Skip to main content

Mike Enyart & Sons Will Pay $87,205 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

Construction Company Fired Black Employee Because He Complained About Racial Harassment, Federal Agency Charged

BECKLEY, W.V. – A South Point, Ohio-based construction company will pay $87,205 in lost wages and punitive damages and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a federal race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. The EEOC had charged that Mike Enyart & Sons, Inc. discharged Mareo R. Allen in retaliation for his complaints about a racially hostile work environment.

The EEOC contended that a foreman and co-workers repeatedly used racially offensive epithets and slurs to Allen and other black persons when Allen worked for the company on a sewer line installation project in White Sulphur Springs, W.V. The harassment included physically threatening and intimidating actions, such as cutting Allen’s belt with a knife while Allen was wearing it and showing him a swastika that had been spray-painted onto company equipment, the EEOC said in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Civil Action No. 5:09-CV-00921. The EEOC also alleged that Allen was terminated in retaliation for his opposition to the racial harassment.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment based on race. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who opposes racial harassment or discrimination. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $87,205 in monetary relief to Allen, the five-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins Mike Enyart & Sons from engaging in discrimination or harassment based on race or retaliation in violation of the Title VII. The company will offer to hire Allen as a laborer for the first available position after the consent decree takes effect. The consent decree mandates that Mike Enyart & Sons will implement and disseminate policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation and set up procedures for receiving and investigating discrimination complaints. The company must provide training on Title VII to all supervisors and managers and an additional eight hours of training on investigating and taking corrective action regarding discrimination complaints to all employees with those job responsibilities. The company is required to report to the EEOC about the company’s response to any complaints of alleged harassment or discrimination and post a remedial notice.

“We commend Mike Enyart & Sons for working cooperatively with the EEOC to reach a speedy and satisfactory resolution to this lawsuit,” said Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “The consent decree includes significant equitable relief that will benefit all company employees.”

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 ...