Filed Date: May 27, 2003
Closed Date: Nov. 24, 2005
Clearinghouse coding complete
EEOC's Baltimore, MD office alleged violations of Title VII, ADEA, and ADA in the hiring and recruiting process of the defendant, PJAX, Inc. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore) on 05/27/2003. The defendant, headquartered in Gibsonia, PA, operated facilities and terminals nationwide.
EEOC made allegations on behalf of two individual complainants and two class complainants. EEOC alleged that a class of qualified females that applied for the positions of driver and dockworker were rejected because of their sex. It was also alleged that the defendant required all applicants that applied for the driver and dockworker positions to complete a medical questionnaire as to their disabilities and rejected those that indicated disabilities. Additionally, EEOC claimed that a 55-year-old female was refused employment at defendant's Cleveland, OH terminal because of her sex and age. EEOC also alleged that a former regional operations manager at defendant's Baltimore terminal was subject to retaliatory termination because of his oppositions to the discriminatory hiring practices based on age, sex and disability. None of the complainants intervened or filed a separate lawsuit.
The defendant proposed settlement before answering the complaint. The district court entered a consent decree on 11/24/2003.
Under the two-year consent decree, the defendant agreed to pay $200,500 to the terminated manager, $25,000 to the female who was refused employment, and a total of $1.775 million to all eligible claimants. The eligible claimants include two classes: all qualified females that applied for driver and/or dockworker positions from 01/01/1997 to the entry of the consent decree but were rejected because of their sex; all qualified applicants that applied for driver and dockworker positions in the same period but were rejected because of their elicited disabilities. The consent decree also required the defendant to give all eligible claimants priority hiring consideration.
Additionally, the defendant was required to provide training and post notice of its EEO policies at all its facilities and terminals nationwide. The defendant was also required to create an internal HR Specialist position to ensure compliance with federal laws at all facilities and terminals nationwide.
Summary Authors
Justin Kanter (7/6/2007)
EEOC v. PJAX, INC, Western District of Pennsylvania (2003)
Last updated March 23, 2025, 9:26 a.m.
State / Territory: Maryland
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 27, 2003
Closing Date: Nov. 24, 2005
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
EEOC, on behalf of a women who had applied for driver and/or dockworker positions but were rejected because of their sex; and of applicants for driver and dockworker positions in the same period who were rejected because of their disability.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
PJAX, Inc. (Baltimore, MD; Cleveland, OH), Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
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
Content of Injunction:
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Amount Defendant Pays: 2000500
Order Duration: 2003 - 2005
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
EEOC-centric: