Trucking companies face discrimination charges
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been hard at work against trucking companies it believes are violating civil rights laws.
Recently, the EEOC has filed at least four lawsuits against trucking companies allegedly violating federal employment laws. Violations include those dealing with disability discrimination, sexual discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination and religious discrimination.
EEOC v. Trico Transportation Services
The EEOC has filed a lawsuit against Trico Transportation Services for allegedly violating federal disability discrimination laws.
Trico violated federal law when it rescinded a job offer and refused to hire a truck driver applicant based on his previous history of back pain, the EEOC said.
According to the lawsuit, the applicant applied for an open truck driver position with Trico in May 2021. Trico extended an offer of employment to him on the condition he pass a drug screen and provide proof of passing a Department of Transportation physical examination.
The applicant completed both tasks. However, Trico informed the applicant that the company was considering his medical history to be high risk based on his answers to the company’s medical questionnaire, which revealed a history of pain symptoms in the past.
Two weeks later, a manager revoked the offer of employment even though no doctor had restricted the applicant’s activities and despite the fact he was able to perform the essential functions of the truck driver position.
The case was filed in September with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
EEOC v. Stevens Transport
The National Women’s Law Center and co-counsel Peter Romer-Friedman Law filed a class action hiring discrimination charge with the EEOC against Stevens Transport. Along with Real Women in Trucking, three women accuse the trucking company of denying them truck driver positions because they are women.
According to the charge, the complainants are challenging Stevens Transport’s policy and practice when it comes to hiring female drivers. Specifically, the charge points out that the company “routinely denies truck driving positions to women by only allowing women to train for driving positions at Stevens with (female) instructors.” However, the complainants assert that the company does not have enough female instructors to train most qualified female applicants.
“Because Stevens does not have enough female driving instructors, new (female) drivers are forced to sit on a ‘female waitlist’ for many months to start a job with Stevens or they are never hired by Stevens,” the charge claims. “In contrast, male drivers head to the front of the line and start their jobs right away. What’s more, Stevens discourages (female) drivers from pursuing driving jobs with Stevens by telling them they will need to wait for a long time to start, deterring many women from submitting job applications.”
The case was filed on Oct. 5.
EEOC v. TA Dedicated
The EEOC has filed a lawsuit against TA Dedicated for allegedly committing sexual orientation discrimination.
According to an EEOC news release, TA Dedicated, a carrier doing business as Transport America, violated federal law by subjecting two gay mechanics to harassment and termination due to their sexual orientation. The lawsuit claims the company retaliated against them for opposing or complaining about the harassment.
Beginning in late 2018, workers and supervisors at Transport’s facility in North Jackson, Ohio, harassed two mechanics because they are gay, according to the lawsuit. The harassment included frequent use of gay slurs and other derogatory comments, physical violence and other inappropriate contact, defacement of uniforms and other hostile behavior.
The lawsuit alleges the company’s human resources and management officials were aware of the harassment but failed to take effective action to stop it and prevent it from recurring.
Instead, after the mechanics reported it, the shop manager threatened that anyone who went to human resources would be terminated. According to the complaint, the mechanics then suffered further harassment and retaliation, including destruction of personal property, unfavorable assignments, false accusations and discharge or being forced to quit.
The case was filed in September with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
EEOC v. Wheeler Trucking
The EEOC has filed a lawsuit against Wheeler Trucking for allegedly denying a former employee religious accommodation.
According to the complaint, the company hired the former employee, who is unnamed, at its Lorain County, Ohio, location in October 2016. The former employee identifies himself as Middle Eastern and as an adherent of Torah Observant Christianity. His sincerely held religious beliefs include observing the Sabbath as a day of rest during which followers do not work.
The lawsuit alleges that throughout his employment, the former employee was subjected to harassment by co-workers and supervisors due to his race and religion.
The harassment occurred repeatedly, often on a weekly basis, for a period of six continuous months or more, according to the complaint. It also claims that Wheeler Trucking took adverse action against the former employee because he engaged in protected activity, including but not limited to exacerbated or continued harassment, denied religious accommodation and discharge.
In January 2021, Wheeler Trucking advised the former employee that he was required to work on Saturdays. The man took the issue to the company’s human resources department. Ultimately, the company denied his request for religious accommodation regarding working on the Sabbath.
When the former employee opposed the harassment and emphasized the conflict between the requirement that he work on Saturdays and his religious beliefs, management said that his only option was to accept the work conditions or quit. During the same encounter, management became irate, gestured to the road outside the Wheeler Trucking facility, told the man to leave and said “F–k your religion,” according to the complaint.
The man was involuntarily discharged on Jan. 26, 2021. The case was filed this past September with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. LL