Case: EEOC v. Pitt Ohio Express

1:06-cv-00747 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio

Filed Date: March 31, 2006

Closed Date: Oct. 21, 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The Philadelphia district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc., a transport company, in March 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint was brought on behalf of a woman who had applied to work for Pitt-Ohio Express but had allegedly been denied employment as a truck driver or dockworker in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act o…

The Philadelphia district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc., a transport company, in March 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint was brought on behalf of a woman who had applied to work for Pitt-Ohio Express but had allegedly been denied employment as a truck driver or dockworker in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The complaint sought injunctive and monetary relief for the individual complainant and a class of similarly situated women. In August 2006, the court granted the complainant’s request to intervene on behalf of herself and the class of women who had been refused employment due to their sex.

The parties began settlement discussion on November 20, 2007. Almost a year later, on October 1, 2008, the court approved of the plaintiff-intervenor and Pitt-Ohio’s settlement agreement. The settlement called for the defendant to pay $570,000.00 total to the plaintiff: the plaintiff-intervenor was awarded $265,000.00 in monetary relief and $305,000.00 in attorney fees and costs. In addition, the plaintiff-intervenor agreed to dismiss her claims against the defendant.

On October 21, 2008, the court approved the EEOC and defendant’s consent decree. The court retained jurisdiction for five years to ensure compliance. The terms of this decree were as follows:

1. The defendant was made to pay $2,430,000.00 to be distributed amongst the class of claimants, women that the EEOC determined to have been denied an opportunity to work as a driver and/or dockworker at Pitt-Ohio establishments. Specifically, the decree aimed at women that were not hired between September 1, 1997 through October 19, 2008.

2. The defendant was prohibited from discriminating against women applicants based on their sex.

3. The defendant was prohibited from retaliation.

4. The defendant was required to implement “priority hiring consideration.” Priority hiring consideration required Pitt-Ohio to make employment offers for driver and dockworker positions to women that EEOC determined were not hired for a position at Pitt-Ohio for which she applied, but who was qualified under Pitt-Ohio’s hiring criteria, and remained interested in employment at Pitt-Ohio as a driver and/or dock worker.

5. The defendant was obligated to provide EEOC approved anti-employment discrimination training for all employees.

6. In addition to training, the defendant had to ensure that managers and supervisors enforce anti-employment discrimination through management accountability. This directed managers and supervisors to take corrective action when necessary to counter individuals engaging in unlawful employment discrimination. Further, managers and supervisors were obligated to report incidents of unlawful discrimination or retaliation to Pitt-Ohio’s human resources group.

7. Pitt-Ohio Express was obligated to post notices of the outcome of this case to its Ohio terminals and headquarters in areas where bulletins and notices are posted to employees and applicants. These notices were to remain posted for the duration of this consent decree.

8. Pitt-Ohio Express was obligated to give regular reports to the EEOC in regard to recruitment and hiring of women in the driver and dock worker positions in Ohio.

9. Both parties bear their own attorney fees and costs.

This case is currently closed. The consent decree’s duration has lapsed, and the court docket shows no further activity.

Summary Authors

Shankar Viswanathan (5/29/2008)

Sean Whetstone (6/14/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5650472/parties/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-pitt-ohio-express-inc/


Judge(s)

Wells, Lesley Brooks (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Lawrence, Debra Michele (Maryland)

Mays, Lawrence (Ohio)

Phillips, Ronald L. (Maryland)

Stern, Jefferey A (Ohio)

Watson, C. Larry (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Barnard, Thomas (Ohio)

Murphy, Terrence H. (Pennsylvania)

Tucker, Bobbi Britton (Pennsylvania)

Tuite, Jaime S. (Pennsylvania)

Judge(s)

Wells, Lesley Brooks (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Lawrence, Debra Michele (Maryland)

Mays, Lawrence (Ohio)

Phillips, Ronald L. (Maryland)

Stern, Jefferey A (Ohio)

Watson, C. Larry (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Barnard, Thomas (Ohio)

Murphy, Terrence H. (Pennsylvania)

Tucker, Bobbi Britton (Pennsylvania)

Tuite, Jaime S. (Pennsylvania)

Other Attorney(s)

Besser, Barbara Kaye (Ohio)

Elfvin, Bruce B (Ohio)

Malik, David B. (Ohio)

Niermann, Dennis J. (Ohio)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:06-cv-00747

Docket [PACER]

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc.

July 6, 2010

July 6, 2010

Docket
1-1

1:06-cv-00747

Complaint

EEOC v. Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc.

2006 WL 1468506

March 31, 2006

March 31, 2006

Complaint
16

1:06-cv-00747

Complaint on Behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenor and the Class

EEOC v. Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc.

2006 WL 5244349

Aug. 8, 2006

Aug. 8, 2006

Complaint
40

1:06-cv-00747

Joint Motion of Pamela Moher and Pitt Ohio Express, LLC for QSF Designation as Part of Settlement and Settlement Agreement

EEOC v. Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc.

Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

Settlement Agreement
41

1:06-cv-00747

Order

EEOC v. Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc.

Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

Order/Opinion
48

1:06-cv-00747

Consent Decree

EEOC v. Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc.

Oct. 21, 2008

Oct. 21, 2008

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5650472/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-pitt-ohio-express-inc/

Last updated July 19, 2022, 3:02 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
15

Order Granting Party Intervention Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(1). (Related Doc # 5 )(Signed by Judge Lesley Wells on 8/8/06)(C, L)

Aug. 8, 2006

Aug. 8, 2006

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 31, 2006

Closing Date: Oct. 21, 2013

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers that were discriminated because of their sex. A female employee intervened in the case on behalf of herself and a class of woman who had been refused employment on the basis of sex.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU National Prison Project

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc. (Cleveland, Ohio), Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Transportation

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $3,000,000

Order Duration: 2009 - 2014

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Discrimination Prohibition

Hire

Monitoring

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Required disclosure

Retaliation Prohibition

Training

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

Private Party intervened in EEOC suit