Skip to main content

MAVERICK TUBE TO PAY $175,000 TO SETTLE EEOC RETALIATION LAWSUIT

Conroe, Texas-based Maverick Tube Corporation will pay $175,000 to settle a retaliation discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, filed in June 2007, (C.A. 4:07-cv-02033 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division), charged that in May 2005, Maverick Tube retaliated against Andra Williams by firing him after he reported to its president and chief operating officer the safety manager’s racially offensive comments.

The company investigated Williams’s complaint and, as a result, discharged the manager. But, less than a month after he reported the comments, Williams was fired after he was falsely accused of saying he would call the company’s president to report his supervisor if he was not permitted to have a requested vacation day. Before conducting any investigation into the allegation made against Williams, the regional human resources manager stated in an e-mail that Williams should be immediately fired. In that same e-mail, the HR manager reminded his readers that Williams had recently complained about the safety manager’s racial comments.

Retaliation for complaining about discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

The four-year consent decree settling the suit, signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen W. Smith, requires the company to pay $175,000 in monetary relief to Williams. Additionally, the decree requires annual mandatory training on Title VII for all of the company’s managers and employees at its Conroe facility. That training must include instruction regarding the illegality of retaliating against employees who complain about conduct which they believe to be discriminatory. The company must also post an anti-discrimination notice, provide monitoring reports to the EEOC and issue a disciplinary notice to the company’s regional human resources manager.

“Retaliation is an issue of special concern to the EEOC,” said Kathy D. Boutchee, the EEOC senior trial attorney in charge of the case. “Employees have the clear right to report employment practices which they believe are discriminatory without fear of retribution. This case should serve as a firm reminder to employers that it is unlawful to retaliate against an individual for exercising his statutory right to report, oppose or complain about discrimination or to file a charge of discrimination.”

Jim Sacher, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Houston District Office, added, “When the EEOC brings suit, it does so to benefit the public at large. For that reason, the disciplining of an errant human resources manager, the inclusion of annual training for managers and employees, monitoring of future complaints of discrimination and retaliation and other injunctive relief are all equally important parts of the settlement.”

Maverick Tube Corporation is a subsidiary of Tenaris. According to its website, it is a leading supplier of tubes and related services for the energy industry. It has 24,000 employees.

Retaliation charges filed with the EEOC rose from 26,663 in Fiscal Year 2007 to 32,690 in FY 2008, and have nearly tripled in the last 15 years.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

Mortgage Fraud

Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announced today the indictment of 13 individuals and a mortgage origination company for perpetrating over $100 million in mortgage fraud over a four-year period in the New York City metropolitan area. In addition, 12 individuals have already waived indictment and pleaded guilty to felonies relating to their participation in the mortgage fraud scheme. The indictment charges 13 individuals and the mortgage company, AFG FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., with enterprise corruption, grand larceny, scheme to defraud and conspiracy involving 19 fraudulent mortgage transactions. The defendants include the principals and a number of employees of the mortgage company, as well as bank employees, appraisers, and three attorneys. Two other attorneys are among the defendants who already pleaded guilty. The crimes charged in the indictment occurred between June 2004 and April 2009 with the bulk of the fraudulent closings occurring from mid-2005 through the end of...

DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT OF SIX SUBCONTRACTING COMPANIES AND THEIR OWNERS IN MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR FRAUD

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictments of six subcontracting companies and their owners for colluding with LEHR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (LEHR) in a multimillion dollar scheme that defrauded numerous construction clients over the past decade. See, related story. The announcement comes one day after DA Vance announced LEHR and four executives were indicted on crimes including Enterprise Corruption, the New York State Racketeering law. GODSELL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and its owner ARTHUR GODSELL are charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree. JT ROSELLE LIGHTING, INC. and its owner JAMES ROSELLE, LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORPORATION and its owners GEORGE FOTIADIS and KEVIN FOTIADIS, PJ MECHANICAL and its owner JAMES PAPPAS, SUPERIOR ACOUSTICS, INC. and its owner KENNETH MCGUIGAN, and SWEENEY & HARKIN CARPENTRY and its owner MICHAEL HAYES are charged with Grand Larceny in the Third Degree.[1] "The defendants in this case cheated clie...