Case: Roberts v. Texaco, Inc.

7:94-cv-02015 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: March 23, 1994

Closed Date: 2003

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On March 23, 1994, an African-American employee of the Texaco Incorporated filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., and Section 296 of the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, against Texaco Incorporated in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the court for both monetary damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Texaco Incorporated, …

On March 23, 1994, an African-American employee of the Texaco Incorporated filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., and Section 296 of the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, against Texaco Incorporated in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the court for both monetary damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Texaco Incorporated, by certain employment policies and practices, engaged in conduct that had a disparate impact upon and abridged the rights of salaried African-American employees of Texaco in promotions, compensation, and the terms and conditions of their employment, including training and job assignments.

On June 30, 1994, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding claims on behalf additional plaintiffs. On May 15, 1995, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

In August 1996, plaintiffs moved to add Title VII claims to the Class motion. A right-to-sue letter, containing class allegations, was received from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Relying thereon, plaintiffs' counsel sought to expand the class beyond the scope of the right-to-sue letter. Texaco opposed, noting that it was seeking reconsideration before the EEOC. On September 27, 1996, the court (Judge Brieant) heard counsel and scheduled a hearing for December 6, 1996 on the class certification motions.

On March 21, 1997, the court (Judge Brieant) approved the class settlement. Roberts v. Texaco, Inc. 1997 U.S. Dist. Westlaw 979 F.Supp. 185 (S.D. NY. 1997). In sum, the settlement provided that:

1. Plaintiffs' counsel receive (a) for legal services rendered prior to the entry of judgment a fee award payable out of the escrow fund (and without interest) upon approval by the Court in the amount of $19,154,144.62 (or 5.5 times the lodestar of $3,482,571.75), plus (b) a further payment out of the escrow fund and covering services to be rendered in the aggregate amount of $1,000,000 payable (without interest) over a five-year period in bi-annual installments, or in such other sum as the Court may direct, upon bi-annual application to and approval by the Court. Attorney's fees amounted to twenty-five percent of the $115 million cash settlement, or $28,750,000.

2. Plaintiff Roberts received, in addition to whatever sums she might receive as a member of the Class or otherwise, the sum of $85,000;

3. Plaintiff Chambers received, in addition to whatever sums he might receive as a member of the Class or otherwise, the sum of $50,000;

4. Plaintiffs Williams, Harris, and Hester received, in addition to whatever sums they might receive as a member of the Class or otherwise, the sum of $25,000; and

5. Plaintiff Shinault received, in addition to whatever sums she might receive as a member of the Class or otherwise, the sum of $2,500.

Defendants' stockholders appealed. On September 14, 1999, the 2nd Circuit (Judge Miner) reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for the entry of judgment denying counsel fees.

On January 8, 2003, the district court order that the court's supervision on the Settlement Agreement be terminated because it had been fulfilled.

Summary Authors

Keri Livingston (4/1/2008)

People


Judge(s)

Brieant, Charles L. Jr. (New York)

Parker, Barrington Daniels Jr. (New York)

Judge(s)

Brieant, Charles L. Jr. (New York)

Parker, Barrington Daniels Jr. (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Roberts v. Texas, Inc.

Dec. 4, 2003 Docket

EEOC Announces Intervention in Texaco, Inc. Lawsuit

No Court

Nov. 20, 1996 Press Release

Statement By EEOC Chairman Gilbert Casellas On Proposed Settlement Agreement With Texaco

No Court

Jan. 3, 1997 Press Release
84

Stipulation and Settlement Agreement

Jan. 23, 1997 Settlement Agreement
103

Memorandum Decision [Ordering Consummation of Settlement Agreement]

1997 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 23848

March 21, 1997 Order/Opinion
139

Order [Granting Adoption of Special Master's Report]

1997 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 15094

July 29, 1997 Order/Opinion
144

Order Directing Payment of Settlement Proceeds to Estates of Deceased Class Members and Other Entities

1997 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 16823

Aug. 13, 1997 Order/Opinion
145

Order [Re: Legal Fees]

1997 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 16824

Aug. 18, 1997 Order/Opinion
147

Memorandum and Order [Re: Attorney's Fees]

979 F.Supp. 185

Sept. 11, 1997 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Negotiating Enduring Corporate Change: A Case Study on the Task Force on Equality and Fairness in Roberts v. Texaco Inc.

Cathy Cronin-Harris & David M. White

In recent years, there has been a spate of class action employment discrimination suits. American institutions such as Coca-Cola, Denny’s, Home Depot, Merrill Lynch and Mitsubishi have joined the pan… March 1, 2005 http://www.dmwlawfirm.com/resources/Texaco%20Case%20Study.pdf

Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform

Nancy Levit

Structural reform litigation, lawsuits that aim to create systemic change, dates back to the school desegregation cases of the 1950s and today continues with employment discrimination class action su… March 1, 2008 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=usjournals&handle=hein.journals/bclr49&id=373

Docket

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 23, 1994

Closing Date: 2003

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All salaried African-American employees of Texaco that were discriminated against in terms of promotions, compensation, and the terms and conditions of their employment, including training and job assignments.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

EEOC Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Texaco Incorporated, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1981

State law

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1997 - 2002

Content of Injunction:

Reporting

Retaliation Prohibition

Recordkeeping

Provide antidiscrimination training

Monitoring

Discrimination Prohibition

Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Pay / Benefits

Promotion

Training

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

Affected Gender:

Female

Male