Skip to main content

EEOC Obtains $50,000 from Texas Transportation Brokerage Companies for Retaliation

HOUSTON – Two Dallas/Fort Worth-area transportation brokerage companies will pay $50,000 and provide additional remedial relief to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that Joshua Male’s employer unlawfully retaliated against him by firing him because he had complained about workplace comments being made by two coworkers at the Sugar Land, Texas facility where they worked.

The EEOC’s lawsuit (Civil Action No. 4:09cv03142, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division) asserted that in July 2008, Male complained to the human resources manager about persistent inappropriate jokes about Mormons, as well as workplace comments allegedly disparaging a pregnant female co-worker, women in general, and an African American. The HR manager reported Male's complaints to the general manager of the facility, and Male was fired within less than 72 hours.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy) or national origin, and prohibits employers from retaliating against those who complain about such misconduct. The EEOC filed the lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

Under the terms of the four-year consent decree settling the suit, signed by U.S. District Judge Nancy F. Atlas, the companies will pay $50,000 in relief to compensate Male. In addition to the monetary payments, the decree requires that the companies’ salaried employees receive periodic training on laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

“No one should lose his job for alerting human resources to inappropriate workplace behavior,” said EEOC Houston Regional Attorney Jim Sacher. “Enforcement of Title VII depends upon employees who are willing to oppose and report conduct that might violate anti-discrimination laws. We are pleased that Amino worked with the EEOC to negotiate a fair resolution to this matter.”

According to their web sites, both Amino Transport, Inc., and Chariot Express, Inc., are transportation brokerage companies, providing transportation solutions to their customers and carriers. The companies share an office in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Amino Transport has an office in the Houston area where Male had worked. Amino Chariot Management LLC is the parent company. The EEOC's suit claimed that Amino Transport, Inc., Chariot Express, Inc., and Amino Chariot Management, LLC operate as an integrated enterprise.

The EEOC enforces the federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Additional information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov.

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.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...