Affirmative Action Employer Agrees to Pay $1.5M to Settle OFCCP Allegations of Discriminatory Hiring Process

Today, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced that Dallas-based Vought Aircraft Industries Inc. would be settling “allegations of hiring discrimination based on race and gender and agreed to pay $1.5 million in back wages to 1,045 applicants. . . . OFCCP investigators found that Vought's hiring process disproportionately eliminated African American and Asian males, as well as all females, applying for the assembly trainee/aircraft assembly beginner jobs. OFCCP concluded that two steps in Vought's hiring process — an application screening and a test — were primarily responsible for the discrimination. Under the terms of the consent decree, Vought will pay the 1,045 rejected applicants $1,377,500 in back pay with interest. The company also will pay about $70,000 for applicants interested in participating in a four-week aircraft assembly training program, and from that program 35 applicants will be hired into assembly trainee/aircraft assembly beginner positions. Additionally, in lieu of retroactive seniority salary, the new hires will be paid $1,500 each.”

According to the OFCCP, “Vought, a manufacturer of aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense, has discontinued its use of the test and modified its screening procedures, and will undertake extensive self-monitoring measurements for two years to ensure that all hiring practices fully comply with federal law. Additionally, the company will ensure compliance with recordkeeping requirements.”

The OFCCP is an agency within the United States Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration and enforces Executive Order 11246 and other laws that prohibit employment discrimination by federal contractors. The agency monitors contractors to ensure that they provide equal employment opportunities without regard to race, sex, color, religion, national origin, disability or veteran status.

Insomniacs can read the OFCCP’s full press release at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/esa/esa20080418.htm.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC's $510K Consent Decree with Target Over Alleged Race Discrimination and Record Retention

The EEOC announced the entry of a consent decree in Wisconsin federal court where Target agreed to pay $510K to four African-American applicants for entry-level managerial positions, to revise its record-keeping policies, to provide training to supervisors on employment discrimination and record-keeping; to report to the EEOC on hiring decisions; and to post a notice about the consent decree to employees in order to end six-year litigation which last year resulted in the denial of summary judgment to Target by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (at EEOC v. Target Corporation, 7th Cir. No. 04-3559). The EEOC had also alleged that Target had destroyed employment applications in bad faith, and its changed policies with respect to retaining records were insufficient.

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/12-10-07a.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.

When Nice Guys Do Not Always Finish Last

On October 5, 2007, the Lucas County Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of a race discrimination case on the grounds that the plaintiff could not show that he was qualified for his position or had been treated more harshly than his similarly situated white co-workers after he had been granted repeated instances of leniency which had not been extended to his co-workers. Isbell v. Johns Manville, Inc., 2007-Ohio-5355. For instance, even though he was found sleeping on duty on numerous occasions and refusing to wear protective gear, he was not formally disciplined because his brother had been very ill and eventually died. Other employees, however, were formally disciplined each time they were caught. The plaintiff had already grieved and lost the union arbitration to challenge his termination before pursuing his race discrimination claims in court.

This decision is also interesting for its discussion of the employer’s new disciplinary system:

“By 2002, Johns Manville had adopted, as an alternative -- and purportedly less punitive -- approach to resolving performance problems, a system known as "performance counseling".1 Performance counseling consists of three phases: Phase I involves clarification of the employer's expectations; Phase II involves obtaining the employee's commitment to change; and Phase III involves a decision by the employee as to whether or not he wishes to continue employment with the company.”

The employer explained how it had exhausted the disciplinary process with the plaintiff before it terminated him for repeatedly failing to meet agreed-upon expectations about staying awake at work, etc. At one point, the plaintiff had provided written assurances that "From this day forward I will wear the protective gear that is required” and, without admitted to sleeping on duty, that "I realize that whether I was sleeping or not, this is not what Johns Manville pays me to do." Unfortunately for him, however, he failed to comply with these assurarnces.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/6/2007/2007-ohio-5355.pdf.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.