August 6, 2025 • 19 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI. The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to. Enjoy!
What happens when a workplace harbors shocking racial hostility beneath its surface? Today we're peeling back the layers of a riveting discrimination case that reveals the stark contrast between public corporate images and the reality some employees face behind closed doors.
Our investigation centers on a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against TNT Crane and Rigging in Texas federal court. The allegations are deeply disturbing: Black employees subjected to regular racial slurs from managers, nooses displayed at company facilities, white supremacist symbols affixed to equipment, and swift retaliation against those who dared to speak up. When a white employee reported witnessing these conditions, he allegedly faced vandalism, threats, reduced hours, and ultimately felt forced to resign.
Throughout the legal proceedings, TNT Crane and Rigging maintained their innocence, denying all substantive allegations. Yet the case concluded with a $525,000 settlement split among five employees and a court-mandated overhaul of company policies. This resolution—achieved without any admission of guilt—reveals a fascinating dynamic where the sheer weight of allegations and the desire to avoid prolonged litigation can drive significant corporate change.
The comprehensive consent decree now requires TNT to implement detailed anti-discrimination policies, establish multiple reporting channels including a direct hotline to HR leadership, conduct mandatory training for all employees, and submit to three years of EEOC oversight. It's a powerful example of how legal pressure can transform workplace culture regardless of whether wrongdoing is ever formally acknowledged.
What does it say about our systems of accountability when half a million dollars changes hands while responsibility remains officially unacknowledged? Join us as we explore this question and examine what real justice looks like for employees facing discrimination in today's workplace. Has this case sparked thoughts about your own workplace experiences? We'd love to hear your perspective.
EEOC Press Release: August 1, 2025
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, let's unpack this.
Imagine a workplace where, wellbeneath the surface of daily
operations, some deeplyunsettling allegations start to
emerge.
They reveal a stark contrastbetween what's seen and what's
actually endured by someemployees.
Today we're taking a deep diveinto a really compelling case.
It landed in the US DistrictCourt for the Northern District
of Texas and it involves acompany called TNT Crane and
(00:23):
Rigging and the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission, you
know, the EEOC.
So for this deep dive, we'velaid out a stack of the primary
legal documents.
We got the initial complaintfiled by the EEOC, then the
company's detailed response,their answer and finally a
pretty significant consentdecree that brings the whole
case to a close, consent decreethat brings the whole case to a
(00:45):
close.
Our mission, well, it's to pullout the most important insights
from these filings.
What exactly was alleged?
How did the company push back?
And you know, what does thisfinal resolution truly mean for
everyone involved, especiallysince and this is key there was
never a single court ruling onthe actual facts of the case.
It's a fascinating look at howworkplace justice can sort of
unfold sometimes.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
It really is.
What's truly insightful here, Ithink, is how this case
demonstrates that, even withoutthat formal court ruling, just
the sheer weight of theallegations and, frankly, the
desire to avoid a long, costlylegal battle that can compel a
company to enact some reallysweeping reforms and pay out
substantial sums of money.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Right.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
It reveals this powerful dynamic of legal
pressure, you know, acting as acatalyst for change, regardless
of whether guilt is actuallyadmitted on paper.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
OK, so let's start where the legal process did,
with the EEOC's complaint.
Now, the EEOC just for anyonewho might not know, that's the
Equal Employment OpportunityCommission.
They're the federal agencyresponsible for enforcing the
federal laws against workplacediscrimination.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
age, disability, geneticinformation.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Exactly.
And here they brought thisaction under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 andalso the Civil Rights Act of
1991.
So what exactly were theyalleging happened over at TNT
Korean and Rigging?
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Well, title VII is really the foundational law here
.
It broadly prohibits employmentdiscrimination based on those
protected characteristics youjust listed race, color and so
on.
But cruciallyonged violationFirst, a race based hostile work
environment and second, illegalretaliation.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Now let's zero in on some of the specifics detailed
in the complaint, because someof black employees Lorenzo Smith
, edwin Creighton, freddieCampbell and Jason Pradia were
subjected to a race basedhostile work environment.
And we're talking about a fieldmanager and several other
employees reportedly being andthis is a quote common and
frequent users of racial slursand jokes, including use of the
N-word.
For instance, Lorenzo Smith hewas a crane operator.
(03:00):
He was allegedly told by afield manager Ninger, if you are
going to bitch about it, youcan turn that truck around and
take your ass home.
This was apparently when heasked for assistance Wow.
Similarly, edwin Creighton wasallegedly called the N-word by a
field manager who supposedlysaid Ninger, if you don't want
(03:21):
the job, go home.
And Jason Pradia reportedlyheard a white co-worker say
things like a lot of black arefucking lazy, you're different,
you're not like other bingers,you work, though.
That's what I like about you.
And he also apparently heardthat same co-worker say about
another black employee he is aminger, he's lazy, it's just
right really blatant stuffalleged absolutely blatant, and
it wasn't just verbal either,right no, exactly.
(03:42):
The allegations weren't limitedto verbal abuse.
The complaint also describedthreatening and offensive
imagery that was apparentlypresent at their Fort Worth
facility.
This included specific mentionsof nooses, and also lightning
bolt stickers identified withwhite supremacy displayed on the
cranes.
I mean, what's the impact ofseeing symbols like that, these
(04:03):
powerful, hate-filled symbols,right there in your workplace?
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Well, that's a really crucial distinction, actually,
because the presence of physicalsymbols like nooses or those
lightning bolts which are deeplyassociated with racial terror
and white supremacy, it justescalates the severity of a
hostile work environment claimsignificantly.
It moves beyond just offensivewords, right, it becomes a
visual, almost pervasive threatthat can make the workplace feel
(04:30):
inherently unsafe, deeplyintimidating.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Yeah, I can only imagine.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
It's like a constant, stark reminder of racial
animosity.
It directly impacts anemployee's psychological
well-being, their ability tojust do their job without
feeling harassed or threatened.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
And so what happens when someone actually dares to
speak up against an environmentlike that?
The complaint gets into thealleged retaliation against
Nathan Cook.
He is a white crane operator.
He reportedly witnessed andcomplained about the racial
slurs and these symbols.
He even specifically reportedseeing a noose On the back fence
(05:02):
of the Fort Worth yard back inFebruary 2019.
And also those lightning boltstickles on the cranes.
According to the complaint,after he made these complaints
and, you know, openly admittedhe was involved in reporting it
things apparently went downhillfor him very quickly.
His personal vehicle tires wereflattened, he was physically
confronted by a co-worker.
He was called awful slurs likewigger, nigger, lover and a
(05:25):
snitch Terrible, yeah.
And his regular and overtimehours were allegedly cut.
He was even labeled atroublemaker by the branch
manager.
It all ultimately led him tofeel he had no choice but to
resign because the workingconditions were just, in his
words, intolerable.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
And this aspect of the case.
It really highlights thecritical importance of those
anti-retaliation provisions inTitle VII.
It's just not enough toprohibit discrimination on paper
.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Employees have to feel safe enough to actually
report it without fearingnegative consequences, and when
an employee, especially someonelike Cook, who wasn't even the
direct target of the initialdiscrimination but was speaking
up as an ally when they facesuch severe backlash.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Well, it sends a really chilling message
throughout the entire workforce,doesn't it?
It tells everyone about thereal risks involved in reporting
misconduct.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Absolutely.
And according to the complaint,despite all these serious
reports being made to variouslevels of management we're
talking branch manager, safetydirector, operations manager,
even HR the EEOC alleged thatTNT crane and rigging just
failed, failed to engage in anyeffective response, any thorough
investigation or any meaningfulcorrective action.
So that's the powerful andpretty unsettling narrative laid
(06:35):
out by the EEOC.
But OK, having heard thosegrave accusations, the obvious
next question is how did TNTcrane and rigging defend
themselves?
What do they say in court?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
When a company faces a complaint like this, their
formal legal response is calledan answer, and in their answer,
t&t, crane and Rigging flatlydenied that these claims had any
merit whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Yeah, and legally speaking that's standard
procedure.
When a defendant files ananswer, they go through each
allegation basically line byline.
They either admit it, deny itor sometimes they state they
lack sufficient information torespond either way.
But it's really crucial forlisteners to understand this.
Denying liability or saying youlack information is absolutely
(07:17):
not an admission that the factsalleged by the other side are
true.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
OK, important distinction, Definitely.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Yeah.
So here TNT Crane and Riggingadmitted some very basic,
undisputed facts like yes, theseindividuals were employed by
them.
Yes, lorenzo Smith worked at aspecific mall site.
Yes, cook claimed to have seena noose.
But they were very clear, veryspecific, in denying that they
engaged in any unlawfulemployment practices or that
they failed to respondeffectively or investigate the
(07:43):
complaints properly.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
And they also brought up several affirmative defenses
, right?
What were those about?
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Right.
Think of affirmative defensesas their even-if arguments, like
even if some of what the EEOCalleges were true.
Here's why we still shouldn'tbe held legally liable.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
So, for example, they argued that the EEOC's
complaint itself might have beentechnically flawed in some way,
or maybe that some claims werejust too old, barred by the
statute of limitations.
They also claimed that anyallegations that went beyond the
scope of the original internalcomplaints filed by the
employees shouldn't be allowedin court.
And furthermore, they assertedthey had widely disseminated
(08:21):
anti-discrimination policiesalready in place.
They argue any actions thecompany did take were for
perfectly legitimate,non-discriminatory,
non-retaliatory business reasons.
They even raised the defensethat maybe some of the alleged
bad actions were outside thescope of employment of the
specific individuals accused,meaning those employees weren't
(08:42):
acting on behalf of the companywhen they did those things.
Or alternatively, that thesewere at-will employees, meaning
in theory they could beterminated for almost any reason
not specifically prohibited bylaw.
And finally, they argued thatif any violations did occur,
they weren't willful ormalicious and that the
individuals involved hadn't doneenough to minimize their own
(09:03):
damages.
Quite a list.
That is quite a list, a strongdenial.
Across the board, it soundslike Absolutely A very robust
defense strategy, which makes itparticularly striking that,
despite these strong denials andthis whole set of defenses, the
parties ultimately chose toresolve the case through a
consent decree Right, thesettlement Exactly.
It's a very common and actuallyquite powerful legal tool.
(09:24):
Both sides agree to asettlement and the court then
oversees its implementation,making sure everyone follows
through.
But the key thing here and wementioned it earlier is that it
happens without any formalfindings of fact by the court
and, critically, without anyadmission of liability from the
defendant, t&t Crane and Riggingin this case.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
So why do it then?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
For T&T Kreen and Rigging.
It means they avoid thesignificant time commitment, the
huge expenditure and just theinherent risks that come with a
contested trial.
Trials can be unpredictable,incredibly costly, not just
financially but alsoreputationally.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Makes sense.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
So settling via consent decree is often a
strategic decision to mitigatefurther damage, even if you
maintain you did nothing wrong.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
OK.
So if the court didn't rule onthe facts and the company didn't
admit any guilt, what does thisconsent decree actually do?
What does it mean practicallyfor T&T Crane and Rigging and
for the individuals involved?
Let's start with the money side.
The decree lays out specificmonetary relief.
Nathan Cook remember the whiteemployee who complained and
faced alleged retaliation?
(10:27):
He's set to receive $200,000.
And that includes back pay,interest and damages.
Then Lorenzo Smith is toreceive $115,000.
Edwin Creighton gets $85,000.
Freddie Campbell $75,000.
And Jason Pardia $50,000.
And these amounts arespecifically for compensatory
and punitive damages.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
So if you put that all together, it totals $525,000
in monetary relief distributedamong those five individuals.
Half a million dollars, exactly, half a million dollars.
And while again, it's not anadmission of guilt, that kind of
payout sends a very clearfinancial signal, doesn't it?
Speaker 1 (11:00):
It certainly does.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
It really underscores the substantial risk and the
potential cost companies facewhen these kinds of allegations
surface.
It shows how settlements oftenbecome that strategic decision
to just cut their losses andavoid potentially even greater
financial and reputationaldamage from a long trial.
It's definitely a significantoutcome for the alleged victims
(11:22):
here.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Okay, but beyond the money, what really caught my eye
in this decree is thecomprehensive plan for actual
systemic change within TNT,crane and rigging.
That seems really important.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Yes, absolutely.
That's often a major componentof these EEOC settlements.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
So first, the company is permanently enjoined, which
means they're strictlyprohibited by a court order
right.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Correct, it's a binding legal order.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
OK, so they're permanently enjoined from
engaging in any employmentpractice that discriminates
based on race.
That includes creating or evenjust tolerating a hostile work
environment or retaliatingagainst anyone for opposing
unlawful practices.
That feels like a big one, adirect command from the court
binding them forever.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
It is a very big deal .
It sets a clear, ongoing legalstandard they must adhere to.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Right and second, the company has to implement brand
new, very detailed Title VIIpolicies and procedures, and
these policies can't just bevague statements.
They have to specificallydescribe what constitutes
prohibited harassment anddiscrimination.
They have to stateunequivocally that retaliation
won't be tolerated and outlinethe specific disciplinary
actions for violators, right upto potentially being fired.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
And there's another layer too, for managers
specifically.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Oh yeah, what's that?
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Well, managers now have a clear affirmative duty
under this decree to activelymonitor the work environment for
any signs of trouble and theyhave to promptly report any
suspected harassment ordiscrimination they see or hear
about.
And the decree explicitlystates that failing to do so is
grounds for disciplinary actionagainst the manager, potentially
even immediate discharge.
So it puts the onus onmanagement to be proactive.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Wow, ok, so accountability is being built in
there.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Exactly.
But then a critical questioncomes up how do employees
actually report these issuessafely and effectively?
Does the decree address that?
Speaker 1 (13:18):
It does seem to it mandates a complaint procedure
that must have multiple avenuesfor reporting.
It makes sure that just makingan oral complaint is sufficient.
You don't necessarily have toput it in writing.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
That's important Removes a barrier.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Yeah, and it says the company can't impose
unreasonable burdens or timelimits on employees who want to
report something.
Flexibility seems key.
Investigations have to beprompt, thorough and impartial,
and they have to keep meticulousrecords of everything.
Plus, there's a new requirementfor an employee hotline that
goes directly to the vicepresident of human resources.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
So another channel, potentially bypassing local
management, if needed.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Right Another layer of accessibility and maybe
oversight.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
OK, that makes sense.
And what about preventing thisfrom happening again?
Is there training involved?
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Oh, yes, Training is a huge component of this decree
and really for any companytrying to make real change.
It has to be right.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Absolutely essential.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
So all employees at T&T Crane Riggings Texas
branches will get at least onehour of mandatory training on
Title VII and these new companypolicies.
This training will cover what'sprohibited harassment,
discrimination, retaliation.
It'll cover how to reportincidents and what the
disciplinary consequences arefor anyone who violates the
rules.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
OK, baseline for every.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Exactly, but then there's also specialized
training.
Anyone designated as aresponsible official, basically
someone involved in doinginvestigations or making
decisions on corrective actionsthey have to receive no less
than two and a half hours ofvery specific training.
This training focuses on how toconduct proficient, lawful
Title VII investigations.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Ah, so building internal capacity.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Precisely.
It gets into critical detailslike how do you identify sources
of evidence, what are effectiveinterviewing techniques, why is
it important to consider pastcomplaints about an individual,
and how do you dopost-investigation monitoring to
make sure the misconduct orretaliation doesn't just pop up
again?
It's about really building thatinternal expertise and
accountability structure.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
That sounds quite thorough.
Anything else in terms ofongoing requirements?
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Yes, a couple more things.
For three years, t&t Crane andRigging has to post clear
notices in conspicuous placesbreak rooms, bulletin boards,
that kind of thing.
These notices have to informall employees of their rights
under Title VII and thecompany's commitment to
preventing discrimination,harassment and retaliation.
And, crucially, these noticesmust also include specific rules
(15:41):
prohibiting the creation anddisplay of hate symbols like the
ones that were alleged in theoriginal complaint.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
So a constant visual reminder of the rules and rights
.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Exactly and finally, for that entire three-year
period.
The company has ongoingreporting and record keeping
obligations directly to the EEOC.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Ah, the oversight piece.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Right.
They have to submit detailedreports on all future complaints
they receive related to racialharassment, race discrimination
or retaliation, and they have todetail exactly how the company
responded to each one.
This level of oversight isreally designed to ensure they
actually sustain compliance overtime.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
That makes sense.
It keeps the pressure on.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
So, okay, we've walked through the unsettling
allegations, the company'sdenials and now this really
detailed settlement agreement.
How does this particular deepdive help us understand the
bigger picture, you know, thebroader landscape of workplace
justice and accountability?
We started with these reallyserious allegations racial
harassment, retaliation,shocking details about slurs and
(16:41):
hate symbols.
The company consistently deniedthey did anything wrong and yet
, through this consent decree,they've committed to paying out
over half a million dollars andmaking these sweeping court
mandated changes to theirpolicies, their training, their
reporting structures, everything.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yeah, I think this case vividly highlights how the
legal system, even when it worksthrough a negotiated settlement
rather than a full trial andverdict, can still be an
incredibly powerful driver forsubstantial shifts in corporate
behavior.
be an incredibly powerful driverfor substantial shifts in
corporate behavior.
It really underscores not onlythe importance of federal laws
like Title VII in trying toensure fair and safe workplaces
for everybody, but also theabsolutely critical role that
(17:18):
agencies like the EEOC play inactually enforcing those laws
and pushing for meaningful,concrete change.
It shows how that legalpressure, that threat of
litigation, can bring aboutsignificant reforms, even when
guilt isn't formally admitted onthe record.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
Yeah, that's a great point, and maybe here's a final
provocative thought for you, ourlistener, to mull over after we
wrap up out over half a milliondollars, all while still
formally denying any wrongdoing.
What does that really tell usabout the true nature of
accountability and maybe thecomplexities in the pursuit of
(17:55):
justice when it comes to thesedifficult workplace disputes?
Something to think about.
Okay, let's unpack this.
Imagine a workplace where, wellbeneath the surface of daily
operations, some deeplyunsettling allegations start to
emerge.
They reveal a stark contrastbetween what's seen and what's
actually endured by someemployees.
Today we're taking a deep diveinto a really compelling case.
It landed in the US DistrictCourt for the Northern District
of Texas and it involves acompany called TNT Crane and
(00:23):
Rigging and the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission, you
know, the EEOC.
So for this deep dive, we'velaid out a stack of the primary
legal documents.
We got the initial complaintfiled by the EEOC, then the
company's detailed response,their answer and finally a
pretty significant consentdecree that brings the whole
case to a close, consent decreethat brings the whole case to a
(00:45):
close.
Our mission, well, it's to pullout the most important insights
from these filings.
What exactly was alleged?
How did the company push back?
And you know, what does thisfinal resolution truly mean for
everyone involved, especiallysince and this is key there was
never a single court ruling onthe actual facts of the case.
It's a fascinating look at howworkplace justice can sort of
unfold sometimes.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
It really is.
What's truly insightful here, Ithink, is how this case
demonstrates that, even withoutthat formal court ruling, just
the sheer weight of theallegations and, frankly, the
desire to avoid a long, costlylegal battle that can compel a
company to enact some reallysweeping reforms and pay out
substantial sums of money.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Right.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
It reveals this powerful dynamic of legal
pressure, you know, acting as acatalyst for change, regardless
of whether guilt is actuallyadmitted on paper.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
OK, so let's start where the legal process did,
with the EEOC's complaint.
Now, the EEOC just for anyonewho might not know, that's the
Equal Employment OpportunityCommission.
They're the federal agencyresponsible for enforcing the
federal laws against workplacediscrimination.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
age, disability, geneticinformation.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Exactly.
And here they brought thisaction under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 andalso the Civil Rights Act of
1991.
So what exactly were theyalleging happened over at TNT
Korean and Rigging?
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Well, title VII is really the foundational law here
.
It broadly prohibits employmentdiscrimination based on those
protected characteristics youjust listed race, color and so
on.
But cruciallyonged violationFirst, a race based hostile work
environment and second, illegalretaliation.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Now let's zero in on some of the specifics detailed
in the complaint, because someof black employees Lorenzo Smith
, edwin Creighton, freddieCampbell and Jason Pradia were
subjected to a race basedhostile work environment.
And we're talking about a fieldmanager and several other
employees reportedly being andthis is a quote common and
frequent users of racial slursand jokes, including use of the
N-word.
For instance, Lorenzo Smith hewas a crane operator.
(03:00):
He was allegedly told by afield manager Ninger, if you are
going to bitch about it, youcan turn that truck around and
take your ass home.
This was apparently when heasked for assistance Wow.
Similarly, edwin Creighton wasallegedly called the N-word by a
field manager who supposedlysaid Ninger, if you don't want
(03:21):
the job, go home.
And Jason Pradia reportedlyheard a white co-worker say
things like a lot of black arefucking lazy, you're different,
you're not like other bingers,you work, though.
That's what I like about you.
And he also apparently heardthat same co-worker say about
another black employee he is aminger, he's lazy, it's just
right really blatant stuffalleged absolutely blatant, and
it wasn't just verbal either,right no, exactly.
(03:42):
The allegations weren't limitedto verbal abuse.
The complaint also describedthreatening and offensive
imagery that was apparentlypresent at their Fort Worth
facility.
This included specific mentionsof nooses, and also lightning
bolt stickers identified withwhite supremacy displayed on the
cranes.
I mean, what's the impact ofseeing symbols like that, these
(04:03):
powerful, hate-filled symbols,right there in your workplace?
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Well, that's a really crucial distinction, actually,
because the presence of physicalsymbols like nooses or those
lightning bolts which are deeplyassociated with racial terror
and white supremacy, it justescalates the severity of a
hostile work environment claimsignificantly.
It moves beyond just offensivewords, right, it becomes a
visual, almost pervasive threatthat can make the workplace feel
(04:30):
inherently unsafe, deeplyintimidating.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Yeah, I can only imagine.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
It's like a constant, stark reminder of racial
animosity.
It directly impacts anemployee's psychological
well-being, their ability tojust do their job without
feeling harassed or threatened.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
And so what happens when someone actually dares to
speak up against an environmentlike that?
The complaint gets into thealleged retaliation against
Nathan Cook.
He is a white crane operator.
He reportedly witnessed andcomplained about the racial
slurs and these symbols.
He even specifically reportedseeing a noose On the back fence
(05:02):
of the Fort Worth yard back inFebruary 2019.
And also those lightning boltstickles on the cranes.
According to the complaint,after he made these complaints
and, you know, openly admittedhe was involved in reporting it
things apparently went downhillfor him very quickly.
His personal vehicle tires wereflattened, he was physically
confronted by a co-worker.
He was called awful slurs likewigger, nigger, lover and a
(05:25):
snitch Terrible, yeah.
And his regular and overtimehours were allegedly cut.
He was even labeled atroublemaker by the branch
manager.
It all ultimately led him tofeel he had no choice but to
resign because the workingconditions were just, in his
words, intolerable.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
And this aspect of the case.
It really highlights thecritical importance of those
anti-retaliation provisions inTitle VII.
It's just not enough toprohibit discrimination on paper
.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Employees have to feel safe enough to actually
report it without fearingnegative consequences, and when
an employee, especially someonelike Cook, who wasn't even the
direct target of the initialdiscrimination but was speaking
up as an ally when they facesuch severe backlash.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Well, it sends a really chilling message
throughout the entire workforce,doesn't it?
It tells everyone about thereal risks involved in reporting
misconduct.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Absolutely.
And according to the complaint,despite all these serious
reports being made to variouslevels of management we're
talking branch manager, safetydirector, operations manager,
even HR the EEOC alleged thatTNT crane and rigging just
failed, failed to engage in anyeffective response, any thorough
investigation or any meaningfulcorrective action.
So that's the powerful andpretty unsettling narrative laid
(06:35):
out by the EEOC.
But OK, having heard thosegrave accusations, the obvious
next question is how did TNTcrane and rigging defend
themselves?
What do they say in court?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
When a company faces a complaint like this, their
formal legal response is calledan answer, and in their answer,
t&t, crane and Rigging flatlydenied that these claims had any
merit whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Yeah, and legally speaking that's standard
procedure.
When a defendant files ananswer, they go through each
allegation basically line byline.
They either admit it, deny itor sometimes they state they
lack sufficient information torespond either way.
But it's really crucial forlisteners to understand this.
Denying liability or saying youlack information is absolutely
(07:17):
not an admission that the factsalleged by the other side are
true.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
OK, important distinction, Definitely.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Yeah.
So here TNT Crane and Riggingadmitted some very basic,
undisputed facts like yes, theseindividuals were employed by
them.
Yes, lorenzo Smith worked at aspecific mall site.
Yes, cook claimed to have seena noose.
But they were very clear, veryspecific, in denying that they
engaged in any unlawfulemployment practices or that
they failed to respondeffectively or investigate the
(07:43):
complaints properly.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
And they also brought up several affirmative defenses
, right?
What were those about?
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Right.
Think of affirmative defensesas their even-if arguments, like
even if some of what the EEOCalleges were true.
Here's why we still shouldn'tbe held legally liable.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
So, for example, they argued that the EEOC's
complaint itself might have beentechnically flawed in some way,
or maybe that some claims werejust too old, barred by the
statute of limitations.
They also claimed that anyallegations that went beyond the
scope of the original internalcomplaints filed by the
employees shouldn't be allowedin court.
And furthermore, they assertedthey had widely disseminated
(08:21):
anti-discrimination policiesalready in place.
They argue any actions thecompany did take were for
perfectly legitimate,non-discriminatory,
non-retaliatory business reasons.
They even raised the defensethat maybe some of the alleged
bad actions were outside thescope of employment of the
specific individuals accused,meaning those employees weren't
(08:42):
acting on behalf of the companywhen they did those things.
Or alternatively, that thesewere at-will employees, meaning
in theory they could beterminated for almost any reason
not specifically prohibited bylaw.
And finally, they argued thatif any violations did occur,
they weren't willful ormalicious and that the
individuals involved hadn't doneenough to minimize their own
(09:03):
damages.
Quite a list.
That is quite a list, a strongdenial.
Across the board, it soundslike Absolutely A very robust
defense strategy, which makes itparticularly striking that,
despite these strong denials andthis whole set of defenses, the
parties ultimately chose toresolve the case through a
consent decree Right, thesettlement Exactly.
It's a very common and actuallyquite powerful legal tool.
(09:24):
Both sides agree to asettlement and the court then
oversees its implementation,making sure everyone follows
through.
But the key thing here and wementioned it earlier is that it
happens without any formalfindings of fact by the court
and, critically, without anyadmission of liability from the
defendant, t&t Crane and Riggingin this case.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
So why do it then?
Speaker 2 (09:45):
For T&T Kreen and Rigging.
It means they avoid thesignificant time commitment, the
huge expenditure and just theinherent risks that come with a
contested trial.
Trials can be unpredictable,incredibly costly, not just
financially but alsoreputationally.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Makes sense.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
So settling via consent decree is often a
strategic decision to mitigatefurther damage, even if you
maintain you did nothing wrong.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
OK.
So if the court didn't rule onthe facts and the company didn't
admit any guilt, what does thisconsent decree actually do?
What does it mean practicallyfor T&T Crane and Rigging and
for the individuals involved?
Let's start with the money side.
The decree lays out specificmonetary relief.
Nathan Cook remember the whiteemployee who complained and
faced alleged retaliation?
(10:27):
He's set to receive $200,000.
And that includes back pay,interest and damages.
Then Lorenzo Smith is toreceive $115,000.
Edwin Creighton gets $85,000.
Freddie Campbell $75,000.
And Jason Pardia $50,000.
And these amounts arespecifically for compensatory
and punitive damages.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
So if you put that all together, it totals $525,000
in monetary relief distributedamong those five individuals.
Half a million dollars, exactly, half a million dollars.
And while again, it's not anadmission of guilt, that kind of
payout sends a very clearfinancial signal, doesn't it?
Speaker 1 (11:00):
It certainly does.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
It really underscores the substantial risk and the
potential cost companies facewhen these kinds of allegations
surface.
It shows how settlements oftenbecome that strategic decision
to just cut their losses andavoid potentially even greater
financial and reputationaldamage from a long trial.
It's definitely a significantoutcome for the alleged victims
(11:22):
here.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Okay, but beyond the money, what really caught my eye
in this decree is thecomprehensive plan for actual
systemic change within TNT,crane and rigging.
That seems really important.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Yes, absolutely.
That's often a major componentof these EEOC settlements.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
So first, the company is permanently enjoined, which
means they're strictlyprohibited by a court order
right.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Correct, it's a binding legal order.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
OK, so they're permanently enjoined from
engaging in any employmentpractice that discriminates
based on race.
That includes creating or evenjust tolerating a hostile work
environment or retaliatingagainst anyone for opposing
unlawful practices.
That feels like a big one, adirect command from the court
binding them forever.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
It is a very big deal .
It sets a clear, ongoing legalstandard they must adhere to.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Right and second, the company has to implement brand
new, very detailed Title VIIpolicies and procedures, and
these policies can't just bevague statements.
They have to specificallydescribe what constitutes
prohibited harassment anddiscrimination.
They have to stateunequivocally that retaliation
won't be tolerated and outlinethe specific disciplinary
actions for violators, right upto potentially being fired.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
And there's another layer too, for managers
specifically.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Oh yeah, what's that?
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Well, managers now have a clear affirmative duty
under this decree to activelymonitor the work environment for
any signs of trouble and theyhave to promptly report any
suspected harassment ordiscrimination they see or hear
about.
And the decree explicitlystates that failing to do so is
grounds for disciplinary actionagainst the manager, potentially
even immediate discharge.
So it puts the onus onmanagement to be proactive.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Wow, ok, so accountability is being built in
there.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Exactly.
But then a critical questioncomes up how do employees
actually report these issuessafely and effectively?
Does the decree address that?
Speaker 1 (13:18):
It does seem to it mandates a complaint procedure
that must have multiple avenuesfor reporting.
It makes sure that just makingan oral complaint is sufficient.
You don't necessarily have toput it in writing.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
That's important Removes a barrier.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Yeah, and it says the company can't impose
unreasonable burdens or timelimits on employees who want to
report something.
Flexibility seems key.
Investigations have to beprompt, thorough and impartial,
and they have to keep meticulousrecords of everything.
Plus, there's a new requirementfor an employee hotline that
goes directly to the vicepresident of human resources.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
So another channel, potentially bypassing local
management, if needed.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Right Another layer of accessibility and maybe
oversight.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
OK, that makes sense.
And what about preventing thisfrom happening again?
Is there training involved?
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Oh, yes, Training is a huge component of this decree
and really for any companytrying to make real change.
It has to be right.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Absolutely essential.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
So all employees at T&T Crane Riggings Texas
branches will get at least onehour of mandatory training on
Title VII and these new companypolicies.
This training will cover what'sprohibited harassment,
discrimination, retaliation.
It'll cover how to reportincidents and what the
disciplinary consequences arefor anyone who violates the
rules.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
OK, baseline for every.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Exactly, but then there's also specialized
training.
Anyone designated as aresponsible official, basically
someone involved in doinginvestigations or making
decisions on corrective actionsthey have to receive no less
than two and a half hours ofvery specific training.
This training focuses on how toconduct proficient, lawful
Title VII investigations.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Ah, so building internal capacity.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Precisely.
It gets into critical detailslike how do you identify sources
of evidence, what are effectiveinterviewing techniques, why is
it important to consider pastcomplaints about an individual,
and how do you dopost-investigation monitoring to
make sure the misconduct orretaliation doesn't just pop up
again?
It's about really building thatinternal expertise and
accountability structure.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
That sounds quite thorough.
Anything else in terms ofongoing requirements?
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Yes, a couple more things.
For three years, t&t Crane andRigging has to post clear
notices in conspicuous placesbreak rooms, bulletin boards,
that kind of thing.
These notices have to informall employees of their rights
under Title VII and thecompany's commitment to
preventing discrimination,harassment and retaliation.
And, crucially, these noticesmust also include specific rules
(15:41):
prohibiting the creation anddisplay of hate symbols like the
ones that were alleged in theoriginal complaint.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
So a constant visual reminder of the rules and rights
.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Exactly and finally, for that entire three-year
period.
The company has ongoingreporting and record keeping
obligations directly to the EEOC.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Ah, the oversight piece.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Right.
They have to submit detailedreports on all future complaints
they receive related to racialharassment, race discrimination
or retaliation, and they have todetail exactly how the company
responded to each one.
This level of oversight isreally designed to ensure they
actually sustain compliance overtime.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
That makes sense.
It keeps the pressure on.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
So, okay, we've walked through the unsettling
allegations, the company'sdenials and now this really
detailed settlement agreement.
How does this particular deepdive help us understand the
bigger picture, you know, thebroader landscape of workplace
justice and accountability?
We started with these reallyserious allegations racial
harassment, retaliation,shocking details about slurs and
(16:41):
hate symbols.
The company consistently deniedthey did anything wrong and yet
, through this consent decree,they've committed to paying out
over half a million dollars andmaking these sweeping court
mandated changes to theirpolicies, their training, their
reporting structures, everything.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yeah, I think this case vividly highlights how the
legal system, even when it worksthrough a negotiated settlement
rather than a full trial andverdict, can still be an
incredibly powerful driver forsubstantial shifts in corporate
behavior.
be an incredibly powerful driverfor substantial shifts in
corporate behavior.
It really underscores not onlythe importance of federal laws
like Title VII in trying toensure fair and safe workplaces
for everybody, but also theabsolutely critical role that
(17:18):
agencies like the EEOC play inactually enforcing those laws
and pushing for meaningful,concrete change.
It shows how that legalpressure, that threat of
litigation, can bring aboutsignificant reforms, even when
guilt isn't formally admitted onthe record.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
Yeah, that's a great point, and maybe here's a final
provocative thought for you, ourlistener, to mull over after we
wrap up out over half a milliondollars, all while still
formally denying any wrongdoing.
What does that really tell usabout the true nature of
accountability and maybe thecomplexities in the pursuit of
(17:55):
justice when it comes to thesedifficult workplace disputes?
Something to think about.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.