Appeals Panel Rules Against EEOC in Trucker Harassment Case a Second Time

A day after agreeing to rehear a sexual harassment case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a panel of appellate judges upheld their original conclusion gutting the government's case.

With the exception of one footnote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit panel on Tuesday re-issued an opinion that appears to be identical to the original. The panel also denied the EEOC’s petition for rehearing en banc as moot, though an agency spokeswoman said the EEOC on May 9 asked again for en banc review.

As previously reported by The National Law Journal, the EEOC’s suit against trucking giant CRST Van Expedited Inc. involved graphic allegations of sexual harassment by more than 200 newly hired women truckers on long-haul drives with men who were supposed to be training them.

In 2009, a district court judge issued a series of rulings eliminating plaintiffs, culminating in an order dismissing all EEOC claims because the agency did not investigate or attempt to conciliate individual claims before filing suit.

The EEOC on appeal argued that it "had only one claim, the one it attempted to conciliate — that CRST failed to comply with Title VII's mandate that it protect its employees from discrimination based on sex." No other courts, the EEOC said, have required the agency to investigate and conciliate every individual claim before filing a class suit.

In February, the Eighth Circuit largely upheld the district court’s findings, noting that the EEOC didn't interview any witnesses or subpoena any documents to determine if the allegations of the remaining 67 plaintiffs were true. “The present record confirms that the EEOC wholly failed to satisfy its pre-suit obligations as to these 67 women," wrote Judge Lavenski Smith, with a concurrence by Judge William Duane Benton. Judge Diana Murphy dissented.

On May 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed to a panel rehearing, vacating its February opinion. But in the end, the only apparent difference in the opinion issued on May 8 was a footnote quoting outside counsel hired by one of the plaintiffs conceding his client did not have standing to pursue a claim.

Comments

[TruckerDesiree]

I have been writing about these topics for about 4 years & I lived them as well.

Here is some additional information:

The government subsidizes haphazard truck driver training
The American Trucking Association has a group of coddled training carriers that take advantage of this government welfare program by churning unqualified male & female prospects and are forever claiming they have a shortage of drivers when in fact they have only a shortage of people willing to be underpaid & lied to.

The exisiting womens trucking organization has acted as a buffer who assembles sponsors who are in litigation like CRST rather than advocate for women like the ones named in this suit.

Many of the students recruited into trucking should not be behind the wheel of a truck & some SHOULD regardless of gender.

Because of this unsafe training circus there is a shortage of qualified trainers which opens the door for predatory behavior.

This EEOC case against CRST has been a problem in many training carriers & in carriers who use the "team business model" to move cheap freight.

That means that 2 people who are paid below minimum wage when you calculate hours worked who are expected to live and work in a room the size of a walk in closet while rolling down the American highway.

The EEOC had complaints for many years that they did not follow up on but once a few caught their attention that were grossly inappropriate they began to reach out & discover claims they had never followed up on and also sent letters out to CRST Women.

If you talk to CRST Women from years past and other carriers in this same class of training carriers you will realize that this was the pattern and practice for many , many years for women to enter trucking.

Women who reported sexual misconduct were retaliated against and blackballed from the industry. This still goes on today.

The government failed and continues to fail by not stripping carriers who receive any sort of government subsidies or tax incentives who do not hold their Lead drivers, trainers, in-house staff or co-driving teams to a higher standard.

Sex harassment training is almost non-existant in these "sweatshops on wheels" operations but they portray themselves in Washinton DC aligned with the American Trucking Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (who entered a "friend of the court brief" for this case on behalf on CRST and whose top dude used to head the ATA ) as if they are a reputable truck driver training carriers.

CRST is as well known for ripping of student truckers for its lease owner operator program and other schemes to harm people as they are for this infamous sex harassment case.

Everytime they get off scott free with a little help from friends in high paces

[DF Lickiss. J.D.]

I've read a bit about this case and it is why the government shouldn't be involved in this sort of stuff; these woman had very strong claims and a private attorney would have been able to make a damn good class action law suit out of the company's very bad behavior. But yet again the Feds screwed up.

[Kenneth Shaw, J.D.]

To the contrary, Darren, I think it's obvious (though it doesn't appear to be so to you) that the training ought to have been by men who would not subject the women to sexual harassment (unlike the swine they got).

When government enforces a rule that an employer must treat employees with simple decency, it may "get in the private sector's way," but in this case the private sector clearly NEEDED to have someone get in its way.

[Darren McKinney]

These women signed up to be truck drivers. Did they really think their training was to be overseen by the likes of Gore Vidal or David Niven? That the EEOC got anywhere near this case speaks volumes about the urgent need to reduce the size of government and get it out of the private sector's way.