Federal agency sues auto dealership over alleged racial slurs

By Steve Green

Published Thursday, Sept. 30, 2010 | 10:01 a.m.

Updated Thursday, Sept. 30, 2010 | 11:43 a.m.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Wednesday sued a Southern Nevada auto dealership after a black employee claimed he was subjected to racial slurs and was humiliated when his boss told him to get on his knees and beg for his job.

The EEOC lawsuit filed in federal court in Las Vegas names as defendants Shack-Findlay Automotive LLC doing business as Findlay Honda; and Findlay Automotive Group.

An attorney for Shack-Findlay today denied the EEOC's allegations and said a company investigation found the racial harassment as alleged never happened.

The EEOC said it was suing under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991 "to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race (black) and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to Sydney Robinson, Jason Grinstead and similarly-situated employees who were adversely affected by such practices."

Saying the workers were subjected to a "racially hostile work environment," the EEOC complained Robinson was unlawfully fired for opposing the alleged hostile work environment.

Grinstead was also fired because of "the different terms and conditions of employment including a separate set of 'rules' for black American employees including issues regarding customer complaints, personal time during working hours and disciplinary actions," the EEOC charged.

The EEOC alleged black workers were subjected to harassment that included "the repeated use by defendant employers' employees of egregious racial slurs" such as the "n-word" and racial jokes and comments about African-Americans.

The EEOC in its lawsuit seeks a court order barring the defendants from engaging in discriminatory employment practices and retaliating against workers on a discriminatory basis.

The agency also wants affected employees to receive general damages for enduring humiliation and other alleged wrongdoing, punitive damages, back pay with interest and that the affected employees be re-hired.

The EEOC also asks the court to order the defendants to "institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities."

Robinson, in a lawsuit filed in Clark County District Court in January, alleged he was discriminated against while working as a driver for Shack-Findlay Automotive at its dealership on Auto Show Drive in Henderson.

Robinson said in the lawsuit he was a driver for the dealership from July 2003 through January 2008 and that beginning in June 2007 his supervisor Michael Austin repeatedly addressed him with an "egregious racial slur."

Robinson alleged he and another black driver had been told they would be fired if they received two customer complaints and that this rule didn't apply to employees of other races.

After receiving a customer complaint, Austin told Robinson the complaint would "go away" if Robinson got on his knees and begged for his job in an open area visible to co-workers, the lawsuit alleged. This alleged begging incident is not mentioned in the EEOC lawsuit.

Robinson in the January lawsuit said he had a knee condition and it was painful for him to kneel on a hard surface, but Austin said he was not joking so Robinson "relented, kneeled and begged defendant Austin for his job."

"Defendant Austin never treated a Caucasian employee in such a manner," the lawsuit charged.

In answering the lawsuit, attorneys for Austin and the dealership said they were immune from such a lawsuit since the only way under Nevada law to claim a workplace injury is to file a workers' compensation insurance claim.

"Insults do not amount to extreme and outrageous conduct," attorneys for Austin and the dealership said in a court filing responding to the claim Robinson was subjected to an egregious racial slur.

As for the claim Robinson was told to kneel and beg for his job, the attorneys wrote: "While such a request may be insulting and an indignity, it is not 'beyond all possible bounds of decency,' 'atrocious' or `utterly intolerable' and therefore falls short of the extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Attorney Gregory King of the Las Vegas law firm Payne & Fears LLP, who is representing Shack-Findlay, said Shack-Findlay is frustrated and disappointed with the EEOC because during attempts to resolve the issue out of court, the EEOC refused to provide evidence or documentation to back up its claims.

King said the workers named in the EEOC complaint were let go because of performance issues and workplace conduct, not because of their race.

A company investigation found the allegations in the Robinson and EEOC lawsuits are "without merit,'' King said.

Separately, the EEOC on Wednesday announced Republic Services Inc. and its subsidiary Republic Silver State Disposal Inc. will pay $2.975 million to settle a 2004 age discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.

The EEOC alleged Republic terminated and denied job transfer opportunities to about 21 employees over the age of 40 at its facilities in Southern Nevada between 2003 and 2005 because of their age. The allegedly terminated employees included garbage collectors, drivers, and supervisors, some of whom were employed by the company for more than 25 years.

"The EEOC contends that those jobs were then offered to younger employees who were subsequently held to lower performance standards," an EEOC statement said. "The EEOC further charged that Republic engaged in a form of hazing called `break him off,' in which some employees were worked to the point of exhaustion, often making it difficult for them to do their jobs."

"No one should be harassed at work or forced out of a job for discriminatory reasons," EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien said in a statement. "The law clearly prohibits mistreatment or dismissal of older workers on account of their age, and no workplace should lose productive and valuable employees because of illegal age stereotyping."

In a statement, Republic said:

"Litigation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over this matter has been ongoing for approximately six years, and most of the allegations relate to employment issues that occurred over seven years ago. During the litigation, the EEOC voluntarily relinquished claims on behalf of dozens of former employees, and the court agreed with Republic that many of the people on behalf of whom the EEOC attempted to pursue a case had no viable discrimination claim against the company. The court also found no merit to the EEOC’s claims that Republic Services exhibited a pattern or practice of age discrimination."

"Republic Services strongly denies and has not admitted as part of the settlement that it engaged in age discrimination toward any of the former employees. In fact, the consent decree filed in the United States District Court explicitly states that, `The decree is not an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and shall not be construed as an admission or a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or any other law by [Republic Services].'"

"Republic Services made the decision to resolve this matter through a financial settlement to avoid continued litigation costs that would be incurred through trial and any appeal that would have followed."

"Republic Services is committed to providing equal employment opportunities regardless of age or other legally protected characteristics," the statement concluded.