Skip to main content

Interstate Distributor Company to Pay Nearly $5 Million to Settle EEOC Disability Suit

DENVER -- Interstate Distributor Company will pay $4.85 million and provide other significant relief to settle a nationwide class disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC's suit said the nationwide trucking firm unlawfully denied reasonable accommodations to hundreds of employees and fired them pursuant to Interstate's maximum leave policy.

According to the EEOC's suit, under the challenged leave policy, if an employee needed more than 12 weeks of leave, Interstate automatically terminated them rather than determining if it would be reasonable to provide additional leave as an accommodation. The EEOC also charged that Interstate violated federal law by refusing to make exceptions to its "no restrictions" policy. Under this policy, if an employee had restrictions, Interstate refused to allow them to return to work and failed to determine if there were reasonable accommodations that would allow the employee to return to work with restrictions.

Interstate's maximum leave and no restrictions policies violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability. The law requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation, such as paid or unpaid leave or some modifications to the job functions or reassignment, to an employee with a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer.

The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 12-cv-02591-RBJ, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The consent decree resolves the EEOC's lawsuit and seven charges of discrimination filed by individuals with the EEOC. The systemic investigation was conducted by the EEOC's Denver Field Office, which is part of the Phoenix District Office.

In addition to the $4.85 million in monetary relief, the three-year decree includes injunctions against engaging in any further discrimination or retaliation based on disability, and requires the company to revise its policies and ADA policy to include reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Interstate will provide mandatory periodic training on the ADA to employees. The company will also report to the EEOC about all employee complaints of disability discrimination relating to the attendance policy and about Interstate's compliance with the consent decree. The company also agreed to post a notice about the settlement. Finally, Interstate will appoint an internal consent decree monitor to ensure its compliance with the decree. The settlement applies to all of Interstate's facilities and employees throughout the country.

EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said, "I note that this outstanding and highly impactful resolution occurred during National Disability Rights Awareness month. I am pleased the parties were able to resolve this historic case without resorting to prolonged and expensive litigation and proud that the Commission has been very successful, particularly recently, in ensuring that people with disabilities are protected from workplace discrimination."

Nancy Sienko, field director for the Denver office, added, "This settlement demonstrates the need for employers to have attendance policies which take into account the need for paid or unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities."

EEOC Regional Attorney Mary O'Neill added, "This consent decree is the result of productive and thoughtful negotiations with Interstate. We appreciate Interstate working with the EEOC to reach a settlement. In addition to providing meaningful monetary relief for hundreds of former Interstate employees, the settlement contains important equitable relief, including company policy changes and training designed to provide people with disabilities equal opportunities in the workplace."

According to its website, www.intd.com, Interstate Distributor Company, headquartered in Tacoma, Wash., is a trucking company that operates in 48 states and Canada and employs 1,800 people nationwide.

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 ...