Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

-~ ' ' ,. '
. ~ ,,~

'

:

;

F

/.(

'

1= '~

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION and NOVEON, INC.,

) ) )
)
) ) )
\·J•· Qd

Civil Action No.",,
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
CI:An. '11'i ~·~·

Defendants.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

MAGIS'tMTEJUOOi/ftt~

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct

unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and

retaliation by The Lubrizol Corporation and Noveon, Inc.

(hereafter "Defendants•), and to make whole True La and Michael

Richer (hereafter referred to as "La• and "Richer,"

respectively, and collectively as "Charging Parties"). As

alleged in greater detail in paragraph 7 below, Defendants

subjected Charging Parties to unlawful discrimination by (1)

creating and failing to remedy a hostile work environment on the

basis of La's race (Asian) and national origin

(Chinese/Vietnamese) and retaliating against him when he

complained; (2) constructively discharging La; and (3)

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 2 of 10
terminating Richer when he objected to the harassment of La and supported La's claim.
JU:RISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f) (1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
u.s.c. §2000e-5(f) (1) and (3).
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Comrr,ission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f) (1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f) (1) and (3). 4. Noveon, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a whollyowned subsidiary of The Lubrizo1 Corporation. The Lubrizol Corporation is an Ohio corporation. At all relevant times, Defendants continuously operated a plant located in Wilmington,
2

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 3 of 10
Massachusetts where both Charging Parties were employed, and continuously employed at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OJ!' CLAIMS
6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, the Charging Parties each filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
7. Since at least 2004, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703 (a) of
Title VII, 42 u.s.c. §2000e-(a) and (b). These practices
included, but are not limited to, the following: a) Employees of the Defendants harassed La on account of
his race and national origin throughout the term of his employment. La was born in Vietnam of Chinese parents. While this harassment often took the form of verbal insults and racially charged comments, La's coworkers also sabotaged the equipment La used on the job and otherwise hindered his ability
3

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 4 of 10

to excel as a full time extruder operator. Examples of such

harassment include, but are not limited to, the following:

i) Defendants' employees routinely verbally harassed La,

ridiculing his accent and calling him "shorty,"

•truck la la la," "kid," "boy," and "Little Chinese."

One coworker also suggested that La go back to

Vietnam, and he physically picked up La and

threatened to dump him in a garbage can.

ii) La's coworkers placed foreign objects such as

washers, hairnets, and colored pellets into the

chemical mixture used by the extruding machines, hid

tools La needed, spit on his equipment, and unplugged

his machines. When La complained to his supervisors,

he was instructed to fix the machines and keep

working or quit.

. . . \
ll.l;

One lead extruder operator employed by the Defendants

often singled out La for repeated harassment.

Re rring to La, he said that he was going to tell

his uncle, a Vietnam vet, that "he fucked up and

forgot to shoot one of them while he was over there."

In a separate incident, when La was having technical

difficulty with a computer, this employee commented,

4

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 5 of 10
"I thought all of them were computer literate." This operator was later promoted to supervisor. iv) Despite frequent complaints to supervisors and Human Resources personnel, nothing was done to redress the harassment La experienced on the job. Defendants did not conduct an investigation into his complaints until after he filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission. v) La's supervisors retaliated against his complaints of discrimination by assigning him menial tasks and by making him a "floater" rather than allowing him to work at a single machine. vi) Because of the harassment and lack of support he received after he complained, La was constructively discharged on or about June 16, 2005. b) Defendants also unlawfully retaliated against Richer when they terminated him for opposing Defendants' harassment of La and supporting La's claim, as follows: i) From the time he was hired in December of 2003, Richer received positive evaluations of his job performance. ii) In November of 2005, Richer was contacted by one of Defendant's employe~s who had investigated La's
5

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 6 of 10
charge of discrimination. Richer confirmed to this employee that La had been a victim of sabotage and ridicule motivated by racial and ethnic prejudice, in particular by the employee whose uncle was a Vietnam vet. This employee was told that Richer had supported La's claim. iii) In January of 2006, that employee became Richer's direct supervisor and, in his first week, took away Richer's title of Line Leader. On Febr~ary 1, 2006, Defendants terminated Richer's employment. When Richer asked for an explanation, his supervisors stated "poor performance" and refused to explain what they meant. iv) Although Defendants claimed that Richer was terminated because his performance was poor and he committed a time clock violation, these explanations were entirely false. In terminating Richer, Defendants ignored their progressive discipline policy by failing to issue him any warnings for his alleged performance issues. Defendant also disciplined him more severely for an alleged time clock violation than a similarly situated coworker.
6

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 7 of 10
8. The effect of the practices complained of has been to deprive the Charging Parties of equal employment opportunities, inflict emotional pain and suffering upon them, cause them to suffer financial losses, and otherwise adversely affect them.
9. Defendants' unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Charging Parties.
PRA~ZR FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race or national origin or that retaliate against individuals for engaging in protected activity; B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for employees, and which eradicate the effects of Defendants' past and present unlawful employment practices,
7

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 8 of 10
including training of all employees and counseling for those found to have harassed employees;
C. Order Defendants to make whole all those individuals affected by the unlawful employment practices described above, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendants' unlawful employment practices;
D. Order Defendants to make whole all those individuals adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices described above by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including pain, suffering, and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial;
E. Order Defendants to pay all those individuals adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices described above, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay all those individuals adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices described above punitive damages for their malicious and/or reckless conduct in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
8

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 9 of 10 H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
9

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 10 of 10

Dated: Boston, Massachusetts September 27, 2006
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Y. Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

~&r~
EliZa'bethGrossman

~"'--

tf

Regional Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

New York District Office

33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor

NY, NY 10004-2112

(212) 336-3696

elizabeth.grossman@eeoc.gov

M~n~
Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Boston Area Office John F. Kennedy Federal Building Room 475 Boston, MA 02203-0506 (617) 565-3193 markus.penzel@eeoc.gov

10

 
 uuu .,J-, .....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ

v.

THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION and NOVEON, INC.,
Defendants.

CONSENT DECREE
The parties to this Consent Decree are plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Corrunission (hereafter "EEOC"" and defendants The Lubrizol Corporation and Noveon, Inc. (hereafter collectively referred to as -Lubrizol" or -Defendanc"). The EEOC brought this action on September 27, 2006, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VrI"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the "Civil Rights Act·). The EEOC alleged that employees in Lubrizol's recently acquired Wilmington plant had discriminated against Truc La, who had been born in Vietnam, by creating a hostile environment based on his race and national origin and constructively discharging him. The EEOC also alleged that the same employees had discriminated against Michael Richer by

Case 1:06-cv-11734·RWZ Document 5-2 Filed 12/15/2006 Page 2 of 17
terminating his employment in retaliation for his support of Mr. La's claims of harassment.
The EEOC and Lubrizol (hereinafter "the parties") desire to compromise and settle the differences embodied in the aforementioned lawsuit, and the~efore do he~eby stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as final and binding between the EEOC and Lubrizol and its successors or assigns. The parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve fully this matter without the costs, uncertainty, expense, and delay of litigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows, the Court finds appropriate, and therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: I. General Provisions
1. The parties agree and the Court finds that this Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties, that venue is proper, and that all administrative prerequisites have been met. No party shall contest the validity of this Decree, or the jurisdiction of the federal district court to enforce this Decree and its terms.
2

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 5-2 Filed 12/15/2006 Page 3 of 17
2. This Consent Decree resolves all issues concerning alleged discrimination by Lubrizol through the date of this Consent Decree which were raised in the Complaint filed by the EEOC in this case. This Consent Decree also resolves all issues that were raised in the Charges filed by Truc La and Michael Richer with the EEOC and/or Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination against Lubrizol. The Parties agree and understand that this Decree in no way affects the EEOC's right to process any pending or future charges that may be filed against Lubrizol and to commence civil actions on any such charges.
3. The parties agree that this Decree may be entered into without Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law having been made and entered by the Court.
4. This Decree is being issued with the consenc of the parties and does not constitute an adjudication or finding by this Court on the merits of the allegations of the Complaint. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed as an a~~ission of liability on the part of Defendant, which has denied the allegations of the Complaint.
5. This Consent Decree shall become effective upon its entry by the Court (the "effective date") .
3

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 5-2 Filed 12115/2006 Page 4 of 17

6. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees,

unless otherwise specified.

7. The parties agree that this Consent Decree constitutes

the complete agreement between them, and it supersedes all

rights, obligations, negotiations, representations, and writings

prior to the date of this Consent Decree. No waiver,

modification, or amendment of any provision of this Consent

Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by

all parties to this Consent Decree, and approved or ordered by

the Court.

II. Injunctive Relief

Defendant and its managers, officers, agents, successors,

and assigns, will not discriminate against any individual

because of the individual's race or national origin, subject

employees to differential treatment regarding the terms and

conditions of employment on the basis of their race or national

origin, or engage in retaliation against any individual for

asserting her or his rights under Title VI:.

III.

MONETARY RELIEF

1. In settlement of this dispute, Defendant shall pay a

total of $414,000 (Four hundred and fourteen thousand dollars)

according to the following schedule:

4

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 5-2 Filed 12/15/2006 Page 5 of 17

a. On or before December 27, 2006, $130,000 to True La.

Such payment constitutes damages for alleged emotional pain and

suffering, for which a Form 1099 shall issue.

b. On or before December 27, 2006, $35,000 to Mitchell J.

Notis, Esq. as attorneys fees incurred by Mr. La in the legal

action which is the subject of this Decree.

c. On or after January 1, 2007, and before January 12,

2007, $130,000 to Truc La. Such payment constitutes damages for

alleged emotional pain and suffering, for which a Form 1099

shall issue.

d.

On or after January 1, 2007, and before January 12,

2007, $35,000.00 to Mitchell J. Notis, Esq. as attorneys fees

incurred by Mr. La in the legal action which is the subject of

this decree.

e. On or before December 27, 2006, $42,000 to Michael

Richer, in two separate checks of $:4,000, less deductions for

FICA, and $28,000, from which no deductions will be made. A

form W-2 shall issue for the $14,000 payment. A form 1099 shall

issue for the $28,000 payment, which constitutes damages for

alleged emotional pain and suffering.

f. On or after January 1, 2007, and before January 12,

2007, $42,000 to Michael Richer, from which no deductions shall

5

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 5-2 Filed 12115/2006 Page 6 of 17
be made. Such payment constitutes damages for alleged emotional pain and suffering, for which a Form 1099 shall issue.
2. The payment dates in separate tax years are a material condition of this agreement.
3. The payments to Mr. La and his attorney shall be subject to the execution by Mr. La of a separate release and settlement agreement acceptable to Mr. La and Defendant. All payments to Mr. La and Attorney Notis are to be delivered by overnight mail to Mitchell J. Notis, Esq., 370 Washington Street, Brookline, MA 02445.
4. The payments to Mr. Richer shall be subject to ~he execution by Mr. Richer of the release attached as Exhibit C. Payments to Mr. Richer shall be made by delivering, by overnight mail, checks payable to Michael Richer in the amounts set forth above to an address to be supplied by the EEOC.
S. Defendant shall send copies of the checks, W2 and 1099 forms, and proofs of mailing to EEOC c/o Markus L. Penzel, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, Boston Area Office, JFK Federal Bldg. Room 475, Boston, MA 02203-0506, simultaneously with Defendant's delivery to Truc La and Michael Richer.
6

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 5-2 Filed 12/15/2006 Page 7 of 17
IV. Non-Monetary Relief A. Posting No later than seven (7) days after the effective date,
Defendant shall post at its Wilmington, MA, facility a copy of a remedial notice printed on its letterhead and signed by its Chief Executive Officer, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." This notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree.
B. Anti-disorimination and EEO Polioies Defendant shall adopt as part of its HR policies and distribute to all employees the amended -Anti-Harassment and Nondiscrimination" policy and amended "Equal Employment Opportunity" policy attached as Exhibits "B.l" and "B.2". These amended policies will be adopted, distributed, and included in any relevant policy or employee manuals kept by Defendant, within thirty days of the effective date. C. Training 1. Defendants shall conduct a minimum four (4) hour training session for all management employees at its Wilmington facility on the requirements of Title VII, particularly as it concerns discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. The training session will be completed during the last quarter of 2008. A copy of the attendance sheet from the training session will be forwarded to the EEOC within ten (10)
7

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 5-2 Filed 12/15/2006 Page 8 of 17
days after its completion. Such training shall also be provided to all new management employees within sixty (60) days of their hire or promotion at the Wilmington facility within the term of the Consent Decree.
2. Defendants shall conduct a minimum two (2) hour training session for all non-management employees at its Wilmington facility on the requirements of Title VII, particularly as it concerns discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. The training session will be completed during the last quarter of 2008. A copy of the attendance sheet from the training session will be forwarded to the EEOC within ten (10) days after its completion. Such training shall also be provided all new non-management employees within sixty (60) days of their hire at the Wilmington facility within the term of the Consent Decree.
3. Within sixty (60) days of the execution date, Defendant shall submit its outline for the trainings to the EEOC, which shall evaluate them for substantial compliance. In the event that the proposed trainings are not acceptable to the EEOC, the parties will confer in good faith and attempt to reach an agreement no later than thirty (30) days after receiving the EEOC's objection. Approval will not be unreasonably withheld.
8

Case 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ Document 5-2 Filed 12/15/2006 Page 9 of 17

D. MONITORING

1. The EEOC has the right to monitor and review

compliance with this Consent Decree. Accordingly:

a) On or before six months from the effective date,

Defendants shall submit written proof via affidavit to the EEOC

that they have complied with the above requirements.

b) Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude

the EEOC from enforcing this Decree in the event that Defendants

fail to perform the promises and representations contained

herein.

V. T..rm of O..cr....

This Decree will remain in effect for two (2) years from

the effective date.

SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

Signed this

day of D~, 2006

9

 
 CM/ECF - USDC Massachusetts - Version 3.0.5 - Docket Report

https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?703007254842178-L_3...

United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-11734-RWZ

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commision v. The Lubrizol Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Rya W. Zobel Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 09/27/2006 Date Terminated: 12/18/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commision

represented by Elizabeth Grossman Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street 5th Floor New York, NY 20507 212-336-3701 Fax: 212-336-3623 Email: elizabeth.grossman@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Markus L. Penzel US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission John F. Kennedy Federal Building Room 475 Boston, MA 02203 617-565-3193 Fax: 617-565-3196 Email: markus.penzel@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The Lubrizol Corporation
Defendant Noveon, Inc.

Date Filed

#

Docket Text

1 of 2

6/12/2007 11:17 AM

CM/ECF - USDC Massachusetts - Version 3.0.5 - Docket Report

https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?703007254842178-L_3...

09/27/2006 09/27/2006 10/19/2006 10/19/2006 11/22/2006 12/15/2006 12/18/2006 12/18/2006

1 COMPLAINT against The Lubrizol Corporation, Noveon, Inc. Filing fee: receipt number NA, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Johnson, Jay) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Alexander. (Johnson, Jay) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed The Lubrizol Corporation waiver sent on 9/27/2006, answer due 11/27/2006. (Penzel, Markus) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed Noveon, Inc. waiver sent on 9/27/2006, answer due 11/27/2006. (Penzel, Markus) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
4 STIPULATION by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, The Lubrizol Corporation, Noveon, Inc.. (Van Oot, Martha) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
5 Assented to MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Consent Decree)(Penzel, Markus) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
Judge Rya W. Zobel : endorsedORDER entered granting 5 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment (Urso, Lisa) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
6 Judge Rya W. Zobel : Consent Decree entered. (Urso, Lisa) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/12/2007 12:19:52

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:06-cv-11734-RWZ

1

Cost:

0.08

2 of 2

6/12/2007 11:17 AM