EEOC Brings Class Action Against Prime for Sex Discrimination

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case No. 01-3144-CV-S-3-ECF

PLAINTIFFS:
CYNTHIA HUFFMAN,
WILLA BURKE, VIRGINIA KING and
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION

DEFENDANTS:
NEW PRIME, INC. d/b/a/ PRIME, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ABEL JOSEPH LORMAND, SAMUEL TURNER and KENNETH LITTLEJOHN

This Motion was granted by U.S. District Court.

Three lawsuits apparently merged on behalf of the plaintiffs and the EEOC. Also listed.

The Prime Suspects included three different "Professional Drivers." Also listed.

This case is from several years ago and was handled in a court of law where judgment is overseen by an appointed Judge.

In the above case all three women were Harassed, Assaulted or Raped while working for New Prime, Inc.

I have seen many comments here defending the rights of women and also the comments based on assumption, relating to their (three women) intentions to falsely accuse Prime and three defendants of wrong doing. Being that this case has merit and Three Women have come forth legitimizes the Warrant for Legal Recourse.

Sexual Harassment in the work place is not tolerated and is punishable. The Facts in the above case are clearly stated and judgment is determined in a court of law. http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/...-0062-0004.pdf

Conclusion: Women deserve to be treated as Women in a trucking environment. It is wrong to assume that a Female driver is the same as her Male counterpart. There is a difference. As far as Females doing the Job Function of Driver, IE; Lifting, Bending, Pushing, Driving for long hours, etc. etc. they are just as qualified as Men. Not all men are the same and not all women are the same and that is where we must be tolerant to individuals. Respect for Individuals is Paramount. Using foul language (profanity) in any form can be used to bring a Harassment Lawsuit against any company or individual operating a business. This should be outlined at the beginning of employment during orientation. Failure by Employees to follow EEOC rules could result in Liability by the Employer and Employees as noted in the above Case.

 

Very true...

In the former case cited by U2, the EEOC appearantly wants women trainees protected against the depredations of dirtbag male trainers. Now in the current case, they've decided that its unfair that a woman wasn't immediately inducted into the training program and assigned to a male instructor - where appearantly she would be in danger of the depredations of another dirtbag male trainer - where the carrier would then be in violation of the preceding court order...

 

The point i was making is that in all of this,the risk is not restricted to men who would harass females.

There is also a risk in females making false accusations against male trainers and subsequently,the company.

Some would make it appear that prime was operating in a paternalistic manner,attempting to save the 'poor undefenselsss female' from attack from the uncontrolled males, but I saw this as prime trying to protect themselves from not only that,but from a case of a false allegation,which would cost them money to defend themselves against.

 

Very good question.
And I eagerly wait for the reply.

 

Twenty years ago this month Anita Hill alledged that then Supreme Court nominee Clarance Thomas sexually harassed (the crap out of her). Although he was ultimately assigned to serve at the highest court in the land the whole process paved the way towards national awareness about sexual harassment in the workplace.

Hill had contended that Thomas harassed her with inappropriate discussions of sexual acts and pornographic films after she refused to date him.

When it was all said and done Hill passed a polygraph regarding her claims and Thomas refused to take a polygraph test.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/06/2442179/no-slut-or-nut-anita-hill-20-years.html

 

It makes a world of difference.

You have stated that prime has discriminated against female employment and advancement.
If they had hired you on as an experienced tanker driver you could not make such statements.

And what made you equally,or otherwise,qualified to do the job? Did you have tanker experience?
If no,then how can you claim to have been qualified to do a job,for which the company said you needed training? Or are you determining by your better judgment that you didn't need to be trained?

And how does that mean that women have to be more qualified than men in order to get the same job?
You did not get the job because you were not trained for it.
What evidence do you have that unqualified men were hired for the job without being trained?
What evidence do you have that men were held to a different standard than women as far as their being allowed to do the job without having the requisite training?

The difference is, there were no female trainers,to keep in line with the company's policy.
What could the company have done,short of hiring females with tanker experience,and forcing them to be trainers?

 

I talked to a woman Prime driver today... she was in a rush... Asked her how long she had worked at Prime and whether she was solo. She said a year and yes.

I asked her if she was a trainer... she gave me an odd look and said no, and I dont want to be one, and I wish everyone would quit asking me to be one.

I almost started laughing.

Wish she had a little more time to talk to her about whether she was trained at Prime or hired right into a truck with experiance.

 

Bill Clinton remained President after Monica testified she had sex with Him during her employment. Sometimes the woman is Scorned and the Men are free to continue doing business as usual. But here we see Three Witnesses which brings merit and the offender is forced to stand before a jury of his peers.

 

And your point is what?

No one is saying that sexual harassment does not occur. Of course it does.

What i have been saying is that i think prime should have the right to put in place policies to prevent harassment.

And i think that to not have males and females in the same truck,which will be a considerable distance away from any sort of direct supervision, is a very reasonable policy to prevent sexual harassment.

And it has nothing to do with 'all men are animals',or all women are out to make false accusations,or all women are helpless and the company must protect them.

It has to do with a company protecting itself.

Why is that such a bad thing?

There are people with many traffic violations. Should a company be forced to hire them,or should a company be able to determine that a person has displayed a pattern of unsafe driving, is more likely to cause an accident,and not hire them?

 

Ain't life grand?

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.