Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration, the agency that oversees the state highways throughout Maryland, will pay $40,000 to settle an equal pay lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, for several years up to the present, MDOTSHA paid a male district community liaison lower wages than it paid to his female counterparts, even though the male had greater experience and tenure in the job. His requests to equalize his pay or to explain the reasons for the pay discrepancy went ignored. 

Such alleged conduct violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits pay discrimination between persons of the opposite sex for performing equal work. The EEOC filed suit, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $40,000 in monetary relief paid to the male DCL named in the suit, consisting of backpay and other damages, the consent decree resolving the litigation prohibits future pay discrimination or retaliation and requires MDOTSHA to increase the male’s salary to what a higher paid female was earning, to account for this adjustment retroactively, and to adjust his pension accordingly. MDOTSHA will also provide training for human resources and management officials involved in compensation decisions and a notice to employees.

AOD Ventures, doing business as Autos of Dallas, a local retailer of pre-owned vehicles in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, will pay $22,500 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, car salesman Jonathon Sellers, who is black, attended a December 2019 holiday party in which management called him to the front of the room and handed Sellers a trophy labeling him as the employee “Least Likely to Be Seen in the Dark.” Sellers and other employees in attendance found the trophy offensive. As alleged in the EEOC’s complaint, Sellers complained about the trophy to Autos of Dallas’ general manager, but no remedial action was taken in response to his complaints. After Sellers returned to work following the holiday party, other employees teased Sellers about the trophy and subjected him to offensive comments.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race and color. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-00418, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Under the consent decree resolving the lawsuit, along with the monetary damages, Autos of Dallas agrees to implement training for all employees regarding race discrimination and race harassment. The two-year decree also enjoins Autos of Dallas from any illegal employment practice that discriminates on the basis of race, including race harassment that creates a hostile work environment.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued Bob’s Tire Company, a used tire scrap and recycling facility in New Bedford, Mass., alleging that Hispanic employees — nearly all of Guatemalan descent — were subjected to sexual, racial, and/or national origin harassment, and retaliated against one employee who complained about sexual harassment.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, owner Robert Bates allegedly subjected employees to egregious and constant harassment.

Additionally, employees allegedly were also harassed by a co-worker because of their sex, race, and national origin, and at least one employee complained to the owner of Bob’s Tire about this co-worker’s sexual harassment. Instead of taking remedial actions, Bates allegedly retaliated against this complaining employee by mocking him for being in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with the harassing co-worker, effectively condoning the illegal harassment in the workplace.

The alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of sex, race and national origin, and prohibits retaliation against employees who object to such discrimination. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-10077) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC’s suit seeks monetary relief for the employees harmed by these illegal practices as well as injunctive relief to prevent Bob’s Tire from engaging in further sexual, racial, and national origin harassment and retaliation.

The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Connecticut are taking legal action against auto dealer Manchester City Nissan, along with its owner and a number of key employees, for systematically deceiving consumers about the price of certified used cars, add-ons, and government fees.

The complaint alleges that the dealership, in addition to deceiving consumers, regularly charges them junk fees for certification, add-on products, and government charges without the consumers’ consent, sometimes costing them thousands of dollars in unwanted and unauthorized charges.

Connecticut also alleges that all these practices are deceptive or unfair under Connecticut law.

“With this action against Manchester City Nissan, its top executives, and its managers, the Commission and its partner, the State of Connecticut, continue to crack down on deceit and unfairness in the auto industry,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “This action follows on the heels of the Commission’s announcement of the Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Rule, and once again makes clear that bait-and-switch tactics and hidden junk fees have no role in honest dealmaking.”

“Today’s action sends a strong warning to any dealership engaging in these types of deceptive practices that misconduct will not be tolerated,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong. “Manchester City Nissan’s egregious business practices appear to have violated multiple laws, and we’re going to hold them accountable on behalf of all the consumers they deceived.”

According to the complaint, MCN advertises numerous cars, including Nissan vehicles, as being “certified pre-owned.” Nissan’s rules prohibit dealers from charging a fee for certification beyond the price of the car. However, the complaint alleges the dealership and its employees regularly tack on a certification charge for these vehicles when consumers arrive looking to buy the advertised cars. One example cited in the complaint describes a consumer that came in looking to buy a certified pre-owned car advertised for $15,700, but then the dealer added a $5,295.65 junk “inspection fee” for a car it had already inspected.

In addition, the complaint alleges that MCN often charges consumers extra for an inspection or repair that has already occurred, but then fails to report to Nissan that the certified car was sold, leaving consumers without the additional warranty that was promised in MCN’s advertising.

MCN and its employees frequently charge consumers for bogus add-ons they did not agree to pay. They often charge consumers for add-ons such as General Asset Protection (GAP), service contracts, maintenance contracts, and Total Loss Protection (TLP). TLP, in particular, appears in 90 percent of all sales by MCN.

MCN and its employees also regularly deceive consumers during the sales process about government-imposed taxes and fees, claiming that junk fees added by MCN are required by the government or deceptively inflating the actual government fees to register the car and keeping the difference as profit.

The complaint charges Chase Nissan (which does business as MCN) along with its principals Patrick Dibre and Refaat (Brian) Soboh, general manager Michael Hamadi, finance manager Aiham Alkhatib, and sales managers Matthew Chmielinksi and Fred (Freddy) Mojica with violating the FTC Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

InterstateCarTransport.com is sharing crucial insights on how to steer clear of scams in car transportation in 2024. This guide is designed to empower consumers, ensuring their vehicles reach their destination securely and stress-free.

In an era where online scams are common, InterstateCarTransport.com promises to connect dealers with top tier companies for a vehicle’s transit. The rising risk of scams in car transportation has prompted the creation of the guide How to Avoid Car Transport Scams in 2024 which not only highlights the challenges but also provides actionable steps to avoid them. 

The car transport landscape is evolving, and so are the risks associated with it. The new guide emphasizes the importance of proactive measures, starting with thorough research. Before entrusting shipping a vehicle to any company, seek recommendations, check credentials, and delve into the driver’s details. Knowledge is the primary shield against getting scammed.

“Many scams hide in the fine print and our guide highlights the significance of scrutinizing and understanding contract terms, emphasizing the need to clarify any uncertainties,” said Catie Pershin, Operations Manager at InterstateCarTransport.com. “Knowing your rights and obligations is paramount in safeguarding your interests during the transportation process.

“Our guide warns against car haulers who demand upfront payments and other unscrupulous practices. It emphasizes the significance of reading and understanding the terms and conditions. Consumers can protect their car and their money by being vigilant and questioning any unusual requests.”