article: On September 28, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The EEOC sued Hannabery Electric, Inc., doing business as Hannabery HVAC, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC sought injunctive relief and back pay on behalf of Hannabery employees alleging that the defendant violated the ADEA by subjecting older workers to disparate terms and conditions of employment, including discharge, loss of raises, benefits and bonuses, negative performance evaluations, and excess scrutiny of their job performances. The case was assigned to Judge Thomas M. Golden. On March 15, 2007, the EEOC filed an amended complaint. The complaint additionally sought nonpecuniary and punitive damages. On October 20, 2006, three Hannabery employees filed a motion to intervene. On April 9, 2007, District Judge Thomas M. Golden denied their motion. In response, on July 30, 2007, those three employees and one other brought their own suit before Judge Golden against their employer. The plaintiffs made the same allegations as the EEOC did in its complaint against Hannabery (Morrone v. Hall et al, EE-PA-0216). On November 15, 2007, Judge Golden consolidated the employees’ suit with the EEOC’s. On December 21, 2007, the parties submitted a consent decree. The defendant did not admit liability, but agreed to pay a total of $156,700 to the five complainants. The defendant was enjoined from engaging in discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices. The defendant agreed to post notice of its anti-discrimination policy, provide ADEA training to all supervisory and management employees, and report to the EEOC verifying that training was conducted, a list of training attendees, and the duration of training. The consent decree had an initial period of five years. On January 8, 2008, Judge Golden entered the agreement. On April 7, 2008, the EEOC filed a motion to enforce the consent decree and impose sanctions. The EEOC alleged that the defendant willingly failed to comply with the agreement to pay three of the complainants. However, on June 10, 2008, Judge Golden denied the motion as moot after the EEOC advised that the defendant was in compliance with the terms of the settlement. The case is now closed.
summary: In 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The EEOC alleged that the defendant had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by subjecting older workers to disparate terms and conditions of employment, including discharge, loss of raises, benefits and bonuses, negative performance evaluations, and excess scrutiny of their job performances. In 2008, the defendant entered a five-year consent decree that enjoined the defendant from engaging in discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices; required the defendant to post notice of its anti-discrimination policy, provide ADEA training to all supervisory and management employees, and report to the EEOC verifying that training was conducted, a list of training attendees, and the duration of trainin; and awarded monetary demages to complainants. The case is now closed.