Skip to main content

EEOC Sues DHL for Segregating Employees by Race

Delivery Giant Unlawfully Assigned Drivers to Assignments and Neighborhoods Based on Race, Federal Agency Charged

CHICAGO - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today filed a race discrimination lawsuit against DHL Express, Inc. on behalf of a class of African-American employees who were given different job assignments because of their race. The EEOC received more than 20 charges of discrimination against DHL alleging that the shipping and delivery giant discriminated against black workers.

The EEOC's administrative investigation was conducted under the supervision of Chicago District Director John Rowe, who said that the EEOC's investigation found that DHL assigned black drivers to predominately black neighborhoods and white drivers to predominately white neighborhoods. “While this may not have been obvious to employees at first, over time, a pattern of segregation emerged,” said Rowe.

The EEOC's administrative investigation also found that DHL assigned more difficult and dangerous work to black employees than white employees. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, added, “Any employer who gives different work assignments to employees simply because of the color of their skin, sends a message to all of its employees that it is by no means colorblind. The concept of 'separate but equal' has long since been rejected. It has absolutely no place on the job. Everyone should understand that federal law -- Title VII -- expressly forbids the segregation of employees. In this case, as with all of our other cases, the EEOC is looking to ensure that all employees can work in an environment free of discrimination."

The case, captioned EEOC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on September 24, 2010 and has been designated Civil Action No. 10 C 6139. The government's litigation effort will be led by EEOC Trial Attorney Aaron DeCamp and Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.

DHL is part of Bonn, Germany-based Deutsche Post DHL, which, according to company information, generated revenue of more than $62 billion (currently about 46 billion Euros) in 2009, and calls itself "the global market leader in the logistics industry."

The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with area offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency's 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 ...