(LEGAFI) -- A Texas freight company has agreed to pay eight former dockworkers $400,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The workers allege in the age discrimination lawsuit that Central Freight Lines, Inc. discriminated against them – all of whom were at least 50 years old – by selecting them for termination during an August 2007 “reduction of force.” The workers allege they were selected because of their age, and that the reduction-in-force was simply a ruse to fire the older workers, some of whom had worked for the company for 20 or more years.

According to their age discrimination lawsuit, the workers were called names such as “grandpa,” “old farts” and other derogatory terms by their supervisor, who had been asked to prepare a list of the men to be terminated.

The EEOC further charged the company with changing its attendance and disciplinary policy so that the men, who had not had more than a few disciplinary write-ups, “were suddenly put on corrective action and eligible for termination under the new policy.”

The company then replaced the older employees with younger hires.

Discriminating against an individual because of his or her age violates The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).

In addition to paying the men $400,000, Central Freight Lines also agreed to train management and supervisory personnel at its Dallas and Fort Worth terminals on equal employment opportunity policies and procedures. The company will also commit to enforce a written policy against age discrimination.

"It is an injustice to terminate these loyal workers who gave so many years of their lives to Central Freight," said William C. Backhaus, Senior Trial Attorney for the EEOC. "Laying people off because of their age is a violation of federal law."

“Central Freight treated these experienced dockworkers like they were expendable,” added EEOC attorney Suzanne M. Anderson. “This case shows that EEOC will remain vigilant in our protection of older workers.”

“Reductions in force are unfortunately not unusual in tough economic times, but a freight business should realize that unloading more experienced older dockworkers while pushing to hire younger ones is not the answer,” said Robert A. Canino, Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office. “The costs that can result from age discrimination can lead to yet a heavier load to bear.”

Central Freight responded in a statement by saying it “has denied from the onset of this litigation that it discriminated” against the workers or violated any federal or state statute.

(LEGAFI) -- A Marine reservist has filed a discrimination lawsuit against a Connecticut Chevy dealership, claiming he was fried because of his service in the military.

Derek Laasar alleges in the military discrimination lawsuit that his supervisor told him he had to choose between the Reserves or his job as a technician at the dealership, in direct violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

USERRA protects employees from being discriminated against because of their past, current or future military obligations, including being terminated for missing work due to their service.

Laasar claims he received a written memo in March indicating his termination had nothing to do with his job performance but was based on his decision to “pursue a career in the military.”

"That sort of proves that this was a knowing and willful disregard for the federal law protecting our client's right to serve in the military without any kind of discrimination,” Laasar’s attorney said.

"Perhaps people do need more education on (the law), particularly with the amount of people who are enlisting," his attorney continued. "But if they weren't aware of it, they should have been. This statute has been around for quite some time."

Laasar is seeking unspecified monetary damages and reinstatement to his job.

(LEGAFI) -- Two former employees have won $22,000 from a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against their former employer, a family-owned business that operates two nursing homes in Utah.

According to women's pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, the owner Beehive of Vernal, Inc. offered one of their jobs as assistant manager to a replacement, repeatedly asked her when she planned to stop working and subjected her to scrutiny, which ultimately compelled her to quit. The second woman also charges the owner with similar discriminatory behavior upon learning of her pregnancy, including repeatedly asking her when she planned to stop working, demoting her, and ultimately taking her off the work schedule and effectively terminating her.

The pregnancy discrimination lawsuit was filed on the women’s behalf by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which sought monetary relief under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

In addition to the monetary settlement, Beehive has agreed, among other things, to provide its employees, supervisors, managers and HR employees with annual training for three years on pregnancy discrimination, and to make periodic reports to the EEOC.

“Beehive is to be commended for addressing this case in a direct fashion and for working with our Denver Field Office to institute measures to modify its practices and prevent discrimination based on pregnancy,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District, which includes Utah. “The EEOC also appreciates Beehive’s commitment to better train and educate its management team and work force. We believe this agreement will help promote a discrimination-free workplace going forward.”

EEOC Phoenix District Director Rayford Irvin added, “Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination. The EEOC is steadfast in its commitment to assist victims of all forms of employment discrimination.”

(LEGAFI) -- A group of 16 Hispanic and African-American employees at Coca-Cola plants in the New York area have filed a discrimination lawsuit against the company, claiming they work in a “cesspool of racial discrimination.”

The production workers claim in the racial discrimination lawsuit that Coca-Cola relegates minorities to less favorable assignments, unfair disciplinary action and retaliation for complaining. When the employees complain, “Coca-Cola circles its wagons and calls (the Plaintiffs) ‘nuts’ and ‘ingrates,’” their lawyer says.

Several Plaintiffs in the Coca-Cola racial discrimination lawsuit say they were subjected to racial slurs and that co-workers who used them went unpunished.

“I’ve never been called so many names as I have been at Coca-Cola,” one of the workers told the Daily News.

A Coca-Cola spokesman said the company does not tolerate discrimination in the workplace, adding, “We take this matter seriously and are investigating the allegations.”

The workers are seeking unspecified damages in the Coca-Cola racial discrimination lawsuit.

(LEGAFI) -- Home Depot has been hit with a lawsuit by the U.S. government for allegedly illegally firing an Iraq war veteran at a Flagstaff, Arizona, store.

According to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, Plaintiff Brian Bailey was fired for taking leave from work to fulfill his military obligations with the National Guard. Attorneys for the Department of Justice claim the action violates the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994, which protects employees from being discriminated against because of their past, current or future military obligations. Employers are not permitted to fire employees who miss work due to military obligations.

A Home Depot spokesman denied the charge, saying the company fired Bailey for performance reasons unrelated to his military duties, but did not provide specifics. In the past eight years, Home Depot has hired more than 60,000 veterans and commits to providing a work environment “that values the skills learned through military service, while providing the flexibility needed by those who serve in the National Guard, reserves or who are military spouses.”

According to the Home Depot USERRA lawsuit, Bailey began working for the store in 2007 and was promoted to department supervisor in 2008. Before being employed at Home Depot, he served with the U.S. Army in the Iraq war. After being honorably discharged, Bailey joined the California Army National Guard.

The USERRA lawsuit alleges Home Depot managers fired Bailey in May 2010 after expressing their desires to remove him from his position “because of the leave from work he required due to his military obligations.”

"At least one of the managers who expressed a desire to remove Mr. Bailey from his position because of his military leave took part in the decision to terminate Mr. Bailey, and other managerial personnel who expressed this same desire influenced the decision to terminate Mr. Bailey," the USERRA lawsuit states.

The lawsuit is asking Home Depot to pay Bailey lost wages and benefits caused be Home Depot’s alleged violation of USERRA, as well as rehire him to an appropriate position. It is also asking that no further action be taken against him or any other service member working for the company that violates USERRA.