Skip to main content

Briggs Equipment Settles EEOC Race Discrimination Suit

LAREDO, Texas – Briggs Equipment, Inc., a Dallas-based company and one of North America’s largest industrial and construction equipment distributors, will pay a former employee $112,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, Civil Action No. 5:10-CV-00108, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Laredo, charged that Briggs subjected Bobby Wysong to unlawful discrimination when it terminated him from his position as a technician because of his race, black. The EEOC further alleged that Briggs subjected Wysong to a racially hostile work environment. Mario Rodriguez, a management official for Briggs who had direct supervisory authority over Wysong, blatantly referred to Wysong, among other things, as a “n----r,” “mayate” (a racial epithet against blacks widely used in South Texas), “slave” and “dark horse” in conjunction with expressly stating he wanted Wysong fired. Rodriguez himself admitted to using the racial slur “n----r” at work and several witnesses corroborated that he routinely used racist epithets and made racist jokes at the workplace.

Further, the EEOC said, when Wysong was wrongfully discharged, he lost his company medical insurance, after which he incurred substantial medical bills due to orthopedic surgery.

Racial harassment -- including slurs and offensive or derogatory comments -- as well as discharge due to race violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office determined that Briggs had violated Title VII and after it tried to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the Commission’s conciliation process.

In the consent decree settling the suit, besides the monetary relief of $112,000, Briggs also agreed to negotiate and pay Wysong’s medical bills he incurred due to the loss of his health insurance, which have an approximate value of $273,000. Briggs agreed to comply in the future with Title VII and to provide training regarding Title VII to current employees assigned to work at the Briggs facility at Laredo. Briggs further agreed to modify its written anti-discrimination policy, which specifically addresses race discrimination.

“We are very pleased with the resolution of this case,” said Eduardo Juarez, senior trial attorney of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office. “Not only have we obtained significant financial relief for Bobby Wysong, the employment practices that Briggs uses will be greatly improved. No one should have to put up with racial abuse in their place of work – or, even worse, losing his livelihood because of racism. Smart employers can prevent racial harassment by not only promulgating anti-discrimination policies but also making such policies effective through regular training and monitoring.”

Supervisory Trial Attorney Judith G. Taylor of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office said, “We commend Briggs for acknowledging the importance of preventing discriminatory practices and that employees have the right to work in an environment that is free from racial harassment.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission 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 ...