EEOC Brings Class Action Against Prime for Sex Discrimination

And there are people willing and capable of training the opposite sex and incidents have happened or are alleged to have happened, and the company,which could not have been reasonably expected to supervise a truck hundreds of miles away from the terminal,is expected to share responsibility and liability.

As far as I am concerned anybody can train anybody,but if something happens,as long as the company has established policy against certain behaviour,then leave them out of any subsequent legal action,and deal only with the alleged wrong doer, but that is not going to happen. Alleged victims and their lawyers are most likely to go after the company,and that is what i suspect prime is trying to protect itself against,and i think they are well within their right to do so

 

If policy is followed.
What about when policy is not followed? Where is the fairness in expecting a company to take responsibility, when an individual goes against policy?
And what if policy is followed,but a false accusation is made?
And wouldn't a policy that does more than reduce risk,for example,one that seeks to eliminate risk, be a better option?

 

Injun,
Obviously you and I disagree on this. Biology is biology. I agree that there are constraints that all should be able to subscribe and adhere to, however, we are not discussing those that continue to violate the rules. We are talking about those that violate the rules even once.
A lawyer won't make a distinction between the habitual offender and the first time offender.
As for running a business? More than 20 years as a minor owner of a company in California...perhaps the most stringent state for compliance in these types of cases. If I had a nickle for every time I sat in one of those blasted meetings with lawyers as they 'trained' us how to keep in compliance, I'd be retired!
The solution I presented was exactly that presented to us by the law firm (notable in size and scope).
But then disagreement is why lawyers have jobs, eh?

 

I have read this thread through a few times and I must say that for every comment on this subject there is not a clear answer.

I have a couple of questions:

Can somebody tell me if there is a easy way to follow this lawsuit?
I would like to follow it in real time if possible.
I looked on the EEOC site but for some reason did not find it.

It seems like most of us are in agreement that this lawsuit is not as much about waiting to get a trainer than it is about a company policy protecting itself from sexual harassment.My question is to those who disagree with Prime for doing this:
What would you do in there shoes?

It looks like they are on the firing line for attempting to solve a problem before it starts.
As far as discrimination for waiting to be trained...discrimination may be streaching it a bit.
In a perfect world we would have a ratio of men and women at 50%/50%
and all of this would be less than an issue,but as we all know the number of men to women in this industry is way off balance.

I am in no way defending Prime for this,but as a buisness it makes the most sense.
Cost for sexual harassment ..1 dollar
Cost for waiting for a trainer.. 10 cents

A kick in the groin beats a gunshot to the head.

Just my thoughts...may be wrong,but still my thoughts

 

Pretty much a company can do whatever they feel would be most effective as long as it fits within the Civil Rights Act. If it can be shown the action doesn't violate the law.

 

if you had a company w/ fewer than fifteen employees your idealogy would make sense per say, however, as is the case w/ a large company like Prime there are federal laws in place regarding sexual harassment in order to protect "virtually" all private and public employees in the United States and those U.S. based companies functioning internationally.

Therefore, it dosent matter if a trucking carrier has 2,000 employees spread out all over the country because the law is set up specifically to demonstrate that sexual harassment offenses will not just be brushed under the rug in any case or with any company which in my mind is fair.

That way, if a company dosen't want to be sued the rules would be overhauled within the day to day operating structure so that the anti-sexual harassment and complaint system would boast a zero tolerance blanket style policy that would read something like:

"Sexual harassment by management and supervisory staff, co-workers, and non-employees over whom the Company exercises some measure of control will not be tolerated on or off Company premises."

In my opinion this whole discussion about sexual harassment in the trucking industry is very important because first and foremost this kind of behavior is against the law and secondly makes truckers as a whole look even scummier than how Hobbypassion21 put it when he said that truckers have a bad image because they are seen as "old, dirty, fat, long beard, stinks, smokes, etc" and in 2010 it is time to changce public opinion as well as company policies

 

Oddly enough, companies DO address sexual harassment without policies like Prime had in place. This is why Prime is under the microscope and other companies aren't.

I have yet to have anyone tell me what is so different about me that I am unable to perform the tasks necessary to a tanker driver. I was trained by a man to drive a truck. we were respectful of each others' privacy. Why can't this be done for two weeks in a Prime tanker truck? Oh. That's right. I have a p****. That makes it impossible for a male trainer to attend to his job because he would not be able to control himself and would follow "human nature" despite the capability of higher thinking. Therefore, I cannot drive a Prime tanker and I lose out on nearly $80,000 over the entire time I was there. (That's the 50cpm difference on loaded miles I would have made if I had been driving tanker versus reefer.)

This line of thinking is ridiculous.

 

O.K. correct me if I am wrong....thats a safe assumption

You were not allowed to upgrade the tanker division because Prime did not having any female trainers for the tanker division.

If that is correct then I get why you would be upset.

Without allowing a man train a woman...and not having any woman trainers in that division...then it would be impossible to ever have a female trainer in that division for that company.

Even if they hired a experienced female tanker driver from another company....the only way she could work for the tanker division with Prime with the current rules in place is to have a woman trainer teach her the company rules from the reefer division.Or break their own rules and have a man train her.

If any of that is correct then I have one question....How does Prime fix this mess they are in?

 

No, its a reaction to a previous lawsuit brought with the help of the EEOC for women trainees that were sexually harrassed by their trainers.

(2003)Woman wins $95,000 award in sexual harassment suit against New Prime

http://www.truckflix.com/news_article.php?newsid=336

New Prime to pay in sexual harassment suit

http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2004/June04/062104/062404-04.html

Seems to me the EEOC is telling Prime you are ###### if you do and ###### if you dont and will get you on both ends.

 

Thank You..I knew they had something in the past ...I just worded it wrong.
I guess I should of said they have a rule in place to protect them from one thing ..but opened themselves for another.

I agree..###### if you do..damnd if you don't

Thanks...reading it will get me up to speed on all of it.

All I can say is...what a mess it is for all parties...Prime,employees,trainers,and students.


No wonder I could not find it ...7 years ago...Thank You

Again,one bad apple.