May 21, 2012

Briggs Equipment Settles EEOC Race Discrimination Suit

Qualified African-American Mechanic Harassed and Then Fired Because of Race, Federal Agency Charged

LAREDO, Texas – Briggs Equipment, Inc., a Dallas-based  company and one of North America’s largest industrial and construction  equipment distributors, will pay a former  employee $112,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination  lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the  agency announced today.

The  EEOC’s lawsuit, Civil Action No. 5:10-CV-00108, in U.S. District Court for the  Southern District of Texas in Laredo,  charged that Briggs subjected Bobby Wysong to unlawful  discrimination when it terminated him from his position as a technician because  of his race, black. The EEOC further  alleged that Briggs subjected Wysong to a racially hostile work environment. Mario Rodriguez, a management official for  Briggs who had direct supervisory authority over Wysong, blatantly referred to  Wysong, among other things, as a “n----r,” “mayate”  (a racial epithet against blacks widely used in South  Texas), “slave” and “dark horse” in conjunction with expressly  stating he wanted Wysong fired. Rodriguez  himself admitted to using the racial slur “n----r” at work and several  witnesses corroborated that he routinely used racist epithets and made racist  jokes at the workplace.

Further, the EEOC said, when Wysong  was wrongfully discharged, he lost his company medical insurance, after which he  incurred substantial medical bills due to orthopedic surgery.

Racial  harassment -- including slurs and offensive or derogatory comments -- as well  as discharge due to race violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after the EEOC’s San  Antonio Field Office determined that Briggs had violated Title VII and after it  tried to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the Commission’s  conciliation process.

In the consent decree settling the suit, besides the  monetary relief of $112,000, Briggs also  agreed to negotiate and pay Wysong’s medical bills he incurred due to  the loss of his health insurance, which have an approximate value of $273,000. Briggs agreed to comply in the future with Title VII and to provide  training regarding Title VII to current employees assigned to work at the  Briggs facility at Laredo.  Briggs further agreed to modify its  written anti-discrimination policy, which specifically addresses race  discrimination.

“We are very pleased with the  resolution of this case,” said Eduardo Juarez, senior trial attorney  of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office. “Not only have we obtained significant  financial relief for Bobby Wysong, the employment practices that Briggs uses  will be greatly improved. No one should  have to put up with racial abuse in their place of work – or, even worse,  losing his livelihood because of racism. Smart employers can prevent racial harassment  by not only promulgating anti-discrimination policies but also making such  policies effective through regular training and monitoring.”

Supervisory  Trial Attorney Judith G. Taylor of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office said, “We commend Briggs for  acknowledging the importance of preventing discriminatory practices and that employees have the right to work in an environment that is  free from racial harassment.”

© Copyright 2012 - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

About the Author

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15...

800-669-4000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.