Skip to main content

MV Transportation Settles EEOC Sex Bias Suit

FRESNO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the simultaneous filing and settlement of its gender discrimination lawsuit against MV Transportation, a provider of passenger transportation services.

Two former bus cleaners, both female, alleged that they were treated differently and ultimately terminated due to their gender, which EEOC alleged violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Both the lawsuit and the decree resolving the matter were filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (EEOC v. MV Transportation, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-02020-MCE-EFB). The facility in Merced, Calif., where the bus cleaners worked no longer exists. The company denied the allegations in the lawsuit, but worked with the EEOC for a positive resolution.

The company will pay $35,000 and furnish other relief to resolve the sex bias claims occurring at the company’s former Merced site. Aside from the monetary relief, MV Transportation agreed to take proactive measures to ensure against discrimination in the workplace, including revising its anti-discrimination polices and procedures, providing additional training to managers and non-management employees, and other remedies. MV agreed to implement the injunctive relief remedies at its Hartford, Calif., location.

“MV Transportation is to be commended for agreeing to substantial injunctive relief and we hope other employers will take similar proactive action,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, which includes Merced in its jurisdiction.

Melissa Barrios, director of the EEOC’s Fresno Local Office, added, “Gender bias continues to be a problem in today’s workplace, as our Fair Pay Day events highlighted. It is important for employers to recognize the need to address sex discrimination immediately so that the problem does not continue.”

According to the company’s website, Fairfield, Calif.-based MV Transportation employs over 12,000 employees in over 100 locations in 24 states throughout the United States.

The EEOC is the federal agency that 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 ...