Skip to main content

Cullman Company To Pay $100,000 To Settle EEOC Race Discrimination Lawsuit

Racially Hostile Work Environment Offends Black and White Employees at McGriff’s Truck Facility

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – McGriff Industries, Inc. and its subsidiary McGriff Transportation, Inc., which operated a truck transportation facility in Cullman, Ala., will pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC, certain employees and managers in the Cullman facility routinely used racially derogatory comments, slurs, and insults directed at or about African-Americans. The racial misconduct escalated to threats and intimidation, including a derogatory threat to cut one of the black employees. White and black employees were offended by the racial misconduct, but were rebuffed and retaliated against -- one employee was terminated and another had his work assignments changed -- when they complained.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from employment discrimination because of their race, sex, religion or national origin and from retaliation for complaining about it. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Northeastern Division (Civil Action 5:09-CV-01952-IPJ) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

The settlement, by consent decree entered by the court on June 22, 2010, provides for a total payment of $100,000 to Todd A. Roseborough, Sr., Paul Hogan and Aaron Greenwood. The decree also includes injunctive terms applicable to each of McGriff’s offices, facilities and retail establishments in the state of Alabama. Among other requirements, McGriff must develop and implement effective anti-discrimination policies and procedures, and train its employees, supervisors and managers on the prohibitions against racial misconduct in the workplace. The company will develop a system for reporting, investigating and addressing complaints of workplace racial misconduct; hold all employees accountable for engaging in it; and hold supervisors and managers accountable for tolerating or failing to address such misconduct.

“This case is important because no employee should be subject to racism in the workplace and every employee can be offended by a racially hostile work environment,” said EEOC Birmingham District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas. “We are pleased that McGriff's senior management is now taking an active role in promoting compliance with federal civil rights law.”

EEOC Birmingham District Office Regional Attorney C. Emanuel Smith added, “The Commission will continue to litigate cases involving allegations of a racially hostile work environment. We encourage employers to be proactive and responsive to employee complaints about workplace derogatory conduct or comments.”

The EEOC’s Birmingham District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Alabama, Mississippi and Northern Florida, with Area Offices in Jackson, Miss., and Mobile, Ala.

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 ...