Opinion ID: 799452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Starke's Initiating Charge

Text: On December 1, 2005, Starke filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Therein, Starke alleged that CRST discriminated against [her] on the basis of [her] sex (female) in that [she] was subjected to sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. In the Particulars section of the charge form, Starke stated: I was hired by the [CRST] on June 22, 2005[,] in the position of Truck Driver. Since my employment began with the Respondent I have been subjected to sexual harassment on two occasions by my Lead Trainers. On July 7, 2005, Bob Smith, Lead Trainer[,] began to make sexual remarks to me whenever he gave me instructions. He told me that the gear stick is not the penis of my husband, I don't have to touch the gear stick so often. You got big tits for your size, etc. . . [.] I informed Bob Smith that I was not interested in a sexual relationship with him. On July 14, 2005, I contacted the dispatcher and was told that I could not get off the truck until the next day. On July 18, 2005[,] through August 3, 2005, David Goodman, Lead Trainer, forced me to have unwanted sex with him on several occasions while we were traveling in order to get a passing grade. Upon receiving Starke's Charge, the EEOC notified CRST of the filing and instructed CRST to respond, on or before December 30, 2005, with a written position statement on each of the allegations of the charge, accompanied by documentary evidence and/or written statements, where appropriate. The EEOC advised CRST to include any additional information and explanation [it] deem[ed] relevant to the [Charge]. The EEOC sent CRST a corresponding, initial request for information asking that CRST submit information and records relevant to the [charge]. The EEOC assured CRST that [t]he following dates are considered to be the `relevant period' for the attached [r]equest for [i]nformation: January 2, 2005-November 2, 2005. The EEOC's initial request for information primarily concerned Starke's alleged harassment and did not seek information relating to other potential victims. On December 21, 2005, CRST submitted its position statement to the EEOC and furnished the EEOC with all of the information that the EEOC demanded in the request for information. In its position statement, CRST denied discriminating against or harassing Starke. The company based this denial on its own internal investigation into Starke's claims against Lead Drivers Smith and Goodman. [2] CRST also disclosed the identity of two other female drivers, Lori Essig and Tamara Thiel, who, like Starke, had filed formal charges of discrimination with the EEOC against CRST.