Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Motion to Intervene Re Vamco

Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Motion to Intervene Re Vamco

Ratings: (0)|Views: 63|Likes:
Published by Legal Momentum
Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Motion to Intervene in employment discrimination case against Vamco construction company.
Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Motion to Intervene in employment discrimination case against Vamco construction company.

More info:

Published by: Legal Momentum on Jun 12, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEWYORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY: 13 Civ. 6088 (JPO) (JCF)COMMISSION,::REPORT ANDPlaintiff,: RECOMMENDATION :- against -::VAMCO SHEET METALS, INC.,::Defendant.:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -: TO THE HONORABLE J. PAUL OETKEN, U.S.D.J.:On August 29, 2013, the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (“EEOC”) brought suit against Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc.(“Vamco”), alleging unlawful employment discrimination based on sexin violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and TitleI of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Plaintiff-Intervenors KeshaWatkins, Anna Quitoriano, Nilsa Lopez, and Melanie DeMicco nowrequest leave to intervene, bringing claims under Title VII, theNew York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 (NYHRL”), and theNew York City Human Rights Law, Administration Code of the City of New York §§ 8-101 et seq. (“NYCHRL”). Ms. DeMicco also bringsclaims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.§ 207(r)(1) (“FLSA”), and New York State Labor Law, Art. 7 § 206-c(“NYLL”). For the reasons that follow, the motion should begranted in part and denied in part. Background The defendant is a New York corporation that provides sheet
Case 1:13-cv-06088-JPO-JCF Document 33 Filed 03/04/14 Page 1 of 19
metal fabrication and installation services on constructionprojects. (Complaint (“Compl.”), 4, 7). Between July 2008 andApril 2011, the defendant subcontracted for a construction projectat the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. (Compl., 8). Due to the location of the project, Vamco wasrequired to hire employees fromLocal 28 of the Sheet MetalWorkers’ International Union (“Local 28”). (Compl., ¶ 9). Theproject was also subject to federal requirements mandating that 6.9percent of the total construction work hours be performed by women. (Compl., 15; Proposed Complaint (“Prop. Compl.”), 16). Despite this requirement, Vamco employed seven to ten womenfor the duration of the project (Compl., 14; Prop. Compl., 17),as compared to almost 200 men. (Prop. Compl., 17). The EEOC andthe plaintiff-intervenors also allege that male Vamco employeesenjoyed longer tenure than female employees, in part throughdeliberate manipulation of the Local 28 referral system. (Compl.,14, 20-21, 39; Prop. Compl., 18). Local 28 fills employmentrequests by maintaining a list ranking its members by employmentstatus; those who have been unemployed the longest are put at thetop of the list and referred first in response to employmentrequests. (Compl., 10). The first time a member accepts a jobthat lasts five days or less, his or her name returns to itsoriginal position on the list, rather than being placed at the2
Case 1:13-cv-06088-JPO-JCF Document 33 Filed 03/04/14 Page 2 of 19
bottom. (Compl., 11). During the John Jay project, the listcontained hundreds of names, with a waiting period of approximatelyone year for those on the bottomof the list. (Compl., 12). Atleast twice, Vamco dismissed female employees and then requestednew referrals fromLocal 28 in an attempt to circumvent thereferral system. (Compl. 20-21, 38-39). Four women who were terminated by Vamco filed charges of unlawful gender discrimination with the EEOC. (Compl., 6). After the EEOC conducted an investigation into their claims, itissued a combined determination finding that Vamco subjected thosefour female employees and a class of female sheet metal workers to“disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of theiremployment, unjustified negative evaluations as compared with maleco-workers, and layoffs when male workers were retainedinviolation of Title VII. (Prop. Compl., 21). The EEOC filed suitagainst Vamco on August 29, 2013. The plaintiff-intervenors -- thefour women on whose behalf the EEOC filed suit -- now seek tointervene and bring additional charges against Vamco. A. Proposed ComplaintAlthough the underlying allegations differ in that theydescribe each plaintiff-intervenors individual experience withVamco, there are common threads to the claims. All four womenallege that they were experienced metal workers who were assigned3
Case 1:13-cv-06088-JPO-JCF Document 33 Filed 03/04/14 Page 3 of 19

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->