• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

HRMorning

  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
  • HR DEEP DIVES
  • PODCASTS
    • VOICES OF HR
    • WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP TODAY
  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • HR Technology
  • Payroll
  • Management
  • Women’s Leadership
  • More
    • Talent Management
    • Performance Management
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans
  • Employment Law

Gender stereotypes: Here’s what a $1.25M hiring mistake looks like

Carol Warner
By: Carol Warner
  • Share on

About the Author

For nearly two decades, Carol Warner has analyzed the legal and financial realities behind workplace decisions, covering employment law, benefits, payroll and HR technology. She translates complex legal updates, regulatory shifts and vendor claims into plain language that HR teams can act on. Her focus is simple: What does this mean for employers, and what should they do next? Connect with her on LinkedIn.

Show Less
Last Updated: April 25, 2023
2 minute engagement
Comment leads to seven-figure settlement

“The law requires companies to make hiring decisions based on an applicant’s qualifications, not gender stereotypes,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows in a recent press release announcing a seven-figure settlement for an undetermined group of women.

Here’s what happened at a company in Ohio.

Trucking company – or boys’ club?   

R&L Carriers, Inc. and R&L Carriers, Shared Services, LLC (R&L Carriers), a nationwide trucking company headquartered in Ohio that specializes in less-than-a-load delivery, will pay $1.25 million to a class of female applicants.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the company discriminated against women in hiring for loader positions at its location in Wilmington, Ohio, between 2010 and 2017. Although a few women were hired as loaders, most female applicants were rejected or steered to different positions because of their sex, the EEOC asserted.

Alleged comments reveal gender stereotypes in hiring decisions

Specifically, applicants and witnesses reported that they were told the company did not hire women for loader positions.

In the EEOC’s view, this violated Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based on sex and gender. As a result of the alleged conduct, there was a large difference in the percentage of female applicants who were hired compared to male applicants who were hired, the EEOC said.  

The company agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle the suit, which will be deposited into a settlement fund handled by a claims administrator. The EEOC will work with the claims administrator to locate the women and distribute the money.

The consent decree also orders the company not to discriminate against female applicants at its Wilmington facility and requires the company to:

  • Provide training that covers legal hiring procedures to appropriate employees
  • Notify recruiters and employees not to discriminate against women in hiring for loader positions
  • Invite rejected female applicants to reapply for Wilmington loader positions, and
  • Engage in outreach and recruitment efforts related to employing women as loaders.

Info: Company to Pay $1.25M to Settle EEOC Sex Discrimination Suit, 4/25/23.

Filed under
  • Employment Law
  • Share on

Get the HRMorning Newsletter

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form

Free Training & Resources

White Papers

Employee Engagement Trends 2026

Provided by Inspirus

Webinars

Data-Driven Culture Transformation – Go Beyond Vanity Metrics

White Papers

The Employer’s Guide to Lowering Healthcare Spend Without Losing Coverage

Provided by Personify Health

White Papers

The New Rules of Engagement: Rethinking How Employees Connect to Work

Provided by Inspirus

SPONSORED CONTENT

HR Technology

sponsored content
The Best AI Software for HR Automation

Courtesy of G-P

Talent Management

sponsored content
Powerful Employee Retention Strategies for 2025: How to Keep Your Best People

Courtesy of PEOPLEGURU

Benefits

Health Care

Wellness

sponsored content
Proven Results: 5 Ways Teladoc Health Chronic Condition Management Transforms HR Outcomes

Courtesy of TELADOC HEALTH

Further Reading

  • Employment Law
FLSA retaliation? Lawsuit against HR, farm outlines gruesome details

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has filed a complaint against a Tennessee farm and its HR manager. The alleged problem: FLSA retaliation...

  • Employment Law
Employer Blamed for Ugly Injury: Worker Suffers Burns to Face

The Department of Labor has determined that an employer is to blame for injuries suffered by a worker whose face was burned as he was clean...

  • Employment Law
EEOC Targets Pregnancy Discrimination: What HR Should Know

Heads up, HR: The EEOC has recently taken several employers to task for alleged pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnant Worke...

  • Employment Law
New Settlement: Overtime Violations Prompt $320K Payout in California

A California roofing and painting contractor will pay more than $320,000 after federal investigators found overtime violations tied to off-...

  • Employment Law
Worker Death: OSHA Points Finger at Employer

A worker death led to a finding by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) that an employer should pay $177,453 in penalti...

  • Employment Law
How a (good) job description can squelch an ADA lawsuit

One way to win an ADA lawsuit is to show that the applicant or employee is not able to perform the job’s essential functions. To do th...

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation
  • Policy & Procedures
  • Wellness
  • Staff Departure
  • HR Career & Self-Care
  • Health Care
  • Retirement Plans
  • DEI

HRMorning, part of the Rover Insights Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day's headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Powered By Rover Insights
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Copyright© 2026 Rover Insights
HRMorning Logo

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.