Skip to main content

Matrix L.L.C. Will Pay $450,000 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

PHILADELPHIA –Matrix, L.L.C., one of the region’s largest cleaning companies, will pay $450,000 to a class of 15 former employees and provide significant relief to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Matrix officials told white supervisor Barbara Palermi not to hire any more black cleaners to work at a client’s site in Concordville, Pa. When Palermi hired additional black cleaners based on their qualifications to do the job, Matrix dismissed her in retaliation for opposing the company’s racial discrimination.

The EEOC alleged that Matrix management officials also discriminated against the African-American cleaners, telling them to sit in the back of the cafeteria during break times and later disallowing them from using the cafeteria at all for their breaks. Matrix later fired all of the employees at the worksite and replaced them with an entirely non-black cleaning crew, the EEOC said in its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-06183.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, and makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for opposing discrimination, including opposing instructions to make hiring decisions based on race.

The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. In addition to the monetary relief to the class of fifteen, the three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit bars Matrix from engaging in any further race discrimination or retaliation. Matrix is required to train its supervisors and managers about the prohibitions against racial discrimination and retaliation, report to the EEOC regarding against complaints of discrimination or retaliation at the Concordville, Pa., work site and post a remedial notice. The consent decree was approved by the court on January 4, 2011. “We commend the company for its agreement to carry out the significant equitable relief provided in the consent decree, including providing expansive annual training, which will benefit all company employees,” said District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office. EEOC regional attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, “We appreciate Matrix’s cooperation and diligence throughout the negotiation process to resolve this case quickly without engaging in protracted and costly litigation.” The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

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 ...