Quantcast

Moore & Morford company settles welder's EEOC gender harassment case for $80K

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Wednesday, December 25, 2024

Moore & Morford company settles welder's EEOC gender harassment case for $80K

Federal Court
Biz wrk injuries bizplus kh

PITTSBURGH – A steel fabrication company has paid $80,000 to settle harassment claims brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that one of the company’s former female welders suffered numerous incidents of sex-based discrimination and retaliation on the job, including termination.

After first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Washington, D.C. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 16 versus Moore & Morford, Inc., of Westmoreland County.

Amelia Thompson worked as a welder in the structural division of the defendant’s steel fabrication plants in Westmoreland County from January 2018 to February 2019, and said she was the only female welder on the job.

While in the defendants’ employ, Thompson contended she was regularly degraded by fitter Ronald Gerda and foreman William Weiner, the latter of whom was her supervisor.

Thompson was the recipient of sexually-specific insults and epithets such as, “c—t”, “dumb b—h”, “fat f—ing whore” and “motherf—r”, offensive hand gestures and was further allegedly targeted by Gerda through his creation of an unsafe work environment for her.

She was also allegedly told, “Women don’t belong on the floor”, “Women shouldn’t be on the line” and “Women shouldn’t be welding” – in addition to being reassigned to work in the paint yard by Weiner, despite his knowledge that she had just returned from sick leave and was still recovering from pneumonia, and a male co-worker spreading human waste in her restroom and on her belongings.

At no time during her employment did defendant ever investigate or discipline any employee for engaging in the aforementioned harassing conduct, Thompson said.

On Feb. 5, 2019, Thompson contacted and communicated with the EEOC, thereby initiating the process for filing an EEOC Charge of Discrimination regarding sex harassment/discrimination and retaliation.

“Two days later, on Feb. 7, 2019, Thompson met with Richard Morford and James Morford. During this meeting, Thompson complained about Weiner’s and Gerda’s harassment and also informed the Morfords that she had already contacted EEOC about the harassment and had begun the process of filing an EEOC Charge. Approximately four days later, on Feb. 11, 2019, defendant informed Thompson that she was discharged, effective Feb. 8, 2019,” the suit said.

Moore & Morford, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 12, denying the EEOC’s claims and asserting 13 separate affirmative defenses against the events in question contained in the lawsuit. Some of them included the barring of the plaintiff’s claims by the applicable statute of limitations, that the company’s actions were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reasons and that Thompson did not engage in protected conduct.

UPDATE

A two-year consent decree resolution resolved the litigation on Dec. 21.

In addition to paying Thompson $80,000, Moore & Morford is prohibited from engaging in sex discrimination or retaliation and must report to the EEOC on its employment of women and on any future complaints and investigations of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation.

Furthermore, Moore & Morford must disseminate a revised anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedure, train its employees on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits both harassment and discrimination because of sex, among other things) and conduct additional training on investigating complaints of discrimination and retaliation.

“Despite important strides in historically male-dominated industries like heavy manufacturing, women continue to fight for equal treatment and against outmoded stereotypes about women’s role in the workplace. Title VII requires that employers treat all workers fairly regardless of sex and act diligently to prevent sex harassment and promptly end it when it occurs,” EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence said.

“Workers have the right under federal law to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC, act as witnesses in pending cases, or just inquire about their rights or the possibility of filing a charge. The EEOC relies heavily on information from the public to carry out its law enforcement functions and the agency will continue to protect workers against retaliation for exercising their right to communicate with the EEOC about discrimination,” EEOC Philadelphia District Director Jamie Williamson added.

The plaintiff was represented by Gregory A. Murray and Megan M. Block of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in Pittsburgh.

The defendant was represented by David A. Young of Bunker & Ray, also in Pittsburgh.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00892

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News