Tables turned! EEOC pays employer for mistaken lawsuit
February 19, 2010 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Complaint investigation, Employment law, Sexual harassment, Special Report
When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently sued a company for harassment, the case came to a strange and extraordinary ending.
The case involved an Iowa-based trucking company, CRST Van Expedited, Inc. A female driver with the company filed a complaint about the company’s permitting of sexual harassment by male drivers. The EEOC picked up the complaint and filed a suit against CRST in federal district court.
This time, the EEOC picked the wrong judge.
U.S. District Judge Linda Reade rejected the EEOC’s claims, threw out the charges and accused the EEOC lawyers of taking a “sue first, ask questions later” approach.
Further, the judge decided, the EEOC must pay the employer $4.5 million to cover legal fees and other costs associated with the case because the agency “acted unreasonably” and failed to conduct a “proper investigation.”
Cite: EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.
Tags: CRST, eeoc, Linda Reade
HRMorning.com delivers the latest HR news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HR professionals.
follow us on Twitter
join our group on Facebook
February 19th, 2010 at 9:15 am
I love it! Judge of the year!
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:40 am
With rulings like that, the career of Judge Reade is sure to be limited. What a pity, we can use all of the “common-sense” members of the judiciary we can find.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 am
How can I send Judge Reade a box of chocolate and some balloons?!
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 am
Good for the judge! We need to take Tort reform seriously… We have way too many cases like this in our court systems.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
It’s strange, but I find very little about the District judge’s ruling. I find a plethora of information about whether the victims could file under state law and whether an ex-EEOC employee could be compelled to give testimony and whether the communications between the EEOC and their “clients” were protected under attorney-client priviledge.
It was alleged that female truck driving trainee’s were being raped and subjected to sexual harassment while on the road. After I looked up the case, it doesn’t appear there is any information about the initial claim.
I don’t know. Maybe this is “Judge of the year” or maybe it is something else. The judge apparently holds the EEOC to blame for fialing to conduct a full and complete investigation and fined them. There is nothing from the judge ordering that a full investigation be conducted and completed. I’m certain that if there are any employees of this company who were raped or subjected to harassment, or if anyone spoke up and experienced retaliation, that they see this as open season on them, and the Company, the courts, and the EEOC failed them.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:44 am
Good for CRST!
This EEOC is pretty heavy handed and like any other agency of this type they need high profile cases to show their worthiness to continue dipping into our pockets. “Sue First” is their motto hoping to avoid having to actually “investigate” anything (and get an easy settlement)which is the hard part.
Tort reform….now there is a hot topic….too bad all the lawyers in our country decided to be “lawmakers” in government…..where we need more common sense advocates and not more lawyers.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:51 am
Finally, some balance.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:56 am
If there were indeed rapes happening, I would think/hope that criminal penalties would be sought versus an EEO suit. If not, I would definitely question the motive of the complaintant(s) if not their sense of self-preservation. I suspect any judge worth HER salt would have considered this too.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:30 am
Wow! I certainly hope this judge was right. The image of trainees, or anyone, being raped while trying to earn a living is deeply disturbing. If it was indeed going on and this was the outcome, regardless of whether the initial investigation was proper and thorough enough, this will encourage such evil behavior.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:46 am
Hmmm….Attorneys can act only within the statutes of the law. Laws must be changed and given man makes law, man breaks law, man will continue to keep ambiguous laws on the books.
Catch 22.
As with any agency, the reputation is only as good as the people who work there. The training the training, leadership, and self accountability they’re subjected. Poor leadership equates to poor management which equates to poor performance.
I’ve worked for a trucking company and have seen it all. We haven’t evolved much at all in the form of workplace harassment, hostile work environment and to simplify it bad owners and mangement. The laws on the books are still much in favor of the employer. My experience as HR is that there is still a long ways to go in the workplace.
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:17 pm
We had an employee state that his supervisor used the N word against him. There was no witnnesses and the supervisor stated he never said anything to this employee. But the EEOC wanted us to pay the employee $500,000. Which cost us $50,000.
It’s time for a major change at the EEOC.
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:51 pm
From what I can tell, the inital complaint indicated that several women trainees were subjected to men getting into the cab bed with them and kicking them off the truck at locations away from home if they made a fuss. The women asked to be trained under female truck drivers which the company stated would open them up to discrimination liability.
I don’t know if the company took any other action to “correct the problem,” if there were any actual criminal charges filed (it would be a he said/ she said situation for the police), or what forms of retaliation were alleged by those who spoke out about it. That is what I would hope an investigation would look into.
While I agree it seems the EEOC will take on most every case to investigate and seems to take a long time and they ask for a lot of information, they generally settle the complaint well before it gets into the courts. Every complaint I have had filed against our company has resulted in a finding of “no cause.” While I would have rather not gone through the investigation and would have preferred it if the employee’s had followed normal complaint reporting procedures, I can understand that some employee’s lack trust in employers based on their previous esperiences.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Majority of the time the agencies and laws are FOR the employee and do NOT give the business owners a chance, period. They do not believe the employer over the employee unless there is absolute solid proof but do not require the same for the employee. This is not right and should be stopped!
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Something here does not make sense. If I were raped I would not turn to the EEOC for help, I would go to local law enforcement. You know, those good people who are professionally trained to investigate crimes like rape. That might be what made the judge so angry that he blasted the EEOC, because they are supposed to refer allegations of criminal activity to law enforcement, and not to investigate it or try to intervene before the police get their crack at it.
My experience with the EEOC is they come out with their mind made up that the employer has done something wrong, and they will twist and turn to make sure that the employer pays something. Maybe I just have been unlucky, but the people I have interacted with at the EEOC have unfailingly been rude, uncommunicative and treated me like I was a criminal. I guess you are only entitled to be treated with human decency if you are making a complaint.
Right now I have an open Charge of Discrimination that I submitted a response to in September 2008. I have not heard a word from the EEOC on it since I got the delivery receipt from the post office. This is a case where an applicant was in the process of being hired when we discovered information that disqualified him from employment, and he was not happy about not getting the job so he claimed that it was because of his age. The folks at the EEOC apparently don’t consider it a priority when it is clear that the employer was in the right. I mean, in over a year they can’t even send a letter? A postcard? Carrier pigeon?
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Hey Laura, my findings have been the longer it takes for the EEOC to respond the better the outcome for the company. So count your blessings they have taken this long. I once waited almost 3 years to finally get a response from EEOC that a claim was closed without warrent.
Hats off to the judge from Iowa, we need more like her!
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
A number of years ago I had an EEOC charge filed against the company (prior employer) and against me. I was able to bring in documentation to show the charge was without merit. The EEOC officers agreed there was no discrimination in the termination, however, told me I would have to pay hundreds of dollars to the person to keep him from taking civil action. It was called a ‘Nuisance Fee’. I considered it highway robbery supported by our government!
As for the situation above, there should be an investigation by both the EEOC and the police. Then and only then should the judge have made a decision based on the facts derived from the investigation(s).
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:29 pm
From the information in the story, there is no way of knowing if this was a justifiable ruling or simply a swing of the pendulum to the opposite extreme. What we need are balanced, fair rulings in all cases. I know, it’s a pipe dream –
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:29 am
Having dealt with the EEOC on a couple of occasions in situations where the complaint was totally unfounded and fabricated, I am glad to see a judge holding them accountable for their irresponsible actions. They don’t investigate; they litigate, regardless of the documented facts. Their lack of logic has often perplexed and astounded me. It’s unfortunate because there does need to be somewhere for employees to turn when they are being harassed or discriminated against. By reacting aggressively and irrationally in spite of factual data and the guidelines and tenets of the law, they have tarnished their own reputation, thus losing respect and clout. But they do serve a purpose when an employer is behaving illegally. They need to realize the majority of employers are trying to do the right thing in their dealings with their employees, chuck the attitude that “all employers are evil” and behave accordingly. If they took a neutral view going in to an investigation and if they really investigated, they might actually accomplish something positive. Instead, they have become the schoolyard bully. I’m glad a judge finally said “enough!” and called them into account. I only hope that, if this employer was acting in violation of the law, the EEOC employees will do their job and properly check out the facts, then act accordingly.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
It took me a minute to write a response becuase I had to quit jumping up and down first! A judge with courage, what a great thing!
The only thing that upsets me with her ruling is that we, the taxpayers, now have to pay for this agency’s incompetence. I would have liked to see her actually fired those involved instead. That would wake a few government employees up.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
My favorite EEOC story is about one of our employees who filed a complaint about working overtime. I started an investigation and called the employee to my office to find out how he was being discriminated against. I asked if the minority, female, or younger employees were working less overtime and he said no; he just didn’t want to work mandatory overtime and his wife told him to file a claim with the EEOC. They never even asked him what his discrimination complaint was! I had to have him call the EEOC and tell them he was not being discriminated against before they would drop the case!
February 28th, 2010 at 10:23 am
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW ALL PEOPLE ARE TREATED THE SAME
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
EEOC can be seen to let’s say gamble with taxpayers’ money to dupe or stiff anyone. EEOC processes 48,000/year. This matter there appears violation of federal criminal law title 18 the purview of the United States Attorney to defend the Constitution of equla treatment. Title 18 is not the purview of a District or Curcuit court to comment on.
What can be seen by EEOC is predetermined judgement, false or fraudlent statements in an attempt to trick or deceive the court. The Judge was correct as one may say CRST called EEOC bluff and WON. Look up 28 USC Sec. 535 and title 18 sec. 1001. Willl EEOC report the apparent illegal and unethical conduct to the Attorney General? Or will the abuses of the provisions of law continue?
March 1st, 2010 at 7:11 pm
R.B. says February 23: Is just another story where those at EEOC let’s say roughshod civl rights and can be seen as harassment. However R.B. appears unaware of potential violations of Federal criminal statutes. Under the provisions of the law all people are treated the same. R.B. matter appears the opposite. There are those out there that may have experienced discriminatory practices and abuses by EEOC. Any person that has information that looks like or thinks or could be a vioaltion of criminal law by EEOC just write the Regional United States Attorney for comment on your question of what may be illlegal practices by EEOC. Always provide ALL relevant information for transparency. Silence by the United States Attorney would suggest EEOC is engaged in shenanigans. I will provide anyone a copy of EEOC Office of Legal Cousel a letter of REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MANDATORY OBLIGATIONS see 28 USC sec. 535. By fax or snail mail, let me know by email
March 1st, 2010 at 7:15 pm
HR Tom says: February 22:
HR Tom: read the above about how EEOC can discriminate and get away with it. You situation sounds interesting did you get Dismissal and Notice of Rights form 161? Richard
March 1st, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Martin SAYS: The above comments by concerned hard working individuals may have been unknowingly stiffed or duped by EEOC unethical and illegal practices. A sad commentary of an agency charged to protect our liberities. More info just email prvide a fax or snail mail. Some government documents get skewed by watermarks copied in emails. Richard
March 24th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
The EEOC is appealing this ruling. I have the pertinant documents from the district court and am tracking the appeal. If you are interested contact me. The EEOC has laid out the issues to be argued in the appeal. Alot more was going on with this case than appears from the article. A
March 28th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Alan: I posted a comment to your tracking an appeal. What is going on as read in the press release EEOC did not investigate. EEOC publications and Form 161 Based upon its investigation. What is now seen EEOC may not investigate to determine a violation. So some will be investigagted and some cases will not be investigated. That is favoring one over another. When a law enforcement agency (EEOC) favors one over another not conducting an investigation is called discrimination. A letter has been sent to Judge Reade on this matter. Any comments or more information reply to message.
Richard