Skip to main content

Perdue Farms Settles EEOC Age Discrimination Suit

LEWISTON, N.C. – Perdue Farms, Inc. will pay $25,500 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on 05/12/2010. The EEOC had charged in its lawsuit that Perdue Farms violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by refusing to hire a woman for a position because of her age.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (EEOC v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-38), Audrey Sheftall applied for a position in the deboning department at Perdue Farm’s Lewiston, N.C., facility when she was 66 years old. Although Sheftall was qualified for the position, the EEOC said, Perdue Farms refused to hire her. According to the EEOC, Perdue Farms subsequently hired approximately 74 substantially younger individuals within the month after Sheftall applied, including Sheftall’s granddaughter, who had applied on the same day as Sheftall.

In addition to paying monetary relief to Sheftall, the settlement requires Perdue Farms to take other actions, including providing annual training on age discrimination and unlawful retaliation to all of its managers and supervisors. In addition, Perdue Farms must post at its Lewiston facility a notice concerning employees’ rights under federal anti-discrimination laws and provide periodic reports to the EEOC on its hiring practices.

“The EEOC is committed to fighting age discrimination in the workplace,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District Office. “Applicants for employment must be evaluated based on skills and qualifications, rather than based on stereotypes about the abilities, or inabilities, of older persons. Every individual deserves the freedom to compete in the workplace on a fair and level playing field, without discriminatory barriers.”

Perdue Farms is one of the nation’s largest poultry producers. It has facilities in 16 states in the Eastern and Southern United States and employs approximately 20,000 people nationwide. The Lewiston facility where Sheftall applied processes roughly 40,000 chickens each day for sale to retailers.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site 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 ...