Filed Date: Aug. 28, 2006
Closed Date: April 20, 2009
Clearinghouse coding complete
The Seattle office of the EEOC brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, against Howard S. Wright Construction Company. The complaint, filed in August 2006, alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; specifically that Defendant had discharged the charging party based on his age (60). In April 2007, the parties proposed a consent decree and it was signed two weeks later.
The decree, valid for 2 years, required Defendant to pay charging party a total of 18,977.20 ($6,560.40 in back pay, $2,928.20 as a benefit contribution and $9,488.60 in liquidated damages). Defendant was enjoined from discriminating, and required to provide annual EEO training to employees, post a notice of non-discrimination at its facility, distribute an EEO policy sheet to its employees, discipline any managers who discriminate and report to the EEOC annually on its compliance with the decree. Defendant was also required to provide neutral references for the charging party if asked by another employer. The terms of the agreement were to run for 2 years. The docket sheet does not show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2009.
Summary Authors
Shankar Viswanathan (6/22/2007)
Clearinghouse (6/15/2017)
Last updated March 24, 2024, 3:04 a.m.
State / Territory: Washington
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 28, 2006
Closing Date: April 20, 2009
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Howard S. Wright Construction Company, Private Entity/Person
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: 18977.2
Order Duration: 2007 - 2009
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Issues
Discrimination-area:
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discrimination-basis:
EEOC-centric: