Case 1:05-cv-02577-RDB Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

City Crescen t Bu ilding, 3rd Floor

)

10 South Howard Street

)

Baltimore, MD 21201

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

A. E. SWEENEY MASONRY, INC.,

)

9933 Old National Pike

)

Hagerstown, Maryland 21740

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

Case No.
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of

the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to

provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Lloyd Weedon, Charging Party Kevin Morrison, and

other presently unidentified Black employees who were adversely affected by such practices. As

alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 7-14, below, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“the Commission”) alleges that the Defendant A. E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc. has

engaged in a continuous course of race discrimination that has persisted since at least April 2002.

JURISDICTION 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) ("Title VII"), and

Case 1:05-cv-02577-RDB Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 2 of 7
Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), 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. At all relevant times, Defendant A. E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc. (“Defendant”), a Maryland corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of Hagerstown, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Lloyd Weedon and Kevin Morrison filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least April 2002, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Hagerstown, Maryland facility and at its job sites in violation of Section 703(a)(1) and (a)(2) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and (a)(2).
2

Case 1:05-cv-02577-RDB Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 3 of 7

8.

Beginning on or about April 2002 and persisting until on or about June 11, 2004,

Defendant, its supervisors and employees subjected Lloyd Weedon to a continuing course of

unwelcome and offensive harassment because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII. Such

harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of race and culminated in tangible

employment actions. Defendant also had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment

and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the

harassment.

9. During the course of his employment Defendant subjected Lloyd Weedon to different

terms and conditions of employment, such as more difficult and demanding job assignments than

those given to White employees, because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII.

10. On or about June 11, 2004, Defendant discharged Lloyd Weedon because of his

race, Black, and in retaliation for engaging in conduct protected under Section 704(a) of Title VII,

in violation of Title VII.

11. Beginning on or about June 2003 and persisting until on or about June 7, 2004,

Defendant, its supervisors and employees subjected Kevin Morrison to a continuing course of

unwelcome and offensive harassment because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII. Such

harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of race and culminated in tangible

employment actions. Defendant also had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment

and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the

harassment.

10. During the course of his employment Defendant subjected Kevin Morrison to

different terms and conditions of employment, such as involuntary transfer, because of his race,

3

Case 1:05-cv-02577-RDB Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 4 of 7
Black, and in retaliation for engaging in conduct protected under Section 704(a) of Title VII, in violation of Title VII.
11. On or about June 7, 2004, Defendant discharged Kevin Morrison because of his race, Black, and in retaliation for engaging in conduct protected under Section 704(a) of Title VII, in violation of Title VII.
12. Since at least April 2002, Defendant, its supervisors and employees have subjected a class of presently unidentified aggrieved Black employees to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of their race, Black, in violation of Title VII. Such harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of race. Defendant also had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the harassment.
13. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7-14, above, has been to deprive Lloyd Weedon, Kevin Morrison, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Black employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their race.
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-14, above, are part of a continuing course of race discrimination perpetrated Black employees by Defendant that has persisted since at least April 2002.
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-14, above, were and are intentional.
18. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-14, above, were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Lloyd
4

Case 1:05-cv-02577-RDB Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 5 of 7
Weedon, Kevin Morrison, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Black employees. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in race discrimination, including racial harassment, discharge, imposition of different terms and conditions of employment, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race or because of conduct protected under Section 704(a) of Title VII. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Black persons, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant to make whole Lloyd Weedon, Kevin Morrison, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Black employees 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 its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and front pay in lieu thereof. D. Order Defendant to make whole Lloyd Weedon, Kevin Morrison, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Black employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7-14, above, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendant to make whole Lloyd Weedon, Kevin Morrison, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Black employees by providing compensation for past and future non-
5

Case 1:05-cv-02577-RDB Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 6 of 7
pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7-14, above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to pay Lloyd Weedon, Kevin Morrison, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Black employees punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7-14, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
6

Case 1:05-cv-02577-RDB Document 1-1 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 7 of 7
/s/ GERALD S. KIEL (Bar No. 07770) Regional Attorney EEOC-Baltimore District Office City Crescent Building, 3rd Floor 10 South Howard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Telephone number: (410) 962-4207 Facsimile number: (410) 962-4270/2817
/s/ TRACY HUDSON SPICER (Bar No.08671) Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC-Baltimore District Office City Crescent Building, 3rd Floor 10 South Howard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Telephone number: (410) 962-4623 Facsimile number: (410) 962-4270/2817
7

 
 Case 1:05-cv-02S/ (-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31 /Lu06 Page 1 of 27

I~ THE LJNJTED STATES DJSTRlCT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF 1\lARYLAND

EQUAL Ei\lPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COM1\lISSJON.

)

}

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

.\..E. S\VEENEY '1ASONRY, INC,

)

}

Defendant.

)

---------------------------------)

Case No. J~[)B-05-CV-2577

CO~SENT DECREE This Consent Decree is entercd into by the Plaintiff. the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or "EEOC") and the Ddcndanl A.E. Sweeney ~v!asol1ry. Inc. (Defendant), their directors. offil.:ers, agents, successors or assigns. The Commission commenced tll is action on Septelllber 15. 2005. ill the United Statc;,; District Court for the District of MalyJand (NOl1ilcrn Division) against Defendant A.E. Swceney. 1n its Complaint. the Commission alleged that Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices by subjecting Charging Parties Lklyd Weedon and Kevin l'vlonison to certain unlawful employment practk~s because oftheir mce. Black. and Section 704(a) protected conduct in violation ofTi! Ie VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 USc. § 200(k. £! ~. ("Title VI ("). The Commission further alleged that Defendant subjected a ..:lass ofunidelltified, ::.imilarly-situatcd Black employees to racial harassment because ofthcil" ma:. Black. in violation ofTitlc VII. In an attempt to avoid further litigation costs and as a rl~sult of settlement discLlssions. the

I

Case 1:OS-cv-02S7 (-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/20U6 Page 2 of 27
Comf11is~ii)n <Jnd J)('fcntiant now cksire10 resolve this cKlion and:ill issul~s raised by the Comrlaim. For the purpose of resolving 111 i~ action, the partics acknowledge the jurisdiction of the L:nited Slates Distrlct ('our! for the District of Maryland (Northern Division) over the subject Ilutter and (wcr thc part les to thi:-, case for the puql0se of entering th b Consent Decree and. if necessary. enforcing this Decree.
The Parties hereby agree that: J. The Court. hu\ing examin('d the terms and provision::; of the Consent Decree. find that it is rcas(lIHmlC' andjust in accordance with the Federal Rules orei"i! Proccdun: and Titk VII. Til.: entry of this COl1~ent Decree wi II fu!1hcr the objectives of Title V!l and will be in the best i ntercSb of the partks and those for whom th.: [[OC seeks relief
This [kcree shall constirute a full discharge and satisfaction of any and all claims which h:1\'e been alleged in the Complaint tiled in this Title VIJ action by the EEOC based on the 1.:'[O("s determinations ofdiscriminatioll /Ilrthe charges tikd by Lloyd Weedon and Kevin :'i\(lITisOIl (EEOC administrative charge numb('rs 120-2004·04 J 1J and 120-2004-00SJ3). In this regard. this D~'crl~e cOllstitutes a settle-ment of the instant action brought by tbe EEOC: howevcr. this Decree shall 1101 constitute it dischargt: or satisbction of any claims regarding persons whom arc nOl receiving monetary rclicfundcr this Decree. nor shall it operate to prevent EEOC from bringing an act ion ill till' future ba~ed on another charge ,If result in!:! EEOC detel111ination n:ganJing past, present (II' future aggrieved persons whom have n01 received monetary relid' uJ1(kr thi~ Deere..:.

Case 1:OS-cv-02Si (-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2uU6 Page 3 of 27
!\ON-DISCI< (M INA TJON 3. Dc!endant. its own-:rs. unicefs. agents. employees. ~uccl.'ssors. assigns. and all persons in acti \e C(}l1ecrt or parr.icipat](\n wilh it shall Cl)):lply \\'ith all pro\ ision:.. ofTitlc VJ I and is l'lljoincd frolll any present Of future violations of Title VIl. Prohibited discrimination includes. but is llot limit.;d to, any hatas~il1g conduct or other discriminatil111 because of race. cl1lm. and'Of conduct prorccted under Section 704(<1) ofTit!e \'11,
M)N-RElALlAT10N 4. Defendant. its OWf1I..'f:'), oniccrs. agents. employees. successor~. assigns, and all persons in active concert or participatioll with it shall not engage in reprisal onclaliation of:ll1Y l;ind against allY person bec,luse .such person. eithl~r ill the past or in Ih(> future: (a) opposed any practice mauc dll!<J\\ ful or reasonably be/in ed !(l be un),l\dlll under Title VJl; (b) tiled a charge of discrimination with the Commission or any fair employmcllt praetict's agency; (e) wa" identitled as a pOlential witness for the EEOC in an action: (<1) f('quested amliN received relief in accorclanc(~ with this Decree: (d l participated in any manner in all actioll und~'r Tille VIlor in any investigation giving rise to such aclion: or (e) asserted any rights under this Deere..... III thb regard. Defendant ~hall not take any action against any person(s) which constitutes intimidation. coercion. retaliation. harassment. or interfcrcnc.: with the c.\cr..:is..: (If ~uch persoll's rights under Title V11 bCC(lUSC of the tiJing of Charge :--.Jos. 120-2004-04111 or 12F-2004-()051 J wilh tile EEOC. which form the basil, for this ca~t:. or bccau~e ~lldl person(s) ga\ e testimony or assistance. or participated in any manner in any proceeding ill COllncetinl1 with this case under Title VII.

Case 1:05-cv-0257 r -ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/20u6 Page 4 of 27

RECORD-KEEPI~D

~ DcfC'lldu n1 shalJ conlply \vith aJ] applicable rt')~ord-kccping rcqu irenlcnls of Ti1le \/11

thc COnJmi:)sioll's rcgulations, incluuillg but not limited 11.1, 29 C.F.R. § r 602.14.

1\0\:-/\ mvllSS10!\

h. This Decree. being entered with the consent of the EEOC and Defendant shall not

conslilute dn adjudication or finding on tilt' mefit~ of this case and slJall n(lf be conslruca a.<- ,m

admission of liability by Defendant nor as a disavowal by the EEOC of the allegations in the

Complaint.

COVERED FACILITIES

I

The provisions of this Conscot Decree shall apply to all of Defendant's facilities and

DURA no\: OF DECREE

8.

This COllsent Decree shall be in effect f,)f a period of four (4) years from the (hll\.~ it

is elltc[\.'d by the Court.

~lOi\TL~RY A!\D OTHER CJI:\RCi!\:G PARTY Rfl.lFF

g. Defendant shall pay compensatory damages to Charging Party Lh)yd Weedon in the

amount of 530.000.00. This mOlletarv rdief shall be paid in fOllr (4) pllyml.'nls by check. ill the

amount ofS7500.00 each nwde paj~lblc to Lloyd Weedon in II l'cnrda nee with the following dcJi\ cry

schedule: (a) the lin;! check :;hall be p,1id 1lt11 later than fouf/(.'eJ1 ( J4) day::. after entry ofthi:; Decree

by the COllli; (b) the second clll.'ck shall be paid not later than three (3) Ill(lllths and !(\lJrtccn (14)

days alkr elltry of this Decree by the Court: (c) the third check shall be paid not later than six (6)

1111)111hs und fourteen ( 14) day·s arkr entry of this Decree by Ihe Couri: llnd (d) The fOUllh check shall

4

Case 1:OS-cv-02S'{ (-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2ulJ6 Page 5 of 27
be paid not later than lline {9, months and fourteen (14i day' after entry of this D.:crec by the Court. f)cl~'ndant shull Illail cach of the aforcmentioned checks to ,\:1r. Weedon by cCI1itkd mail at an address to be provided by EEOC, Within three (3) days ofcadl payment. Dd'tndtil11 ::.hall send a pilol!),'oPY llf the ch,~d payable to 1. klyd Weedon, along with a plw!ocopy of the Certified Mail receipt, tn Supervisory Trial .-\t1omey. Tnlcy Hudsoll Spicer at the EEOC's Baltimore Field Office. Failul't: to make any paymcnr within the tink' set for pa:,l11cnt in thi~ Paragraph shall constitute a material hreaeh (lithe parties' af,'Teemcnt and noncompliance with this Decree for which Defcnd:lIlt and Arthur Edward Sweeney, .II'.. shall pay, for each day Def"::lldant is late in making payment to Charging Part~· Wcedon. iJltere~t compolln(kxl at the IRS qU~lrfcrly rate for unpaid taxes. for all payment in arrears.
10. Defendant shall ray compensatory damages to Charging Party Kevin Ivlorrisoll in the am(lunt of S30.00n.oo. This lllollct~lry relief shall b..:: paid in four (4) paymenti- by ched, in the amount nfS7.500.00 each made payahle to KC\'jn !\rlorrison in accordance with the rollowingdcJi\'(~ry schedule: Ill) the first check shall be paid Il(lt later than fourtCl'l1 (14) days afkr ent ry of this Dccrce by the COllrt: (b) the second check shall be paid not later than three (3) months :lI1d fourteen ( J4) days atter c'nlry o1'l111s Denee by the Court: (c) th~' third check shalJ bc paid not later than six (6) months and fourte-:n ( 14) days after entry of this O.:;;rec by the Court; and ,el) tile fourth check shall be paid l1nt later than nine (9) month:, uno fourteen ( J4) days alter l'll!ry of thi~ Decree by llw C\)'.JrI. Dcj(.'ndant shall mail each (If the aforementioned checks to rvlr. i'v1orrison hy ccr1ifk'd mail at an
address to be pr(lvided by H:OC. Within three n) day~ of eadl payment, Dekndal11 shall send a or photocopy the ehe;.;k pa)~tbk to Kc\ in IVI,)rrisol1, along with a pbotocopy of the ('l'ltified 'vlail
receipt. til Sllpcrvi~ory rrial Attorney, Tracy Hudson Spicer at the EEOC's Baltimore Field Orfice',
.5

Case 1:05-cv-0257 (-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2tJU6 Page 6 of 27

Fnilurc to make any pay111.:nt within th.., tir.lC S;:I fl)r payment in this Paragraph shall constitUTe a material breach \)fthe parties' agr.:emelll and nOllcompliancL' with this De(.'rcc for which Defendant ,md Arthur Edwrtrd Swceney, Jr., shall pay. for ea.:b day Dctt'ndanl is late in making p<lymel1t to Charging Party \l(lrri~Dn. il1l..:r..:st cornpound..:d ilt the IRS qUilrkr1y rate for unpaid iaxes, for all payment in arrears.

I 1. In thl' e\'Cllt that any of the aboh'·rcferencw paymL'nb cannot be delivered to the mdi\iduals cksignatcd because such p.:r~nll has moved from the address pnl\'idcd by the EEOC. Defendanr ::,hall promptly contact SupenisnryTrial Attofl1L'Y. Tracy Hud~(ln Spicer, offhe EEOC's Ba ltimt11'e Field Offi.:c to obtain il current addrc:ss t~)r such individuaJ for purposes of prompt Certitied \13il delivery, or, if a current mailing addrcs:> i~ not il\'ailabk, to otherwise make arrangements for prompt payment to such individua I. Dcfl~fldan! shall thercaikrpromptly report any dJ()[1S madc to (.kJi\l.~r p3ymL'nt and ~han eXI.~rcis.: due diligence to complete such ddivery.

12.

Defendant shall issue, 10 each person receiving monetary relief pursuant to this

Consent De(;rel'. an lRS Form 1099-:\-lisc for each calender year in which such person received

paymenl and rctle(;ling the amounts paid to that p..:r:,on in that caknder year.

13. Defendant shall offer to unconditional Jy reinstate Charging Purly Lloyd Wcedon and Charging Party Kevin Morrison to the ro~itions they held at tht' tim~ of their dis~hargcs by DdenJant. tu include the pre1>t:nt pilY rate jill' such positions, any and all applicable hellcfits. and retroactive sClli(l[ity to include seniority cred il for all prc\·j\)U~ pl'riods of cmp](\ymclll as well as Ihe period clHullH.:ncing on the dates of their discharges up 10 and including the elates of their rein!:>tatcmcnt. Such oifers ;;11<111 be 1't1~I(k twicc to \h. Wl'cdpil and twit',' to \·1r. \·lorri:;on. The

Case 1:05-cv-025f f -ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2l.JLl6 Page 7 of 27
\)trl.'r~ to lhe Charging Paliks ~hall occur as ~O()ll as practicable regarding the tirst tWO p()sition~ i iob.1 that becorne available aft.:r this Decree I::; entered by the Court The Charging Parties shall hm'C three {3) dayo, after receipt ofsllch offers to ilecepllhcm. and ifnOl accepted within Iha! period. they shall be c()n~i(kred r(~i,-'ctcd. Eaeh off~'r shall be madc in wriling and .~hall id('lltilY the po:,ition offered. the ray rate for sllch position, any and all applicable benefits (ifany), the start date. contild pcr~(ln. the fact fhat the offer must be acceptl'd with in three (3) days or it is considered rl.'jt.:eled, and the geographic location of the job in question. Ddcndant ~hall mail each ofthl' aforementioned reinstatement offers by cel1ificd mail. \Vithin ten (10) days of each offer. Defendant t>hall send a photOcopy of the Oft!:f and response (if any), along with a photocopy of the Certified :"1ai I receipt, to Surcr\i:>ory Trial Attornt.:y. Trac:y Hudson Spic:cr at the EEOCs Baltimore Field 0lTlcc.
14. In the evel1t that Charging Party Lloyd Weedon andlor Charging Party Kevin \-lorrisol1 reject both offers of reinstatement tendered by Defendant in accordance Wiih the fl'quirclllcnts of this Decree. Dekndant shall provide hI thaI Charging Party 111" positive kiter of recommendation that was prcviolJsly agreed upon with the EEOC.
15. Defendalll ~hall answer any inquire:; about Charging Pany Lloyd Weedon or Charging Party Kevin \!orrison frolll their prospective employers by providing a neutral reference stating that the person was employed by Defendant. the dates of his <:mp)o),lllellt. and his position. Dd0nda111 shall 110t proyi(k any fLlrthc~r information about either Charging Pany to prospective l..'!11plo),ers, inc Juding but not limited to any asse~&ll1ent of their j,/b performance. this Consent Decree. this Action, the charges of discriminati,)fl filed hy the Charging P<Hties, or their allcgatioTls of discrimination,

Case 1:05-cv-025'{ (-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2lJ06 Page 8 of 27
16, Dekndant's owner Arthur (Ed) Sweeney, k shall serve as guarantor of any and all monetary rdiefp:.tyml..'nls requir.:d 10 be made by Dcfcndam under the terms of this Consent Decree, In the event that the Defendant is unable to pay any amount rl.'(luircd 10 be paid in the foregoing paragraphs, such amount(s) shall bl' paid by ML Sween!,;y in accordance \\'il11 the tenns \)1' this Decree.
mWTA13L£J,\ELlU:: REPORTS TO EEOC OF_DISCRI\11NATlO?\ ALLEGATIOi\S AND WITNESSED CONDUCT
17, Dcf.:ndant shall submit written reports to the Cnmmis;;ioll regarding thc follcl\\ ing: (a} ,iii written ur H'rbal complaint.; of race and,or color iWl'a::>srnent or other race andor colm' discril:linatlon made tn an\' perst)]) wilh managerial ;Illdor supcfyisory Huth()fily or any p~rson designated by D~kndHnt to receivc such complaints. whether sufticicnt to stile un actionable claim undcr Tith: VI! or not. and any a.:tiol1 tah'll in response to th.: c(lmplainb; and (b) fI:g.;ln:lles~ of whethl.'l' any complaillt was made ill' not. all circumstances about which a person \\ith 11l31lagerial and or supervi~(lry authority has actual knowlcdge and whkh would Uluse n n~as(lnablc pcrson to suspect that ruce and/or color harassment or other race and/or color discrimination may have uccurred, and any action taken in response to those circumstances, The reports must b(" sent to the COl1lmissiml·S Baltimore Field OfficI." to til..: atkntion of SUp":f\fSllry Trial :\lhWI1(')'. Tracy BudSI'm Spicer, \\i!hin "evcn (7) days of any complaints ttl manag,;rs, supcnisors or pcr~()n designated by Dcfendall!, Of within seven (7) days of J person with managerial andor supcn'isory a\lthority acquiri Ilg act\lal l\nowkdgc of facts that could gih' rise to an objc(tivcly rca.'iomlbk suspicion that race dlllhH' color hara:;s!1lcnt or ()tller rae..: and or eohlr di,~.::riminationl1l(lY hilVi; oc(urrcJ, wh ichcv..:r is tirst. Such rcpnrt~ "h:lll L'(lntain 1he l(llJowing: (a j a detailed lwrrati\C of the c irClll11stanccs of th('

Case 1:05-cv-025r ( -RDB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2l!uo Page 9 of 27
c<)mpi<lint or licquirecl knowledge: (b) the dales and lime::. pertinent 10 the complaint or Klw\\lcdgl.' being n:p0l1ed: (c) the idkl::!ations of race and or color harassment or other T:lCe and.or color disl.'riminatillil and tIll' f:lct:" known and 'or alleged that arc relevant 10 such complaint: (ell a specific de5cription uftl1\.' klhlWkdgc of plhsihle harassment and or other di~crinti nation tlwt wa~ acquired: (c) 1he bll name, job title, social :;ecurity number, work addrcs:;, last known home addr('ss. and last known home telephone number of any complainant: (l) the bllname. job title, lind \\"llrk address of an~ pcr:;on with lllanagi.~ria! and"}r supcni:;.,ory authority with acquired knowkdg,' of possible discrirninatinn: (g) the full name. job titk and \vnrk address llf any persons \vho n:ceived any complaints; (h) if other than rhe complainant. the full name, job title, social security number. work ,lddress. la"l knowll home address, and Jasi known home telephone number (If( I ) any per:;.,on alleged by a compJainanllo have been a \iclim of disc rim inalion or. where there has been no complaint, (2) the P()lclltial dbcriminatL'c \\ ho is the subject ofllle knowledge acquired by a ])e1':-;on \\ jth rnanag('ria I and/or supervisory authority: (i) the lhl1 name ,job titie, work address. and profcs~ional relationship to the complainant or potential discriminatec of the person or persons whose conduct is the subject
of a complaint or acquircd K!1owkdgc being r~'portcd; Cj) and the full name. j()b title. and wl)rk
address (If any kl1o\\,11 l1f alleged \\ itnesses to tk incidents idkgcd by a compbinant or reported by a person \\'ilh managerial anejior sup0rvi~OI)! authority. Such report::. Illu:-;t be updated and sent 10 the COll1mission \; 8a ltimore Fidd Office e\cry fourteen (14) days thefcafh:r until timll action is taken by Defendant on th(' complaint ur the circunls!,mces :;ugg('~til1g p05~ibh: harassment and/or diS~'ritl1inati()n, Defendant shall append to all n:pol1s rl'q'Jin:d by Ihis 1'1'0\ i:;ion of the Decree any and al! doc,m1cnts gClwral,:d or obtained in COl1l1l'cfion with a complaint, allegation or acquired knowledge <lndor in the eou,,"c of its inn:stigations. including, but not limited to. any l."harges.
9

Case 1:05-cv-0257 {-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2CJuo Page 10 of 27
..;ompiai nts. cnrr('~rondence, inwstigarory reports, memoranda. l1uh:'s. witnes,~ statements. aftidu\ its or other related dllCUl1l('nb of allY charac1er. Dcf~lldant shall retain {my and all sueh docunll.:nti'. for th' duration of thi~ Cmscnt DCl.'rec and for onc \ I} year thereafter.
EQUlTABLE REllEr: POLICIES AND TRAI~I;-";Ci 18. Defendant shall adopt and adhere to the anti-harassmentianti-discrimination policy ~ct forth in Attachment A. Defendant ~hall distribute a copy of its anti-harassmcl1t.'antidiscrimination Jilllicy to all curr('nl owners. oflicers. employees ill1d indcpend\.'nt contractors with in !ourtc-.;n (14) days ortll(; cnrry of this Consent Decree by the Court. Defendant shall provide a copy llflhis policy to allncw officers. employees ;Jnd indq)cndent cnntraclllf'> hired during the operation ,)1' this I),'cree on such person's fir~t day of work. Defendant :-,h<111 maintain a Spanish languagc translation of the abovc·rct'cfeneed policy set forth in AttachnlL'nt B and shall provide it TO persons \\ hom arc limited in the ability to read and umkrstand the English language but whom arc able t(l read and understand the Spanish language, \\lith regard to any persons whom Defendant determines drc Iil1l it;:d ill the ability 10 read and lIndcrsiand th..: El1gli~h language but WhOlll arl' !lot able to ['ead Jnd ulltkrst:tnd the Spanish langu,lgc, Defendant ,,!I.,ll make all (\bjcctiYcly reas(lllabk I.'rtt)rlS to explain The abovc-rctercnc('u policy to such persons by mcans of c()l11mul1ica!j~lD that such persons understand. Dctcnlial11 shall be free to increase the protecti(\IlS affimkd by this poli..:y by (al dcsignati ng additipll.tl ;l\CnUeS nfcl)mrlni nr for pOlcnli;11 victims <llldl)r( h) defining and prohibiting forms (1 r discrim i naliol1 not e~pressl y pwh ibitcd bY' flCdlCral stalLlll.'S enforced by 1hIC E [OC as 0 f the date of entry l)f this Decree. ICJ. Defendam shall n:qUlre a11 current and future owners. (lfticcrs. managers, supcnisors, and p(,fsons designated to rceei"e and/or investigate complaints ofharaSSDlcl1t and/or discriminatioIl
In

Case 1:05-cv-02577-RDB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 11 of 27
T() attend training rcg,lrding the requjrel11cnt~ ofTitloVl1, with particular cmphasis ())J race and color h::ml~~ment other f()fm~ of race and color di~criminilti,)n. and prohihited retaliation. Such training shall be not less t!l;Jn thn.'c (3) hours in duration. In addition. the owners of Defendant and any !wrson(s) designated to inv.:stigate complaints of harassment and/or discrimination shall attend training regarding legal iltalldards and practical techniques for conducting iil\'cstigations ofalkf:,'Cd iJauISSn1cf1t and/or discrimination. Such training is to be provid.:d by a third-party at t11.: c,Xp.:nse of DefendanT. with format and content of training subjec.:t to revi~'w by the Commission. The training must be conduch'd within one (I) mOl1th after entry of this Decree and (me (I) month after the .:()mll1,.ml'('m~'11t of employmellt II)l' all flew hirc,~ in such p()sitiolls. The EEOC must he notified. in
or writing. (IS ILl tho? identity and qllatitieuti()lb of the traim'f. all contenl such training (including
training );lallllab and handout materials'l, method of prc&cl1tatiol1. length of training cnurse( s) and th.: na111':5 and job titles of attendees \vithin OIlC (1) month of such training. Defendant shall have the option of :ludiotaping or videotaping the first training session and then fulfilling its duty to Pl\l\ ide any sub~equent training ~ession,; n.'q~lired by this Decree by fI.'quiring trainees tn listen to
or :lll :tudi(ltapcd session or by requiring attl:ndance of trainecs at a viewing a \ideotapcd session.
Any trainee who H.'eei vcs training via audiotape on idcotapc of a previous sessi(\1l shall be given the name and tclcphonL' !lumber of a Defendant contact person and instructed to direct any questions rcgardi!l.~111L' content of the training to that conuct pc'l';on who slnl!. if unable: to ans\,cr <.lnC or mor(" such questions. CIlllSUIt \vith the third-party trainer referenced herein.
20, Dl:fcndant shall prO\idc a one (I) hour training session to all current and future employees fl'garding tile anti-haraSSlllentianti-disaimination policy set f0l1h in Attachment A (or jf applil'ablc. Attachment B) in a reasonahly prompt manner not to excc>?d the end of such
11

Case 1:05-cv-025Tr -ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/20u6 Page 12 of 27
cmploy('c'S firs! \vcek of work, or ill the w~c of current cmployees. within one (1) month of elltry of this Decree. Dcftndant shall have Ihe option (If audiotaping or videotaping thl? first training session and tlH.!11 fulfilling its duty 10 providc any subsequent training sessions required by this Lkcr.::e by rcquiringtrainccs to listcn to an audltJtapccl ses~i()n or by n:quifing allcndance oftrainec~ at a \ icwing (l fa videotaped s('ssion. An:ltraine(' who reeeivcs training via audiotape or videotape ora pre\iou~ session shall be givcn thc Ilame and telephonc number of a Defendant cuntact person .lllll instru.:tcd to direct any questions regarding the content of the tmining to that contact person who ~hal L if unahle tn answer one or more such qu('stion:" consult with th" thi I'J-party trai ner referenced herein, In the event Defendant exercises this option, within it reasonable time frame aner t:ntry of this DCCft:e by til" Court Defendant :;11all secure the services of a qualified Spanish language interpreter to inTerpret. at J>Cfcndl1nt' s expense. any train ing session that has been Hudiotaped or \id"otaped in English for presentation to trainees, and shall pre:,;c!1t the Spanish language interpretation to persons whom arc limitt:d in their ability to undl'r:,;land spoken English Of who ()lherwisl.~ rcqlK'st a Spanish vef:>ioll of the training,
EQUITABLE RELIEF: POSTING OF NOTICE 21. Detl-ndants shall post copies of the Notice attached as Attachment C in a conspkuous kl(alion at all ofthdr facil ities and al all places \\I1(;re emrlo)'ee n()ticc~ arc posted. The ~O!ice Sh;lJl Ill' poskci for a period of four (4) years, with such period commencing upon entry of this Decree, Such ~otjCi.' shall be typed legibly using not le::'$ than !wclve ( l2) point font. If I1lUltipk pages arc used for each slleh Notice. they shall no! be displayed one page behind another butlllll~t be posted sOlhat all pages arc in order and siJl1ulwlleou<,ly \j~ibk {i.I..'., in horizontal row (If vertical column configuration:1. In addition, Defendant shall post notice of all applicable federal equal employment
12

Case 1:05-cv-02577-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 13 of 27
,,1PPOflUlliiy laws and all other nMices rcquirc'(I by law. In the eh':llt tha! any of aforcmentioned notices b\.'cul1lc~ ddaceo. marred or othemisc made unreadable. Dckndant shall immediatcly p()st a rcadabk copy of such noticc(s).
D1SPLTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE 22. This Court ~hall retain ,IurisdictiulIl() enforce the terms of this Deerec and \vill have all av:.tilablc pO\\crs 10 ~'nforce thi:,; Decree. induuing but not lirnild to monetary sancti(1I1S and injunctive relief III this ri!gard. the Court shall rl.'Tain,lurisdictiol1 to enforce this Dcere(' regarding all acts or omissions of Dcf0ndant that arc covered by the terms of the Decree and that occur within the fOelf (4) y.:ar duration "f the Decr..:-.:, 23. Cpnf1 111ot10n of the C'()rnnlisslon. this CouI1 rnay schedule a hearing for the purpo:-;c of r':\'i~~\\ ing compliance with this (nilsen! Decree. Prior to such motion. the Commis:;ion shall rwtifY the Defendant. in writing, ofth.: alleged non-compliance. Upon rcc.:ipt of written notice, DetL'ndant shall haw tittel-'ll (J 5) days to either correct the 11 l1cgcd violation, and so inform the other pan)" or deny the alleged violation, in writing; .l\. If the pani..:-s remain in dispute th..:-y shall ;ltt..:-mp! in good faith to n,~solvc their dispute: B. If the parties can not in good faith r0;olve their dispute. the Commis.~ion may lik \\ ith the COll!1 a motion to correct and remedy the breach; C. Each pa rty ;,ha 11 bear its o\\n C\lst:-, expenses and attorn..:y's fees incurrL'd III connection with such action: and D. .Jurisdiction to r.:solve any dispute arising under this Decree residl's in the United
or Stat~s District Court ll)]' the District \!aryJanJ.
!J

Case 1:05-cv-025Tr -ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2000 Page 14 of 27

2·l The C()mmi~<;iol1. i1::-. agl..'nts and cmplnyec;-; ;-;hall in their discretioll have the legal

right 10 enier any of Defendant '5 J:lci lilies, witlHlut any prinr n(lticc to the Defendant. and conduct

an on-site inspection to ensure compliance with Tith: VJJ and allY \)1' the terms of this Decrec. Such

inspections may, ar lhe discrctinn of fhl' Commission, include access to any and -I]I rl'h:\ant
or docul1lent-; for the purposes inspection ~Hld durlic~llioll; ex pane it11efvic\\:.; or depo::.ition:'i of any

ClIlT,'llt employee:-: inkrvic\\:'. or dep('sitioJls of ()Wl1ers. dir('cto!'s. and (lfficers: inspection (If any'

area within the facility; and any other investigatory technique or procedure pCn11ittcd by Title VIl

or the C(ll1llllission's regulations. in addition, the Commission may in its discretion require that

Ddi:ndant mandate the appearance of its pcp.>onl1l'1 for intervIcw or cli.:posiliol1 at D<.:fcndant's

l)ffi(;e~, at the EEOC:; Baltimore Field Office, Of at any other location within a rcasnnablc

Cll11l11lUling di"tnncc from ,!los\,' inui\'idua!s' rcsidl'llccs orjoh sitl's. Thl~ Commissioll may al any
or tiC1C 1110\\,,, the Coun for a hearing lelf the pUrp(bC cOf1l!'clIing Defendant to coorerate in any

aspect of on-site inspection. intervin\' Of deposition umkr the terms of this Decree, Neither the

Commi~sion' s right to conduct on-site inspections, interviews or depositions. n()r any other

pro\'isioll~ (If this Deerec ~haJI he C\ln~trucd {n limit (lr impair in any manner any other Commission

right t,l I..'unduct irl\":~ligation:; of the Ddcntlant 1hal i", provided by iaw, illcluding, but nOllimileJ

ttl, invcstigatillg charges ot'd iscrimin;rtion fi il'd under Titk VII. the ['qual Pay Act ("EPA "). the Age

!)is(;rimination in Empl\lyment Act ("i\OEA "l. Title J of the :'\mcricans with Di:'.ahililies Act, and

any st,ltu1l' (Jv..:r which th..: Commission is giv<.:n jurisdiction in the future, and conduding directed

in\'cstigati()n~ authorized under the EP A, the ADEA, and any future statuk \vhieh authorizes dircctl'd

in \ ",st i!:!~l1 i()ll~.

CO'L:ru COSTS ;~ND ATTOR]\'E'{ FEES

25,

Each part:; ~hall bear its OI,n ('oun costs and attorneyi,' fec:'..

J--1

Case 1:05-cv-02577-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 15 of 27
'v1JSCT.LLA :\[Ot'S 26. \Vithin ninety (90) days ofth~ dat~ this Deae~ is entered by the COUI1, each six (6) months thereafkr, and at the cnnclu!';i(lll nflhc term of the Decrel'. Defendant wiJl report in writing:
hl the EEOC's Haltil1lorc Field Offic::, III the attention of Supervisory Trial Attorney. Tracy Hudson Spicer, concerning ,h\,.' implcrnentation (If this Di.'crec. Each report shall include the following int<mmlti,ln: (a) a ccrlitil.;atioll that the anti-harassmen1 anti-discrimination policy ScI f(lrth in AltachmL'llt :\ has been puhlished tn empillye.:s and training ha~ l)l~cn Cl)ndlletcd regarding that [wliey a~ rcqLlir,~d hy lhi" Deere,:, a~ wdl as it li:;1 ,)1' all persons who haw attended that training during the reporting period: and (b) a certification that the Nmice set forth in Attachment 13 is posted in accordance with this Decree.
27, Nothing in this Deere,' shall he construed to rreclud.: thl' EEOC from invc!;tigming or in:;rituling lega! action ,)11 thl' ba~is of any like or related claim:,; not mi~ecl in the subject Complaint, nor docs anything in this Decree preclude Lloyd Weedon. Kevin Morrison or Ihe EEOC 1'1\\111 filing [[0(' charges againST the Defendant in The futcrre on claims not related to the subject Complaint.
2S. Within fourteen (14) dilYS of entry of this Decree, Dcti:.'ndant :;l1a1l provide to the LFOC (dl originals and copic~ of any and all documents in its possession. CUShldy or control (including its \lw11er's pos~essi()n, cuswdy or control) concerni ng Charging Panics Lloyd Weedon and Kevin i\'lorrison that it did no! generate or obtain in til\.' \.mjinarYl'nuf!>e of its busin.::;;:> ro.::garding \!c \\\:C(1I111'~ cmploymt'nt with Defcndanl. and it :;hall n()t retain any cop!;:s nf origi nab of such documents. III addition. Defendant shall remove from any files pertaining toCharging Parly V./ced011 and (lr Charging Party \'lorrison any and all documents that rcfen.'lICC this Consent Decree, this
15

Case 1:05-cv-02577-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 16 of 27

;\(1i(11), lhc cha:::~'$ uf discriminaM1'l fikd by the Charging Partie:;, or their allegaTions of
ci~cri!1lil1ati()n.
EQl.:AL [~;'1PLOYMH'T OPPORTUNlTY C:OI'o.'lM1SSIOl':
JAMES LEI:
Deputy General Counsel (;WE:,\[)OLYN YOUNG RF.A~lS
, .''''''''G,"",'cn"~
!lion::! Altorncv EEbc-Phil:,ddpfiia District Office (induding Baltimore Field Office) City Crescent Building, 3'J Floor lOS, Howard Sl. Baltimore, MD 21201 Oflicc II-: (215) 440-2666 Fac$imilc il: (2 j 5) -+40-2600

--f'-"" r- -~=:1. "l"tj~i</./...;.t:.,.... ~-<c} .cA." 'i-fr ~.,/-;-:'.:.

TAOt:HODSON SP1CER !Bar. ~"O:OS671)
Supervtsorv Trial Attornev
EEOC-Baltimore Field Office Cit\' Crescent Building, 3'6 F10<.)r 10 South Howan.:l Strei.~t Ba IIi mOf". MD '2 1201 Ofticc II: (410) 962-4623
Facsirnik i+; (410) 962-4270121\ 17

_-Da~tt:-d:

-.:"
2...

:? ::'0 f~ o~

,./".

/

.kAC:L: P~;.=---

Senior Tria! AHornev EEOC-Baltimore Field Office City Crescent Building. 3-d Floor I() Stillth Howard Street

Hi

Case 1:05-cv-02577-ROB Document 12 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 17 of 27

Baltimore..'I'1D 2120 I

Oftkc +I: (410) 962-4628

Facsimile ::: (410) 962-4270.28 I 7

I,...." ~> I.) ('il'L"t:l.

,".:< !

-,,,
>

I /6

G-

IT IS SO ORDERED:

HONORABLE RICHARD D. BFl\NETT Lnitcd States District Judge

\'7

 
 District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?304135339964008-L_3...

U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-02577-RDB

CLOSED

EEOC v. A.E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Richard D Bennett Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race) Plaintiff EEOC
V.

Date Filed: 09/15/2005 Date Terminated: 04/10/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Gerald S Kiel US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624207 Fax: 14109624270 Email: gerald.kiel@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald L Phillips Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092737 Fax: 14109624270 Email: ronald.phillips@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tracy Hudson Spicer Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624623 Fax: 14109624270 Email: tracy.spicer@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 3

6/6/2007 1:06 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?304135339964008-L_3...

Defendant A.E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc.

represented by Barbara J Kraft Kraft Eisenmann Alden, PLLC 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20004 12027831391 Fax: 12027831392 Email: bkraft@kea-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/15/2005 09/15/2005 09/19/2005 01/31/2006 01/31/2006
01/31/2006
02/14/2006 02/14/2006
03/07/2006
03/07/2006
03/17/2006

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against A.E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc. , filed by EEOC. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(apl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
Jury Trial Demand by EEOC. (apl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
2 Summons Issued 20 days as to A.E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc.. (apl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Barbara J Kraft on behalf of A.E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc. (Kraft, Barbara) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
4 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by A.E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc.. Responses due by 2/17/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Kraft, Barbara) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
5 Paperless ORDER granting 4 parties' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer A.E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc. answer due 3/3/2006. (Bennett, Richard) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
6 MOTION for Ronald L. Phillips to Appear Pro Hac Vice by EEOC. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
7 MARGINAL ORDER granting 6 Motion of Plaintiff for Ronald L. Phillips to Appear Pro Hac Vice (for document #7 see #6). Signed by Clerk on 2/14/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
8 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Complaint by A.E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc.. Responses due by 3/24/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Kraft, Barbara) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
9 Paperless ORDER granting 8 Defendant's Second Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Answer/response due by 3/17/2006.(Bennett, Richard) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
10 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Consented) by A.E. Sweeney Masonry, Inc.. Responses due by 4/3/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Kraft, Barbara) (Entered: 03/17/2006)

2 of 3

6/6/2007 1:06 PM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?304135339964008-L_3...

03/17/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006

11 Paperless ORDER granting 10 Defendant's Third Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Answer/response due on or before March 31, 2006.(Bennett, Richard) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
12 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by EEOC. Responses due by 4/17/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
13 PAPERLESS ORDER approving 12 JOINT Motion to Approve Consent Judgment filed by EEOC. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 3/31/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
14 CONSENT DECREE and approval. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 3/31/06. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/06/2007 14:09:22

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:05-cv-02577-RDB

Billable Pages:

1

Cost: 0.08

3 of 3

6/6/2007 1:06 PM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - March 2006

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement03-06.html

EEOC v. AE Sweeney Masonry, Inc. No. 1:05-CV-02577-RBD (D. Md. March 31, 2006)
In its Title VII complaint, the Baltimore District Office alleged that defendant, a small masonry company doing business in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, racially harassed black employees; discriminated against a charging party in the terms and conditions of his employment based on race (black); and terminated him and another CP in retaliation for complaining about racial harassment. Defendant hired one CP as a forklift operator in April 2002 and the second as a laborer in June 2003; they were defendant's only black employees. Both CPs experienced a racially hostile work environment, consisting of frequent racial epithets, slurs, comments, and jokes by white supervisors and coworkers. Defendant also subjected one CP (the forklift operator) to less favorable terms and conditions of employment than whites by not assigning him a helper. Both men complained to management about the racial insults, but to no avail. Defendant terminated them within a few days of one another in June 2004, ostensibly for absenteeism.
The Philadelphia District Office resolved this case through a 4-year consent decree. The two CPs will equally share $60,000 in compensatory damages. Defendant's owner will serve as guarantor of the payments. Defendant will provide each CP with an unconditional written offer of reinstatement into the position he held at the time of discharge with retroactive seniority, at the current pay rate, and with all benefits. Defendant will make two job offers to each CP. Should either man decline the reinstatement offers, defendant is required to provide him with a positive letter of reference agreed upon with EEOC. The consent decree, which applies to all of defendant's facilities and worksites, enjoins defendant from violating Title VII: prohibited conduct includes harassment or other discrimination based on race and color and conduct protected under Section 704(a) of Title VII. The decree also requires defendant to comply with Title VII's recordkeeping requirements. Defendant must adopt an antiharassment/antidiscrimination policy and distribute it to all owners, supervisors, independent contractors, and employees. The decree requires defendant to post a notice at each facility and worksite regarding the consent decree, harassment, how to report harassment, the consequences for engaging in it, and supervisory responsibility for stopping harassment.

1 of 1

6/6/2007 1:19 PM