Latest news with #EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Werner loses again on issue of deaf driver, but dollar amounts are a lot lower
Werner Enterprises has lost on appeal in a case that at one point saw it facing a $36 million penalty for not hiring a deaf driver–later reduced by a federal court–who had gone through a company training program. The financial stakes in the case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act are now about $335,000, a far cry from a jury's decision in 2023 to award deaf truck driver Victor Robinson about 107 times that figure. The unanimous decision last week from an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel fully affirmed all the September 2023 decisions from both a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for Nebraska and later decisions handed down from the bench over post-trial motions. The affirmation includes a reduction in the original punitive damages awarded by the jury. That reduction came after the court ruled that EEOC awards are capped at $300,000. The EEOC was the plaintiff in the case on behalf of Victor defendants along with Werner (NASDAQ: WERN) included Drivers Management LLC, which is Werner's training subsidiary. Werner made several points on appeal, all of which were rejected by the appellate court. A recap of the case in the recent appellate court decision noted that Robinson had a 'medical variance' from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). That waiver is needed for a deaf driver to obtain a CDL. It was obtained in 2015. With the variance in hand, Robinson enrolled in Roadmaster, the driving school owned by Werner. His training involved not just a regular trainer but also an interpreter for the deaf, 'who communicated with Robinson from the backseat of the vehicle throughout the process,' according to the court's recap of the case's history. In September 2016, Robinson completed the training and received his CDL. But soon after, according to the recap of the case by the appellate court, Werner Vice President of Safety and Compliance Jamie Hamm told him on a call, 'I'm sorry, we can't hire you because of your deafness.' The call took place, according to the court, after Robinson had been told he had been preapproved for employment by recruiter Erin Marsh in an email. After calling Marsh–using a relay service for the phone call–the two talked about, according to the court, ''the job, the orientation, providing interpreting services,' and other general matters.' The district court's decision in January 2024 to award back pay to Robinson of about $35,000 lists several driving jobs Robinson had after not being hired at Werner, none of which lasted very long; only one, with Stan Koch Trucking, reached 12 months. Other jobs on his record included with J.B. Hunt (NASDAQ: JBHT) and U.S. Xpress, now part of Knight Swift (NYSE: KNX). The roughly $335,000 award is a combination of the punitive damages, capped at $300,000, and the backpay. In a May 2024 series of decisions on post-trial motions in the case, the district court summed up the basis for the jury's decision against Werner. 'The jury determined that Robinson was qualified to perform the job to which he applied, he could have safely performed the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation, and Werner's refusal to hire Robinson was not based on business necessity,' District Court Judge John Gerrard wrote. There were multiple issues raised by Werner in its appeal over events in the trial. They included the question of 'causation' and whether Robinson's dismissal was because of his deafness; whether Robinson's overall driving record (which included several accidents) could be introduced to the jury; Werner objections to the admission of emails sent between Werner executives on the decision-making to deny Robinson employment; whether hiring a deaf driver would provide 'undue hardship' for Werner; and whether the FMCSA waiver meant Werner could not deny Robinson employment on the basis of his deafness. Ultimately, the appellate court did not side with Werner on any of the points made in its appeal. An email to Werner seeking comment had not been responded to by publication time. More articles by John Kingston At a conference of mostly green investors, AlFleet pushes marriage of AI and trucking Another broker liability case knocks at Supreme Court door, this one involving C.H. Robinson XPO rating cut by S&P, agency cites continuing weak freight market The post Werner loses again on issue of deaf driver, but dollar amounts are a lot lower appeared first on FreightWaves.
Time of India
12-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Actor who sued Tyler Perry for sexual harassment says he could not stay silent anymore
Hollywood is no stranger to scandal, but this one is setting the industry ablaze. Derek Dixon, who starred in over 80 episodes of Tyler Perry's hit series The Oval, has officially spoken out after filing a jaw-dropping $260 million lawsuit against the entertainment tycoon last month. In his first public interview, Dixon made it crystal clear: "I could not just let him get away with this." Derek Dixon finally breaks his silence The lawsuit alleges a disturbing pattern that started in 2020 and continued through June 2024. According to court documents, Dixon claims Perry subjected him to repeated sexual harassment, assault and retaliation. And it was not just verbal. The actor accuses Perry of groping him on multiple occasions, including one deeply disturbing incident at a guest house in Georgia where Perry allegedly pulled down his underwear. The receipts are damning Among the most shocking revelations were sexually suggestive texts allegedly sent by Perry, including one that read: "What is it going to take for you to have guiltless sex?" Dixon said these messages created a toxic, coercive dynamic that forced him to navigate a minefield between professionalism and survival. He tried to keep things civil, hoping Perry would eventually focus on business. But every time it seemed the harassment would end, it came right back. Perry's camp hits back Perry's attorney, Matthew Boyd, dismissed the accusations entirely, calling them an elaborate scam. According to him, Dixon simply got close to Perry with the intent of executing a shakedown. But Dixon insists that is far from the truth. For him, the choice to go public came from a place of urgency and pain. From silence to action Dixon told The Hollywood Reporter he stayed quiet for too long, convincing himself this was just how the industry worked. But after years of internal conflict, he filed a report with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and took legal action. Support has poured in from fans and fellow creatives, though online threats have also emerged. He claims the goal is not revenge but reform, to ensure future actors do not have to trade dignity for dreams. For now, Dixon is standing tall, even if it means standing alone. And Tyler Perry? He might want to lawyer up tighter, because this legal storm is far from over.
The Hill
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Democrats launch investigation into EEOC's probes of major law firms
A coalition of Democratic lawmakers demanded the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) turn over documents relating to its 'sham investigation' of several major law firms' hiring practices, arguing the EEOC violated confidentiality rules while conducting a pressure campaign. The EEOC in March sent a letter to 20 firms asking questions about their diversity hiring practices, suggesting such programs could violate employment laws. 'Public reporting suggests—and information we have received as part of our ongoing investigation corroborates—that you used your position as Acting Chair of the EEOC to facilitate a shakedown of prominent law firms that represented causes or employed individuals whom the President dislikes,' Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.) wrote in the letter to acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. 'We request your prompt response to our requests for documents and information about your role in launching sham EEOC investigations, which the White House used to threaten and extort law firms into providing free legal services to the President's allies. If you believe these allegations are incorrect, we welcome the opportunity to hear from you directly and promptly at a transcribed interview.' In the wake of those letters, as well as executive orders signed by President Trump seeking to strip security clearances from firms and block them from federal buildings, many of the law firms agreed to do millions in pro bono work for causes favored by the administration. The investigation ignited by Raskin and Blumenthal previously asked law firms that signed agreements with Trump about the nature of the deals and what the contracts entailed. While the law firms all said that there was nothing in writing to capture the deals beyond what Trump posted about them on social media, in letters to the committee many cited the EEOC letter as part of the rationale for brokering an agreement with the White House. 'The EEOC's demands included detailed personal information regarding the firms' employees and applicants for attorney roles at the Firm as well as extensive information related to the Firm's clients,' the law firm Allen Overy Shearman Sterling told the lawmakers in an April letter. 'Ultimately, the Firm as a fiduciary for the interests and information of thousands of employees and clients determined that resolving the EEOC inquiry, including by entering into the Agreement, was the most prudent course.' The letter asks the EEOC to turn over all its communications with the White House, as well as all communications and meeting notes related to the commission's March letter. It also asks for all the commission's communications with the targeted firms and all signed settlement agreements. Raskin and Blumenthal said Lucas appeared to violate the law in publicizing the letters on inquiry, noting that investigations can only be initiated after a commissioner files a 'charge' alleging employment discrimination, which must then be kept confidential. 'By sending these 'letters of inquiry' to the law firms and then publicizing them widely, you appear to have violated EEOC rules and federal law. …Title VII expressly states that charges must be kept confidential and provides criminal penalties for violating the confidentiality requirement. These requirements ensure that the EEOC does not begin or publicize an investigation, which may be highly damaging to the reputation of an employer, until there is actual evidence of wrongdoing,' they wrote. 'Yet that appears to be exactly what you did at the request of the President.' The EEOC did not respond to the substance of the letter but said it had been received. 'The agency has received and is reviewing the letter. We are committed to working with Congress to ensure the vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that protect equal employment opportunity in America's workplaces,' EEOC spokesman Victor Chen said in an email. Law firms have had mixed reactions to pressure from Trump. Nine law firms have signed deals to collectively provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work. But others have sued the Trump administration and been successful in court, earning injunctions to block the executive orders. U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, slammed Trump's order against Jenner & Block as an effort to 'chill legal representation the administration doesn't like,' while U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by former President Obama, said Trump's order against Perkins Coie 'draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.''
Forbes
25-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
EEO-1 Compliance And The Future Of Equity At Work
Hayley Bakker is the Head of Customer Journey & Digital Enablement at beqom, which supports pay equity with data-driven software. As the political winds shift, so too do the compliance and operational landscapes for U.S. employers. The new administration has initiated an extensive rollback of DEI initiatives across federal agencies and institutions that receive federal funding. Similar efforts are underway in many states, with laws banning certain types of DEI training, affirmative action in hiring and even demographic tracking beyond what is federally mandated. This has created a challenge for organizations to remain in compliance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)'s EEO-1 reporting requirement. A Refresher On The EEO-1 Report The EEOC mandates that private employers with 100 or more employees, as well as certain federal contractors with more than 50 employees, must submit annual demographic workforce data categorized by race/ethnicity, gender and job category. With this information, the EEOC can better enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by identifying systemic discrimination and promoting equal employment opportunity. Because of this requirement, many employers bolstered their internal DEI programs as both a strategic and a compliance-focused initiative. Efforts often included more rigorous data collection practices, internal audits, the creation of employee resource groups (ERGs), pay equity analyses and cultural competency training. Initiatives like these helped organizations comply with reporting requirements and proactively address gaps before they became liabilities. In essence, DEI wasn't just about optics; it was a risk mitigation tool. While the EEO-1 report remains a legal requirement, the infrastructure that many organizations built to support it is now in a precarious position. HR and compliance leaders face a dilemma as pressure increases to scale back or eliminate DEI teams. The question they're forced to ask themselves is whether they can uphold the spirit of antidiscrimination laws and adhere to federal reporting requirements in an environment that's increasingly hostile to the very practices that make it possible. 5 Strategies For Walking This Tightrope To maintain commitment to equitable practices while navigating legislative shifts, HR leaders can adopt these strategies. One of the most effective strategies for minimizing pushback on internal DEI work is framing it as a function of risk management, not a statement of ideological alignment. Emphasize that demographic reporting, internal audits and equitable pay structures are core elements of compliance, governance and fiduciary responsibility. A common objection to the concept of diversity comes from the assumption that it's a way to privilege one group over another. Replacing common DEI terminology with things like 'workforce analytics,' 'fair employment practices' or 'inclusive leadership' can reduce scrutiny of your efforts to maintain fair practices. In communications, focus on the intended outcomes, like broadening talent pools and more structured criteria for performance evaluation and compensation. While DEI departments may shrink, the need for informed leadership is greater than ever. Brief boards and executive teams on the legal mandates that remain in place, the risks of noncompliance and the expectations of employees and the market they operate in. Leadership can then share the mandate to related teams to continue the equity- and compliance-related components. Even amid shifting federal policies, transparency expectations from employees, investors and customers remain high. It's a key aspect of building and retaining trust. Implementing robust internal systems that track demographic and compensation data will ensure continuity in reporting, whether it's for EEO-1, ESG disclosures or shareholder requirements. Finally, the most effective approach to demonstrate antidiscrimination is having well-documented and enforced hiring, performance, promotion and firing practices in place. Design them to accommodate auditable decision-making and to demonstrate that due process was followed, based on objective factors. Looking Ahead Though the political climate may be hostile to DEI initiatives, the legal, business and reputational imperatives for equity and transparency aren't going away. In fact, with the launch of new pay transparency regulations and renewed scrutiny on corporate practices, the role of workforce analytics and equitable HR processes may grow in importance. As HR leaders, the task isn't to abandon the principles of equity and inclusion but to adapt how you frame and operationalize them. The path forward will require legal savvy, data literacy and a steady commitment to building a fair workplace. We must always ask ourselves, "What kind of workplaces do we want to build?" and remember that having the right processes and systems is foundational for achieving our goals. Forbes Human Resources Council is an invitation-only organization for HR executives across all industries. Do I qualify?
Yahoo
23-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Should You Buy Nvidia Stock Hand Over Fist Before June 25?
Nvidia's upcoming annual shareholder meeting is unlikely to move the needle for the stock. The next scheduled event that could be a key catalyst is the Q2 update on Aug. 27, 2025. However, buying Nvidia stock hand over fist could still be a good idea. 10 stocks we like better than Nvidia › Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) will hold its 2025 shareholder meeting in three days. Should you buy Nvidia stock hand over fist before June 25? No -- at least, not because of the meeting. That doesn't mean scooping up shares of the graphics processing unit (GPU) maker over the next few days is a bad move, though. Some corporate events can provide huge catalysts for stocks. Quarterly earnings releases are one obvious example. Major product announcements are another. Annual shareholder meeting? Not so much. However, there are other reasons you might want to buy Nvidia stock sooner rather than later. For the most part, Nvidia's annual shareholder meeting this week will probably be boring. First on the agenda is to elect the board of directors. Unless something truly shocking happens, the nominated slate of directors should be a shoo-in. Next up is a vote on advisory approval of executive compensation, commonly referred to as "say-on-pay." This allows shareholders to voice their approval or disapproval of Nvidia's executive compensation plan for the next year. However, the vote isn't binding on the board of directors. Maybe the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as Nvidia's independent accounting firm will excite some investors, but I doubt it. Either way, it's the next item on the agenda. At last year's annual meeting, shareholders approved a nonbinding proposal requesting the board to eliminate supermajority voting provisions in Nvidia's charter and bylaws. After consideration, the board decided to recommend changing those documents. As a result, eliminating the supermajority voting provisions will be officially voted on at the upcoming meeting (and will, somewhat ironically, require a supermajority vote of 66 2/3% of shareholders to become effective). On a similar note, three stockholder proposals are on the agenda this year: Eliminate the one-year holding period requirement to call a special stockholder meeting. Request that the board adopt a new director election resignation policy. Request that Nvidia enhance its public reporting to include a chart identifying employees by gender and race for the nine Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)-defined job categories. Nvidia's board recommended shareholders vote against these proposals. Even if the proposals are approved, though, none would affect the stock. It's possible that something interesting could arise during the "other matters" part of the company's annual shareholder meeting, but I wouldn't bet on it. If you're looking for a catalyst for Nvidia stock, you'll probably have to wait a while longer. The next scheduled event that could cause shares to rise won't be until the company reports its fiscal year 2026 second-quarter results on Aug. 27, 2025. However, it's entirely possible that this Q2 update won't move the needle much. Nvidia would need to blow past earnings estimates or reveal something else that's really positive to have a significant effect on the stock. Just because Nvidia's annual shareholder meeting will likely be a big nothingburger doesn't mean buying the stock hand over fist before June 25 is a bad idea. Actually, for long-term investors, it could be a smart move. From my perspective, the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) is only in its early stages, and the rise of AI agents could provide a significant tailwind for Nvidia. So could progress in developing artificial general intelligence (AGI). While I can imagine a future where Nvidia isn't at the forefront of the AI chip market, I think it's much more likely that the company will remain a key player. Nvidia's Blackwell GPU is the best AI chip available. The company's roadmap of new products each year should keep Nvidia ahead of the pack. Sure, valuation is a perennial objection to buying the stock. I've raised the question myself in the past. However, if the AI market unfolds like I suspect it will, Nvidia's growth will justify its current valuation. Investors won't miss the opportunity if they don't buy the stock before June 25. But if you believe in Nvidia's potential, there's no time like the present. Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Nvidia wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $664,089!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $881,731!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Keith Speights has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Buy Nvidia Stock Hand Over Fist Before June 25? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
