Skip to main content

Federal Court Rules In EEOC’s Favor, Holding That Fired Employees Are Not Required To Return To School

ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- Finding that employees have no obligation to go to school after they are fired, a federal court in Rochester has denied Dresser-Rand Company’s attempt to limit damages in a long-standing lawsuit between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the company.

In 2004 the EEOC sued Dresser-Rand, a Houston-based heavy manufacturing company (Civil Action No. 04-6300-CJS in U.S. District Court for the XXX District of New York), for firing Harry Davis, a Jehovah’s Witness and a manual machine tool operator at Dresser-Rand’s Painted Post, N.Y., location, for refusing to work on a part intended for use in a submarine. In 2006 the court denied Dresser-Rand’s attempt to dismiss the EEOC’s lawsuit in its entirety, holding that the jury should decide if an accommodation that had worked in the past – allowing Davis to switch assignments with other employees – could continue.

In 2010 Dresser-Rand attempted to limit Davis’s back pay damages, arguing that he could have gone to Corning Community College for retraining as a computer machinist. On Aug. 11, 2011, the court denied the motion, holding that employees who are fired for discriminatory reasons must seek other employment, and are not required to go to school for retraining. The court said that because Davis had sought and found other employment, the fact that he did not go to school was irrelevant. The court prevented a defense expert from testifying about the fact that Davis did not go to school. A trial date has not been set.

“This decision makes the important point that an employee fired for a discriminatory reason is not required to seek retraining or additional education,” said EEOC New York Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman. “An employer cannot turn around and argue that its former employee somehow harmed the employer by not seeking retraining after being fired.”

“Davis did what the law requires: sought and found work with the skills he had when he was fired by Dresser-Rand,” added EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Michael J. O’Brien.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more