under the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act (M.G.L. c. 151B), which also prohibits handicap discrimination in the workplace and which applies to employers with 6 or more employees.

The EEOC is an independent law enforcement agency in the executive branch of the federal government. The agency was created in 1965, after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It investigates claims of discrimination based on certain protected categories including race, gender, religion, age, and disability. It has authority to bring suit against employers that it suspects violated anti-discrimination statutes. People who believe they are the victims of unlawful discrimination must file a complaint with the EEOC, which will investigate the claim. A prospective plaintiff, before filing a lawsuit, must receive a “right-to-sue” letter from the EEOC when it concludes its review of the case. To learn more about disability discrimination and your rights, the following resources may be helpful:

• Handicap Discrimination Overview, Conforto Law Group, P.C.
• A Guide to Disability Rights Laws, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
• Disability Resources, Americans with Disabilities Act

Continue reading "Americans with Disabilities Act Violations Alleged in EEOC Lawsuit Against New Hampshire Company" »

Age discrimination claims continue to be on the rise. Texas Roadhouse, a Kentucky-based chain of more than 350 restaurants in 46 U.S. states, faces a lawsuit from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over claims of alleged widespread age discrimination in hiring for host, bartender, and server positions. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, requests anti-discrimination training for managers and employees aimed at preventing further alleged age discrimination. The lawsuit also requests monetary damages for people denied employment based on discriminatory reasons.

The EEOC alleges that the restaurant chain discriminates against older job applicants. According to a press release issued by the EEOC, the number of complaints received by the agency has increased significantly since at least 2007, prompting the agency to commence an investigation at the end of 2010. That investigation led to the current lawsuit. According the lawsuit:

Defendants’ hiring officials have told older unsuccessful applicants that “there are younger people here who can grow with the company”; “you seem older to be applying for this job” and “do you think you would fit in?”; the restaurant was “a younger set environment”; “we are looking for people on the younger side... but you have a lot of experience”; “How do you feel about working with younger people?”; “we think you are a little too old to work here… we like younger people”; “we’re hiring for greeters but we need the young, hot ones who are ‘chipper’ and stuff”; “our age group is in their young 20s, college students”; “I’m basically looking for young teenagers”; and “we really go with a younger crowd and have a younger establishment.”

The lawsuit is premised on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a federal statute that protects employees 40 years old or older from discrimination based on age. The ADEA prohibits favoring a younger person over a person who is at least 40 years old solely based on age in all aspects of employment. This includes hiring, firing, promotions, layoff, job duties and assignments, benefits, and other features or requirements of employment.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Lawsuit Brought by EEOC Against Texas Roadhouse Restaurant Chain" »

Race discrimination claims continue to grab headlines. In its article entitled Industrial Services Firm Faces Bias Suit, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that "[n]early 250 workers sued Turner Industries Group of Baton Rouge on Sunday, alleging racial discrimination in hiring, pay, promotions and on-the-job treatment."

The allegations in the complaint, which numbers more than 300 pages, are especially egregious:

Robinson and his similarly situated Black co-workers have been and continue to be subjected to racially offensive graffiti displayed at Turner job sites. For example, he has seen "Nigger hang from a tree," and "fuck you niggers, go back to Africa." He has also seen a noose and several confederate flags hung in the bays at Turner.
...

Jeffery and his similarly situated Black co-workers have been subjected to racial graffiti and depictions throughout Turner facilities and job sites. The bathrooms were constantly covered in offensive comments such as, “Niggers don’t belong here,” and he has seen drawings of White people wearing KKK hats.
...

Jones and his similarly situated Black co-workers have been subjected to a racially hostile atmosphere at Turner’s facilities. For example, White workers would leave notes on his truck calling him “nigger” and saying, “I know you sell drugs you nigger fucker.” Jones reported these notes to management, but Turner did not do anything to stop the notes.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated similar complaints of racial harassment at Turner Industries. In early 2010, the EEOC found that numerous instances of racial harassment occurred at the company's Paris, Texas plant which, consistent with the allegations from the most recent lawsuit, included the use of racial epithets and symbols of discrimination. The Dallas Morning News reported the EEOC's findings in its article entitled,
EEOC: Black workers harassed at pipe factory in East Texas.

If you're the victim of race discrimination and harassment, its important to act quickly to preserve your rights and hopefully put an end to the hostile work environment. Please contact us to learn more about this process and about our Firm's special focus in this area.

The Supreme Court in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Labs issued a pro-employee decision that will make proving age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) more practical. We blogged about this case in January 2008 when the Supreme Court first granted certiorari: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Retaliation and Age Discrimination Cases.

In Meacham, Knolls Atomic Power Labs terminated 31 employees, all but one of whom were 40 years old or older. The employees brought suit under the ADEA and prevailed before a jury. The Second Circuit overturned the verdicts, reasoning that the burden of proof rested with the workers. In its decision, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit's ruling, finding that Congress intended the burden of persuasion to fall with the employer.

To read more about the decision, please visit the New York Times article entitled, Supreme Court Eases Age Bias Suits for Workers.

Handicapped employees must often overcome significant hurdles in the workplace -- both those related to their medical conditions and, unfortunately, misconceptions that commonly result. Where feasible, employers must provide reasonable accommodations to handicapped employees. Failing to do so, as Wal-Mart recently learned, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In Massachusetts, such infractions also trigger liability under the Fair Employment Practices statute.

In June 2008, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reached a settlement with Wal-Mart on behalf of a long-time pharmacy technician who suffered a disability, which the company failed to accommodate. Glenda D. Allen was a Wal-Mart employee since July 1993. In 1994, she was wounded during the course of a robbery at another employer causing permanent damage to her spinal cord. As a result, Ms. Allen walked with an abnormal gait, which required her to use a cane.

Despite her medical condition, Ms. Allen was able to perform the full scope of her duties and responsibilities as a pharmacy technician. Nevertheless, Wal-Mart wrongfully terminated Ms. Allen after erroneously declaring that she was incapable of functioning in her position. The EEOC settled the suit on behalf of Ms. Allen for $250,000. In discussing the victory, Ms. Allen had this to say:

After beating all the odds -- surviving my injury when not expected to survive, walking again when told that I would never walk again, and returning to work where I received excellent performance evaluations and consistent merit increases -- I was devastated to have the rug pulled out from underneath me simply because Wal-Mart could no longer accommodate my handicap needs. I am hopeful that this settlement will make Wal-Mart take a closer look at its policies and practices with respect to the employment of individuals with disabilities so that what happened to me will not happen to someone else.

To read more about the settlement, please visit the EEOC's Press Release entitled, Wal-Mart to Pay $250,000 for Disability Bias.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently finished prosecuting a case involving severe sexual harassment as well as gender and race discrimination against New York's landmark restaurant, Tavern on the Green. According to the EEOC, Tavern on the Green subjected female, black, and Hispanic employees to continual lewd and degrading conduct. Female employees were forced to endure demands for sexual acts as well as various forms of groping and inappropriate touching. Black and Hispanic employees experienced racial epithets and ridicule for their accents. The EEOC's evidence also suggested that Tavern on the Green retaliated against employees who attempted to assert their rights.

The EEOC, which brought the suit on behalf of 50 employees, was successful in securing a settlement of $2.2 million. As part of the settlement, Tavern on the Green is also required to establish a telephone hotline for employees to report discrimination complaints. In its Press Release, EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis made clear the duty that employers owe to their workers:

This case should remind employers to take seriously allegations of harassment and retaliation, especially where managers in positions of authority are involved in the misconduct.

According to Professor Marcia McCormick of Cumberland School of Law (Samford University), the lawsuit signified a victory for the EEOC's EEOC's E-RACE Initiative (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment), which was launched in 2008 to eliminate race discrimination from the workplace by enhancing public awareness and through litigating unlawful employment practices.

For more information, please visit the New York Times' article entitled, Tavern on the Green to Pay $2.2 Million to Settle Harassment Claim.

Pregnancy discrimination, which is a form of gender discrimination, is becoming a hot button issue in 2008. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a class-action lawsuit against Bloomberg L.P., the financial-services and media company founded by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, on behalf of at least 54 women who accuse the firm of discriminating against pregnant employees. The suit puts Bloomberg L.P. in a familiar position, representing the latest in a series of discrimination and sexual harassment complaints filed against the firm since the 1990s.

According to EEOC lawyer, Raechel L. Adams, the number of women represented in the class action is likely to grow. As part of its continuing investigation, the EEOC is interviewing 478 Bloomberg L.P. female employees who took maternity leave at some point from 2002 to the present.

Monica Prestia is among those represented in the suit. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Prestia received the worst performance review of her career after giving birth to her first child in 2005. Thereafter, the suite alleges, she experienced hostility from a supervisor who could not have children and was asked by a different supervisor: “What is this, your third baby?”

Although Mayor Bloomberg remains the firm's majority shareholder, the suit does not name him as a defendant. For more information about this issue, please visit the New York Times article entitled, 54 More Women Accuse Bloomberg Firm of Bias.

Employment discrimination cases do not resolve themselves overnight. In 1999, twenty employees of the City's Department of Parks and Recreation filed complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in both hiring practices and promotion decisions. After approximately nine years of litigation, New York City has agreed to pay more than $21 million to settle what has grown to become a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 3,500 former and current workers.

Beginning in December 2006, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund helped coordinate the effort to reach a settlement with the City. Theodore M. Shaw, of the Legal Defense and Educational Fund, had this to say:

Today’s settlement is a clear victory for those who were denied equality in the workplace for so long. L.D.F. commends the black and Latino workers of the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation who stood up to this injustice and had the courage to fight for change.

In reaching such a successful result, the plaintiff's relied on well-known economist, Dr. Stephen A. Schneider of Nathan Associates, Inc., who testified as an expert witness on the issue of liability and damages.

To read more about the settlement, visit the New York Times article entitled, City Settles Parks Bias Suit for $21 Million.

Pregnancy discrimination may be on the rise. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has reported an up-tick in such complaints. Over the past year, complaints of pregnancy discrimination complaints rose 14% to 5,587. This represents the biggest annual increase in 13 years. Even more alarming, the number of pregnancy discrimination complaints has surged 40% from a decade ago. To read more about this trend, check out Sue Shellenbarger's informative article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, More Women Pursue Claims of Pregnancy Discrimination.

Pregnancy discrimination, also known as family rights discrimination, has certainly picked up steam in the past two years. In December 2007, for instance, the New York Times published a sampling of newly minted buzzwords. Included in the list was "maternal profiling," which the Times defined as:

Employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children. The term has been popularized by members of MomsRising, an advocacy group promoting the rights of mothers in the workplace.

(The article is entitled, All We Are Saying)

Surprisingly, the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices statute (M.G.L. c. 151B, §4) does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based upon parenthood. In 2006, a Massachusetts Superior Court in Sivieri v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts interpreted the statute to include such a prohibition. Under Sivieri, pregnancy discrimination constitutes gender discrimination.

In Sivieri, the plaintiff worked as a paralegal for the state Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA). In November 1999, Sivieri gave birth to her daughter. After returning from maternity leave, Sivieri's direct supervisor made numerous negative comments about her pregnancy. In one instance, her supervisor remarked that their work unit would maintain its productivity as long as no other employees became pregnant. Thereafter, Sivieri was passed up for a promotion for which she was qualified.

In 2002, Sivieri filed suit on the basis that DTA's failure to promote her constituted unlawful gender discrimination. Relying on the plain language of M.G.L. c. 151B, §4, DTA moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged discrimination related to parental status vs. gender, and parents are not members of a protected category under Chapter 151. The Superior Court rejected DTA's position, holding that her supervisor's negative remarks toward pregnancy and child rearing was based on gender stereotypes and, therefore, constituted gender discrimination.

The Sivieri decision is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. As the EEOC's statistics indicate, however, there is still much progress to be made.

In March 2007, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit alleging that Walgreen's discriminated against thousands of black workers in hiring and work assignment decisions.

This past week, a federal judge approved a settlement in which Walgreen's agreed to pay $24 million to compensate approximately 10,000 past and present Walgreen's employees who suffered racial bias. Attorneys' fees in the case amounted to approximately $4.5 million. The settlement also requires Walgreen's to hire outside consultants to review and revise their employment practices.

The Supreme Court recently rejected a legal challenge from AARP, which contended that employers that reduce health benefits for former employees who become eligible for Medicare violate age discrimination laws.

The case began approximately eight years ago in 2000 when retired county workers in Erie, Pennsylvania who had their health benefits reduced when they turned 65 claimed that such a policy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia held that this policy amounted to age discrimination.

Initially, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) agreed with the Appeals Court decision. In 2003, however, the EEOC determined that the ruling would incentivize employers to not offer benefits to retirees for fear of running afoul of age discrimination laws. With this concern in mind, the EEOC proposed an exception to the ADEA, allowing employers to reduce health benefits when former employees became eligible for Medicare.

In June 2008, the Appeals Court essentially reversed itself and upheld the EEOC's new policy. For more information, please visit the Los Angeles Times article entitled, Supreme Court allows retiree benefit cuts

Workplace discrimination complaints by employees against private employers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rose by 9% last year, signifying the largest annual increase since the early 1990s. The EEOC reported that complaints increased to 75,768 during the 2006 budget year, up from 75,428 in the previous year. Discrimination complaints based on race, retaliation, and sex were the most common. Below is an overview:

• Race discrimination complaints totaled 27,238; about 35.9% of all EEOC filings

• Sex discrimination complaints totaled 23,247; about 30.7% of all EEOC filings

• Retaliation complaints totaled 22,555; about 29.8% of all EEOC filings

• Handicap discrimination complaints totaled 15,625; about 20.6% of all EEOC filings

• Age discrimination complaints totaled 13,569; about 17.9% of all EEOC filings

• Sexual harassment complaints totaled 12,025; about 15% of all EEOC filings

• National origin discrimination complaints totaled 8,327; about 11% of all EEOC filings

• Religious discrimination complaints totaled 2,541; about 3.4% of all EEOC filings

(It is not uncommon for employees to suffer more than one type of discrimination, which is why the total exceeds 100%)

Age discrimination and handicap discrimination complaints recorded double-digit percentage increases. Complaints about discrimination based on pregnancy also rose by 14% to 5,587. In 2006, the EEOC was successful in recovering $274 million in compensation for employees reporting discrimination. The Washington Post reported on these figures in an article entitled, Job Discrimination Filings Rise in 2006

Reports of race discrimination rose in 2007. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) registered an increase of 24% from 2006. Complaints rose from 5,646 in 2006 to 6,977 in 2007. In an article entitled, Racial harassment cases rise sharply, USA Today reveals the changing face of race discrimination:

"Nooses are more prevalent," says EEOC chair Naomi Earp. "The noose has replaced the N-word … as the choice if you want to threaten or intimidate someone."

As race discrimination continues to rise, so will lawsuits. Last week, Judge Thelton Henderson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved Morgan Stanley's $16 million proposed settlement for a racial-bias class action filed on behalf of 1,200 African-American and Latino brokers. In an article entitled Morgan Stanley $16 Million Race Bias Settlement Gets Prelim OK, CNN Money reported on some of the non-monetary aspects of the settlement:

Morgan Stanley agreed to settle alleged discrimination claims by setting up a $16 million settlement fund and establishing programs to boost diversity in its work force. The firm has agreed to work with industrial psychologists to develop hiring, retention and development initiatives for African-American and Latino financial advisers and broker trainees.

Merrill Lynch & Co., the largest retail brokerage house in the United States, is also facing a similar race discrimination suit from African-American brokers.

Judge Robert L. Carter of the Manhattan Federal District Court recently approved a $6.2 million settlement against Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers Union. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the lawsuit 37 years ago in 1971, charging the union with race discrimination for failing to provide equal employment opportunities to nonwhite members. The final settlement compensates 156 Black and Hispanic sheet metal workers for lost wages for the years 1984 to 1991.

Until the late 1940s, the union's constitution contained a provision excluding nonwhites from its membership. According to the EEOC, the union continued to discriminate. In order to prove discrimination, the EEOC relied, in part, on circumstantial evidence, which appeared powerful in this case. In 1974, for example, minority workers comprised only 3 percent of the union’s membership.

More can be read about the settlement in the New York Times article entitled, Settlement in Bias Suite that Stalled for 37 Years.

The settlement could not come at a better time. Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day -- a day when we can reflect on the progress we have made as a nation while being mindful of the challenges ahead. Below is Dr. King's I Have a Dream speech:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recorded a significant win in 2007, securing a settlement of about $1.6 million on behalf of a class of nearly 700 African Americans nationwide who suffered race discrimination.

At issue was a written test used by Ford Motor Corp., Visteon Corp., Automotive Components Holdings, and the United Auto Workers of America (UAW) to select job candidates for Ford's skilled trades apprenticeship program. The test had a disproportionately negative impact on African-Americans.

As part of the settlement, the EEOC was also successful in securing non-monetary relief which, among other things, placed 55 African American test takers into the apprentice program. The settlement complements an earlier suit in 2005 brought by the EEOC against both Ford and the UAW, which was settled for $8.55 million. The most recent suit covers additional job candidates not covered in the 2005 settlement.

On December 3, 2007, the EEOC issued a new Employment Testing Fact Sheet, citing the Ford case.

The EEOC has already experienced similar success in 2008, receiving a landmark settlement of $2.5 million against Lockheed Martin in a race discrimination suit. In that case, a Black aviation electrician was persistently subjected to racial epithets and threatened with bodily harm by his White co-workers during his employment with Lockheed Martin. Click here to read more about the settlement.