The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Lynn Y. Bruner
April 2, 2004 District Director
(314) 539-7830
Cell (913) 530-0394
C. Felix Miller
Senior Trial Attorney
(314) 539-7949
TTY (314) 539-7803
Robert G. Johnson
Regional Attorney
(314) 539-7910
COURT RULES ALLSTATE'S THREATS OF RETALIATION ARE ILLEGAL
Insurance Giant Deprives Employees of Equal Opportunity, Says
EEOC in Lawsuit
PHILADELPHIA - In a significant decision, the federal court
here has ruled that Allstate Insurance Company unlawfully
retaliated against approximately 6,200 of its employees by
requiring them to give up their workplace discrimination
claims in order to continue to work as agents with the
Northbrook, Ill.-based insurance giant. The EEOC's lawsuit
charges Allstate with violating the non-retaliation
requirements of several federal laws prohibiting employment
discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),
and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
EEOC's suit alleges that Allstate implemented a mandatory
policy at all of its U.S. facilities requiring employees to
sign a release waiving all workplace discrimination charges
against the company in order to be retained as
independent-contractor agents. The effect of the policy, the
EEOC says, has been to deprive Allstate employees of equal
employment opportunities by attempting to prevent their
participation in activity protected under federal
anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC also contends that the
alleged discriminatory policy was carried out with malice or
with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights
of Allstate employees who worked as insurance agents in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
The EEOC's suit was consolidated with Romero v. Allstate, Case
No. 01-3894 a private lawsuit which also addresses the issue
of retaliation as well as numerous other challenges to company
reorganization actions. The Court's ruling also addressed
other claims in the Romero case.
In its ruling, the Court held: "It is illegal to either
retaliate, or threaten to retaliate, against an employee to
prevent him from exercising rights under the EEOC, Title VII,
ADEA, ADA, etc. Those employees who did not sign releases were
in fact treated less favorably than those who did sign, and
the signers had all been threatened with such an outcome if
they exercised their right to refuse to sign the proposed
release."
"The Court's decision here is monumental," said EEOC Regional
Attorney Robert G. Johnson. "It guarantees that employees
cannot be coerced by the threatened termination of their
employment into giving up their rights under the nation's
employment discrimination laws. This decision is crucial to
the continued effectiveness of those laws. It sends a strong
message to other employers not to try a similar scheme."
"This decision has nationwide significance for virtually all
working men and women," said C. Felix Miller, the EEOC's lead
attorney on the case. "Had Allstate been allowed to get away
with its plan, it would have gutted our country's employment
discrimination statutes. The Court by this ruling has told
Allstate that it must obey the law. It cannot threaten its
employees with the loss of their job.
Discussion Forum
