Skip to main content

Town of Elkton Will Pay $235,000 to Resolve EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

BALTIMORE - The town of Elkton, Md., will pay $235,000 and furnish other relief to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC alleged in its lawsuit that Elkton fired Andrew Johnson from his position as assistant town administrator/finance director because of his age, 70. Johnson's age was openly discussed as the reason for replacing him during meetings of town officials. One town commissioner said that Johnson was "in his 60s" and "no young chick" and suggested replacing him with a "young person out of college," the EEOC charged in its lawsuit. The town replaced him with two substantially younger employees, one as the assistant town administrator and the other as the finance director.

Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, Civil Action No. ELH 10CV2541, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $235,000 in monetary relief to Johnson, the three-and-one-half-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins the town of Elkton from further discriminating against employees and applicants based on age. The town must implement and distribute to all employees a policy prohibiting age discrimination and provide annual training for managers and employees on the ADEA and other federal equal employment opportunity laws. The town is also required to post a notice regarding the resolution of the lawsuit and report to the EEOC on its compliance with the consent decree.

"The record shows that this loyal and successful administrator was discarded simply because of his age," said Philadelphia District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. "The EEOC will always fight this kind of outrageous and harmful bias by employers."

EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, "We are confident that this settlement, including the mandatory training, will protect Elkton's employees and applicants from age discrimination in the future."

The Philadelphia District Office of the EEOC oversees Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and parts of New Jersey and Ohio.
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